Talk:Bicycle kick/Archive 2

Misinformation?
This section contradicts the reference that it is citing. http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/BibVirtual/Tesis/Human/Alvarez_E_T/Cap2.htm

''Other information shows that Peru holds a very old sports foundation, such as in tennis,[7] and a football foundation that is older than Argentina's 1867 Buenos Aires Football Club[8] and Chile's first recorded football club, Santiago Wanderers, in August 15, 1892.[9][10] The oldest football club in Peru was founded in 1859 by English immigrants in Peru prior to the War of the Pacific. This club originally went by the name of Lima Cricket Club as it was based mainly around the sport of cricket, but its instruction on the sport of association football was just as old as that of cricket and, due to the demand of the football sector within the club, the club would eventually change its name to Lima Cricket & Football Club.[11] Nonetheless, by the time the change in the name was made the club had already participated in several football events in Peru, prior to the War of the Pacific and one record being found for August 7, 1892, and people often refered to it as simply Lima Cricket. During the War of the Pacific, the destruction of various Peruvian towns and cities, including the raid of Lima, brought the spread of sport in Peru to a momentary stop.[10]''

The paragraph states that Argentina's 1867 Buenos Aires Football Club and Chile's first recorded football club, Santiago Wanderers, in August 15, 1892 are younger than Lima Cricket Club. The Cricket Club being an older institution than the two mentioned is true, but no where is it revealed that they were a football club prior to 1893. Nor is there any evidence of when they changed their name to Lima Cricket and Football club. The source states that the Union Cricket Club which was founded in December of 1893 was the first sports club to practice football.


 * Fue el Unión Cricket el primer club peruano en practicar el fútbol cuando son admitidos Pedro Larrañaga y John Conder como socios, quienes fomentaron este deporte entre las actividades de la institución 118.

In reference to when Union Cricket was created


 * En 1893 un grupo de jóvenes de la elite, interesado en las actividades deportivas organizadas por el club Lima Cricket, solicita a sus directivos les otorguen permiso para ingresar al campo de Santa Sofía a practicar deporte. En diciembre del mismo año aquellos jóvenes fundaron el Unión Cricket para practicar tenis y cricket115

After that the source provided goes on to include that the first club created for practicing football was the Association Foot Ball Club in 1897.


 * ''2.2.1 Los primeros clubes de foot ball.

El Association Foot Ball Club fue el primer club fundado para la práctica del fútbol el 20 de mayo de 1897.

The source clearly provides their evidence that is in contrast to the unverifiable information prior to the first registered football being played in Lima in 1892 and before the War of the Pacific. Also no where does the information help corroborate Lima Cricket Club's claim that they participated in several football events.


 * La información que ambos presentan, desgraciadamente no va acompañada de ningún elemento adicional que ayude a corroborarla, por ejemplo, avisos en diarios y revistas o fotografías de los jugadores. Sin embargo es muy probable que esta información sea cierta. ¿En qué nos basamos para considerar verosímil esta versión?.

-Another point, Santiago Wanderers is not Chile's first recorded football club. It is the oldest surviving but not the first. That information is never even mentioned on their official site.

-Because this paragraph needs to be further verified, and since verifiability is a core content policy of No original research it should be changed or removed until the problems are clarified. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, seriously, you really have issues with trying to delete this information one way or another. First, in the Lima Cricket website it especifically states that their football program is as old as 1859. The other source, which is used to certify the impact of the War of the Pacific on sports has a different information on the matter, with its appropiate sources and therefore a rightful claim also, but the direct source of the association of Lima Cricket (Which is completely more reliable) refutes this particular idea of the other source. As far as the name change, in their history section they explain their original name; comparing that to the current name can obviously show that they had a change of name (It doesn't take a genious to figure that out). Moreover, on Lima Cricket's history section they show an "El Comercio" newspaper article validating their idea of the games they held. In conclusion, please learn to accurately read the sources before trying to single out things for your own convenience. Remember that although the information cited in the investigation done has its verified sources, Lima Cricket's information (being a direct source) still remains completely more valid. If they were lying, then they would have probably gotten sued by the government of Peru by this point and time. We are not the government of Peru, we simply take the most accurate information from the most direct and reliable source as correct.--MarshalN20 (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read the sources you have provided and they have proven what you're adding wrong. A constructive suggestion would be for us to get arbitration from peers that are well versed in the Spanish language. I've presented the contradictions that are included within that section by copying and pasting information directly from the source. If you say that the Lima Cricket and Football club changed their name than I recommend you cite the exact source that states the name change. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you simply enter the Lima Cricket & Football Club website it states: "Fundado en 1859" which in English would be "Founded in 1859." Later, they state:


 * "Se puede afirmar que el Club nació de la iniciativa de algunos ciudadanos ingleses residentes que laboraban en empresas británicas y que buscaban un lugar propicio para practicar los deportes que ellos jugaban en Inglaterra como el futbol, el rugby y el cricket y que eran desconocidos en el Peru de mediados del siglo XIX."
 * (English) "It can be confirmed that the club was born with the initiative of certain English citizens that resided and worked in British companies and sought a proper place where they could practice the sports they placed in England such as football, rugby, and cricket, and which were unknown in Peru in the middle of the 19th century (1850s)."
 * According to the website "www.cricketeurope4.net": "Cricket in Peru dates back to 1859 when the Lima Cricket and Football Club was founded."


 * How is this misinformation? This is the oldest club in Peru and it has had football as a sport ever since its foundation! The other source obviously did not take into account this particular information. Just because you have suddenly learned how to copy and paste information, it does not make your statement correct. Why do you insist in erasing information from the chalaca section? We need peers that know about sports, not people that simply know Spanish.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that you have yet to unbelievably comprehend Wikipedia policy which is outlined in No original research is amazing. You have provided two sources which according to you are conflicting. The official Lima Cricket Club in no way designates a specific date as to when they changed their name by adding football. You are putting two sources together and coming out with your own conclusions. Lima Cricket was founded as a sports club and the one source clearly presents a detailed counter argument to your claim. It states that Union Cricket was the first sports club in Peru to practice football by adding a date and, yet, you still go back to the Lima Cricket Club website that offers no specific date and time, simply because for you it proves convenient. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You have edited my information to your likings and then comment on your own edits. Lol. The two sources are not conflicting. First, the source that states Union Cricket is the oldest source makes no mention of Lima Cricket. On the other hand, Lima Cricket's source states their year of foundation as "1859" and state that they were founded for people seeking to play "rugby, cricket, and association football." Moreover, a book on "Latin American Popular Culture" states an actual date of the first English vs. Peruvian football game in June 24, 1894 (organized by none other than Lima Cricket, the Englishmen's club in Peru). In other words, 5 sources state/show Lima Cricket as Peru's oldest football club, and the source you claim has a "counter argument" does not even mention Lima Cricket's foundation. What kind of game are you playing Selecciones? Why do you wish to delete all information on the chalaca? Why can't you find information that further validates the chilena as a rightfully historical term? Why do you erase my work and re-phrase it and then comment on your own words as if they were mine?--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's incredible how you lie and equate me to a dictator, by stating that the source which discusses the foundation of the Union Cricket Club makes no mention of Lima Cricket Club. What a way to contradict yourself further by failing to realize that the first English vs. Peruvian football game organized by the Lima Cricket Club occurred in 1894, it only proves that the football match happened even after Chile's first football clubs were established such as Valparaiso Football Club and Santiago Wanderers. Seriously do yourself a favor and stop pushing your pov. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet you keep trying to make yourself a victim. The year 1894 fits in perfectly with the time-span that the chalaca was allegedly made (further making Jorge Barraza's statement true). On the other hand, Ramonsito only allegedly does his little move in 1914. The difference is about 20 years. *Gasps*--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jorge Barraza needs to have done himself a favor and actually given educated readers at least the title of the book that he was talking about so it can be verified, without that it's just a fable because there is no direct evidence to support it. The match you mention that happened in 1894 doesn't even mention a bicycle kick being done, so nice try. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Without trying to justify Barraza's actions, he was probably worried that the information would be stolen much like Lima's library was stolen (and then awkwardly burnt) of a series of texts that could have probably verified a series of things these days. Of course, the sun can't be hidden with one finger (or with many fingers, no matter how hard you may try). The truth eventually speaks for itself. The match in 1894 obviously does not mention a chalaca, but that just simply serves to show that Englishmen did play sports (especially football) in Peru by the time Barraza's alleged match where the kick was made occured.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There you go making asumptions again, you have no clue as to why Barraza didn't include the nameless book that only he has read and which intelligent people cannot decipher on their own. Please, we need evidence, not word of mouth. Many countries in the world were playing football matches in 1894, it doesn't make what happened in Lima any more notable nor does it support the origin of the bicycle kick. If it did there would be documented evidence, but guess what there isn't. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What Barraza states counts as good evidence. The man has made a name for himself as a decent journalist, and his status as Chief Editor of CONMEBOL was not just gained by mistake. Obviously, whatever you say is not even worth a dime and probably will never be even worth a quarter of a dollar, but you can't compare yourself to Jorge Barraza. lol. That's your POV, please keep it out of the article.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, on Santiago Wanderers, unless you can find a reliable and accurate source that shows any other older club from Chile, then Santiago Wanderers has to stay as the oldest club. They claim to be the oldest club in their website, and you cannot delete such a thing unless you find another source that finds an older football club.--MarshalN20 (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The link never states that, so you're wrong. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The RSSSF feed lists it as the oldest. Moreover, there is nothing contradicting such a thing. If you're able to find a source that says they are not the oldest club, such as the two sources I have for Lima Cricket that says it is the oldest, then you cannot erase well-sourced information from Wikipedia.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again you are relying on two sources that prove to be conflicting, the argument isn't about Lima Cricket Club being the oldest club in Peru, that in the revised version that I made includes that fact. On the other hand, the conflict exists when it started to practice football, one source states that it wasn't the first club, while the other source is vague and does not prove reliable because there is no Verifiability. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What source states that it wasn't the first club???? WHERE IS THIS SOURCE???? WHAT WAS THE FIRST FOOTBALL CLUB OF CHILE???? OMG, please, if you know Santiago Wanderers are not the first club, then what is the first football club of Chile???--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well you proved yourself wrong with that one, since Valparaiso Football Club came before Santiago Wanderers, I at least give you credit for learning the error of your ways. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol. I proved myself wrong? Without meaning to insult, but your English probably needs some work on that sentence. I corrected myself with information that you were not capable of giving me. That simply shows you're worse than a piece of dirt that gets stuck in your shoe. Instead of coming out with the truth and helping Wikipedia by inserting the correct information, you simply erased everything that you did not see convenient to your views by claiming I was collocating incorrect information; but at the same time you had the correct information but did not want to share it. You might as well get the "error of my ways" and stick it up your nose, it will probably find plenty of company in there.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it just shows that you are digging deep and filling Wikipedia with your own original research to substantiate a claim that is a fable at best, keep working at it you're making Aesop proud. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How exactly is digging deep to find accurate information original research? Not only that, but you're the one who showed me the sources. You could have simply added the correct information into the article, but you did not do it for reasons that escape my mind. Instead, you opted for deleting the information instead of adding that which you apparently already knew. Here yet again you show your disdain for the chalaca, claiming it to be a fable. Well, that just goes to show your biased opinion on the matter. *sighs* Aesop? lol.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, you are bringing up apples and organges because Santiago Wanderers were solely created as a football club not as a sports club, unlike Lima Cricket Club which primarily were created as a sports club with emphasis on cricket. Like I mentioned before the other source you provided never ackowledges it as the first sports club to practice football. The following two links provide more detail than what you for some reason are trying to push. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apples and oranges? Lima Cricket's website state that they were founded on the basis of cricket, rugby, and football! Moreover, Lima Cricket was at first called "Salon de Comercio" and was founded in 1845, and then (according to Lima Cricket's official website) in 1859 the club was founded (which in this case would be re-made) on the basis of rugby, cricket, and football. You can't call this just a simple "Sports Club" as football was already being formally practiced by 1859. Furthermore, even at the point when they were called "Lima Cricket and Lawn Tennis Club" they organized a series of formal football games (as the sources show). Yet again, it's not my fault that Peruvian sports organizations happened to be highly varied (apparently unlike Chilean sports organizations). Other multi-sports organizations in Peru that also practiced football was Lawn Tennis Club (Tennis and Football) and Ciclista Lima (Biking and Football). On another note, the sources you gave me finally stated the oldest football club of Chile, in this case being the 1892 Valparaiso F.C.! If you do the math, that's 33 years of difference between the formal creation of Lima Cricket (based on Cricket, Rugby, and Football) and the first official football club of Chile. Wow. Of course, I expect that by the time you make a reply to this statement you will find yet another abnoxious idea that makes sense only to you, or you'll simply keep on stating the sources do not state such things (when they clearly do) and that one source "counter attacks" the other 5 sources (even though that one source does not even mention Lima Cricket's foundation; while the other 5 state that Lima Cricket is the oldest football club of Peru), or you'll simply re-arrange my statement and claim I wrote those things. Here's some mind-destroying questions that might disturb you for a while: Where and why do you think "Union Cricket" got their name from? Doesn't "Lima Cricket" sound close to "Union Cricket"? Of course, these questions have no sources attached to them, but just some food for the brain. The sources do show that Lima Cricket is the oldest football club of Peru, though.--MarshalN20 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick question, what year did Lima Cricket Club change their name to Lima Cricket and Football Club? Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick answer. In 1900 they changed their name to Lima Cricket and Football Club; they were founded on the basis of football, cricket, and ruby; and they were capable of organizing football games when their name was Lima Cricket & Lawn Tennis Club. Therefore, what prevents them from having made football games even before 1865 (when their name was not Lima Cricket & Lawn Tennis Club)? Obviously, they did not need the part "& Football Club" to organize football games, and that has been proven by two sources.--MarshalN20 (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a discrepancy between two sources regarding the name change. The book you list states 1900, while the official website states the proposed name change occurred in 1906. Just to further clarify a point, you include that Lima Cricket Club is a very old sports club which is valid, but how do you equate their history to other places in Chile that were also practicing the sport of football such as the Mackay and Sutherland school of Cerro Alegre (founded in 1851) which wasn't a sports club nor a football team but still practiced football. I mean why not bring up Uruguay which I am almost positive has an historic sports clubs of their own? As of now the sources you include are actually building more of a basis to Peruvian football history, yet, lack an understanding of football history elsewhere especially in Chile. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The most reliable source remains the official website of Lima Cricket, hence 1906 must be the time they made their name change. Now, why exactly did you constantly state that the name change was nowhere to be found on their website if apparently you knew of this?? Yet again proving my point that you hide things for your own convenience. Also, it's not about me equating things. Like I previously stated, I'm simply writing facts. Mackay and Sutherland school are, like the name itself mentions, schools. They are not sports clubs, and much less an official football club. On the website you showed me the "Mackay and Sutherland School FC" has no dates attached to it and they obviously cannot be the first football club of Chile since that claim has been certified and attributed to Valparaiso F.C. On the other hand, Lima Cricket was founded as a sports club for cricket, football, and rugby. That's what Lima Cricket states on their website, and obviously they can't be wrong about what they're posting otherwise the Peruvian government would have fined them for lying (You can't just claim to be the oldest club in a country, you have to certify it, which is what Lima Cricket apparently has done). The team "Union Cricket" was made by people who wanted to rival Lima Cricket, hence further proving that Lima Cricket is a much older sports institution (including football, cricket, and rugby) in Peru. Quite obviously, if Lima Cricket was a sports club, they had members, and the members that played were what made up the team. Mackay and Sutherland was a school, they had students, and the students that played were simply students playing in a team. If you seek to put a school and a sports club in the same level then you seriously need to re-think what you're trying to propose.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I was not aware until you properly cited the page where the information on the official website was to be found, before you had just linked the statement to the frontpage of the website that did not include that information which was extremely unprofessional. Secondly, the proposal of a school that practiced footbal signifies that there was a foundation for the sport of football in Chile prior to the first football club being established. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, everything you say is right and everything I say is wrong, I see where this is going. Well, if you want to add that into the chilena section you might as well. I still don't see how you can compare a school with a sports club.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you include Uruguay if that's what you wish to include in there? Their Peñarol team is apparently not even as old as that of Lima Cricket, and they also used to be called "Railway Cricket Club." In other words, that just further proves that just because you don't have "Football" in your club name it doesn't mean that the club did not practice football! Next you say the section is based around Peruvian football history? The first paragraph has information extremely relevant to the subject as it presents the ideas of Barraza and information from Popular Culture and Jorge Basadre. The second paragraph further continues the extremely relevant information as it relates to Lima Cricket, which hold the "ticket" as having the record of holding the oldest recorded Peruvian vs. Englishmen game in Peru. The third paragraph presents Alejandro Villanueva, the most famous Peruvian footballer that made the bicycle kick during those old times. Hence, all the information in there is relevant to the Chalaca. Yet again, if you wish to include more information into the section of the chilena, feel free to do so (nobody is preventing you).--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to include the history of Chilean football to support the claim of the chilena that is associated with Ramon Unzaga. Unless the bicycle kick was performed during an official football game prior to 1914, than there is no relation. For example since David Arellano and Colo-Colo went on tour across Europe and he exhibited the bicycle kick, there is absolutely no reason to discuss the history of Colo-Colo, that's why there exists a wikilink. The purpose of the Chilean section in general is to put focus on the exhibitions of the move that were done in matches which directly deals with the invention and eventual recognition. As for Uruguay, the Railway Cricket Club is not their oldest sports institution, so don't include that type of information as you have been doing. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol. Do you even know what history is? For instance, you state that Ramon Unzaga performed the move in Talcahuano and...well...that's it. Yet, you mention almost nothing of how he could have possibly learnt he move, or why the move would have even been invented in Talcahuano. The point of recording information (history) in an encyclopedia is for the reader to understand the topic being read. Also, it's not about discussing the history of Colo-Colo, because Colo-Colo was not the oldest team of Chile. If you could find more information on Valparaiso F.C., on the other hand, then that would be perfectly fine to include in order to sharpen the minds of the readers on the subject and how it relates to the chilena. According to some websites I've found, it is the oldest club. I guess I'll have to post all of them.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Adding more information regarding the Valparaiso football club does not help support Unzaga's invention of the bicycle kick, don't be foolish. Colo-Colo's relevance to the bicycle kick is the same as Lima Cricket Clubs connection to it, which is none, zero. Apparently you like making up your own history. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lima Cricket, unlike Colo-Colo in Chile, was heavily involved with the rise of football in Peru. So don't try to trick people into thinking that Lima Cricket has no relevance.--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Colo-Colo and David Arellano are involved with the naming of the kick by Spanish journalists. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol. So now you contradict yourself by voluntarily denying your previous statement. By which I mean, didn't you say that Colo-Colo has "none, zero" relevance to the bicycle kick?--MarshalN20 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You silly rabbit, the foundation of Colo-Colo doesn't, because any historical content that doesn't directly relate to the bicycle kick can be found within the article about Colo-Colo, sigh. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Nobody has discussed the foundations of Colo-Colo. You stated that "Colo-Colo's relevance to the bicycle kick is [...] none, zero." Then you contradict yourself by stating that "Colo-Colo and David Arellano are involved with the naming of the kick." If that's how you clarify things, then by all means I think that you do not seem to understand what even you are writing. And please don't call me a silly rabbit again, it makes it sound like you're some sort of queer.--MarshalN20 (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not taking you seriously is why you were called a silly rabbit. I already mentioned the irrelevance of including the history of Colo-Colo in a prior post. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Interruption
I'm sorry to interrupt this 2-person discussion, but I would like to give my humble oppinion on the Peruvian claim section. I suggest you let me copy edit the section in order to trim it down and keep it as neutral as possible. Mariano (t/c) 07:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * References are good enough to keep the claim in the article, though perhaps not to drive conclusions (which is also not our job)
 * The section needs to loose a lot of weasel words
 * A big chunk on Peruvian football history just doesn't belong here
 * I undesstood your silence as a yes, and trimmed down the Peruvian claim section.
 * I removed all the information about early football history in Peru, which even though the Peruvian editor feels it give a wider ground to the claim, it does not. I also removed more recent Peruvian football history for the same reason. I also removed some Peru-related comments from the international recognition section as they where out of place.
 * Please, let's discuss any wider change of the section before hitting it.
 * Thank you, and good wiking, Mariano (t/c) 10:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not contacted by you. My message box is empty and proves this as a fact. Therefore, my silence did not respond as a yes. Next time please have the delicacy of messaging me through my talk page before claiming that I did not reply because I agreed on what you were stating.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Marshal, I really don't understand why you felt attacked bymy message or my edits. I never claimed I contacted you and you failed to reply. I could have started editing the article without leaving any message in this talk page nor sending a message to anyone, but I thought it was best to talk about it before givinh it a start. I admit it should have been more useful to leave a message on your user pages, but I never claimed that the fact that you did not reply in the talk page granted me any powers, I just went on following the directives I stated some days before.Mariano (t/c) 19:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good sir, you stated: "I undesstood your silence as a yes, and trimmed down the Peruvian claim section." According to such a sentence, you're implying that I did not reply to you and therefore that gave you a right to edit the Peruvian section. How could I reply to you if you did not send me a Personal Message? I'm not in Wikipedia all day long and, in order for me to know someone has contacted me here in Wikipedia, I need a Personal Message. In other words, you did not talk about this with anybody but yourself. Like I stated on the PM I sent you, next time please have the delicacy of contacting people through their Personal Message box.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Secondly, I asked to talk about changes on the section before reverting/modifiying broadly the article, but you saw fit to just go for restoring everything, including the hole block on Peruvian history that I sugegsted was best in the proper article than here, all that without giving any reasons.Mariano (t/c) 19:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not try to victimize yourself. You deleted everything on the section but the exerpt of Jorge Barraza. Like I explained the Selecciones de la Vida, Jorge Barraza does not account for the complete Peruvian section. Yet again, you're failing to understand that Barraza did not invent the word or the claim of "chalaca." The word has been in use in Peru and various other South American countries for quite some time, and by simply including what Barraza stated as if he were the "sole carrier of the standard" makes the section completely (and rather idiotically) useless. By which I mean, a one-person claim does not constitute for factual information.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Currenty the Peruvian clain saction is bigger than the article Football in Peru, isn't that ironic? I really don't understand why you think that stating how old is Football in Peru gives any ground to the claim of the Chalaca; Football in England is even older and that means nothing. I would suggest you move that content to the History section of the Peruvian football article.Mariano (t/c) 19:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What's ironic? The article Football in Peru has the information that Selecciones de la Vida took (or stole, whichever way you see fit to say) from the section I wrote in this article. The only reason I haven't had the time to further expand that article with more information just happens to come from my lack of time available to do such things. Nonetheless, by the time I expand it, the section in the Peruvian claim will be but a small exerpt from the large idea. Next, it's not what I think that matters here. The section states (and specifically stays) with the times around the 1850s and the early 1900s. Such a mention is needed in order to help the reader understand: 1.Why the move was allegedly invented in Callao. 2. How did football get into this port of Callao in the first place. 3. What kind of history does Peruvian football have that revolves around this city: Lima cricket in this case.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Barraza is actually the only 'neutral' source to the claim, and considering his possition, a respetable one, so yes, I think it is the strongest support for it. Again, all the history that comes from the 20th century adds nothing to the claim of its origin.Mariano (t/c) 19:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * History is always needed! The whole point to people recording history is for it to be used to help people further understand past situations. By simply including the exerpts of Barraza, the reader, aka the "average idiot," cannot possibly understand: 1. Why Barraza would claim the city of Callao would be the place of birth of the bicycle kick. 2. Why Barraza claims Chileans copied the move from Peruvians. 3. Why Peru would even claim such a thing (They don't know what kind of history revolves around this time for Peruvian football).--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not when there is undue weight involved, or a claim that one countries sports development is older than a club from Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. Buenos Aires had one of, if not the largest expatriates of Britions living there, and cricket was a sport that was widely played prior to the development of football or the publication of the Rules of football in 1863. Thomas Hogg a British merchant set up a cricket club in 1819. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement that the Peruvian club is older than the others is certainly not undue weight. This is a fact, and a verified one at that. Even if Argentina has a cricket foundation older than Peru or any other country in the region, we're dealing with football clubs, not simply cricket.--MarshalN20 (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hogg's cricket club of 1819 would still be older. The Rules of Association Football weren't made until 1863, any organization that is claimed as a football club prior to that date is debatable (Salon de Comercio). Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and do whatever you want to have fun with Hogg's cricket club, it's not of my interest and certainly irrelevant to this article. FIFA gives the title of the oldest football club in the world to Sheffield F.C. (Founded in 1857). Two years later, Lima Cricket comes to appear as a sports club of football, cricket, and rugby. Both of these clubs are founded proir to 1863. If FIFA allows the 1857 football club with merits and an important title, then an 1859 club has nothing against it. That is, unless you suddenly want to claim to be a member of FIFA. lol.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sheffield is a football club and designated by FIFA as such. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you constantly contradict yourself? First you state that "a football club prior to that date [1863] is debatable," and now you agree that Sheffield F.C. (founded in 1857) "is a football club." Please learn to stick with one opinion because it really gets annoying to have to discuss things with some fence-struggler that can't find valid information to support his claims.--MarshalN20 (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a contradiction when Salon de Comercio nor Lima Cricket aren't even football clubs or wasn't designated as such until later. So you can't compare Buenos Aires Football Club with the former. http://books.google.com/books?id=IzRTVU2NS5wC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=lima+cricket&source=web&ots=Xz7kGGiug1&sig=8hY-N1DyZw3WbzIHruwZx3A0pBc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA11,M1 Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The following reference includes:
 * The source states that football (soccer) arrived in 1880's aboard an English ship.
 * In 1893 and in conflict with the date that Lima Cricket was renamed (according to the official website) two exclusive soccer clubs were formed Lima Cricket and Football Club and Union Cricket. (This information coincides with the information Basadre wrote about.)
 * The Lima Cricket website specifically states that since their creation in 1859, they have been a club of football, cricket, and rugby. Since Lima Cricket's information is superior to the information of any other source, they hold a supremacy over what is stated about their club. The book certainly does state that in the 1880s English ships "soccer arrived" in Peru, but that information becomes automatically invalid as Lima Cricket claims that in 1859 they practiced football. Unless you especifically get a letter from Lima Cricket that states that they really did not have football in their club, you cannot over-ride the most factual information from the article. Perhaps you've never learnt this, but the reason as to why more than one source is needed for these kind of things comes as a result that sometimes they can be wrong. In this case, judging between the official Lima Cricket website and a book talking about Lima Cricket, the official information from Lima Cricket is superior to the book. Next, with Buenos Aires F.C., since Lima Cricket claims that in 1859 their sports club held football, then it was, along with being a cricket club and rugby club, also a football club. I know it might be hard for you to understand, but try to use your apparent great knowledge to learn a couple of things from this.--MarshalN20 (talk)
 * Moreover, according to the definition of Wikipedia, Lima Cricket from 1859 to this day has been a multi-sport club.--MarshalN20 (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally, you restored the International recognition as it was, including Peruvian supporters that have nothing to do with the international recognition, and wether Panama is North America, Central America, Latin America or Caribean, you seam to pretend to cover continents as if that increased the validity of the international recognition, rather than giving any information.
 * Manuel Burga and Teofilo Cubillas are internationally known figures of the sports world. Therefore, they fit with the international recognition section. Panama is from North America, get that into your head or go study geography. There is plenty of information with valid sources, so don't come here trying to claim that I have given no information at all. It is you who wants to erase the information.--MarshalN20 (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would really like to see the Peruvian claim stripped down of all the pieces that don't add to the claim, accordingly to the rest of the sections; after all, that would make it a much more encyclopedic. Mariano (t/c) 19:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because the other sections don't have as much sources as the Peruvian section, it does not mean that anybody has the right to "strip down" the Peruvian section of its component. That move is highly childish and anti-encyclopedic.
 * Truncated the information to a more appropiate standard.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and here is, yet again, a little exerpt from Wikipedia: "the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted."--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

International recognition section
The purpose is to divide the type of information that is contained in each corresponding section. For example the chalaca section starts off with a claim of origin, followed by a history of Peruvian football, concluding with recognition of the name. In order to facilitate the flow of content the division is done to differentiate the topics being discussed. The same with the chilena section which starts off with the claim of origin, followed by sources that support the claim and ending with the recognition from various countries. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The name is too long.--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Any ideas on a shortened version that maintains the subject matter? Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You simply take out the phrase "chalaca" or "chilena" (as the subject already tells the idea comes from those sections), and tah-dah!--MarshalN20 (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Remarkable now we should do that with some of the content featured within the chalaca section and only keep the information that is directly associated with the bicycle kick. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything in the section is related to the chalaca. Moreover, you deleted an entire paragraph (which does not even count as "some of the content"). I know it might be hard for you, but show some respect for other people's work.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Because that content has no relevance to the article. If the Lima Cricket Club made up the bicycle kick than yes, it would. Which member of the Lima Cricket Club invented the move, and on what date? Lima Cricket Club isn't even located in Callao as the Peruvian claim of origin states. There's a reason as to why an article about Football in Peru exists. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...you just created that article! Moreover, you created the article with my information, cheapskate! No relevance in the article?? Lima Cricket is the club that set up those games, including the Englishmen vs. Peruvian game that was mentioned in the first paragraph. Moreover, as one of the oldest football clubs of the South American club, if not the oldest, it is highly relevant to mention how old the sport of football is in Peru. Also, this does not constitute as "Peruvian football history" because the history of football in Peru is extremely longer. What kind of illogical person, aside from you, could ever come to reason that a mere truncated paragraph (It's not even as large or as noticeable as it could be, it only has what is relevant to the subject at hand) is all that is "Peruvian football history?" Furthermore, it was the Lima Cricket Club the place where sports games were first formally organized in Peru, including football. Therefore, the small paragraph on Lima Cricket is completely relevant to the article! Oh, and next time you take my information to create an article, for the least have the decency and manners to state who found the information you're using.--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If that was the case than Jorge Barraza would have said members of the Lima Cricket Club witnessed the invention of the move. Guess what, he didn't. Rather the claim is based on English sailors who were playing in a football game that involved locals from Callao. Never any mention of a club, etc. Another note, read the fine print, neither you or I own the content that we input onto Wikipedia. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's cheap talk buddy. It simply means I can't sue you for taking my material, but that doesn't mean that you can't for the least state in your creation the information you're using if you know who the person was (in this case me). Next thing on the subject is your apparent idea that the whole "claim of callao" relies on Jorge Barraza. Well, here's something that might make you cry and cut yourself, the term chalaca has been used in Peru for quite a very long time. According to my grandfather, which does not constitute as a real source but does count as good information to me, he heard the term chalaca from his father; and his father heard it from the people in Callao around the 1880s. Obviously people did not record things, but then again, if you knew anything about history then you would know that people back in those times did not understand the importance of recording things. Even the Ramon Unzaga account is not complete as it is simply taken from a newspaper article that briefly mentions his exploits; and yet there is no mention of a direct source from that particular newspaper article. Therefore, Barraza is not the only source that serves as the foundation for the term chalaca. Whatever Barraza said counts as part of the idea, but his statements do not count as the idea. If the whole thing Barraza said would count as the complete story, then his one-person claim would not even be something encyclopedic. Yet, since that is not the case, he simply counts as evidence. I suppose you know how to distinct evidence from the main idea by this point.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I at least perfectly understand that anything I write can be used and redistributed throughout Wikipedia. As for crying, the only emotional person here has been yourself, which has resorted to insults left and right. As for your personal story, any claim made in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, even though according to information you presented Peruvians were also clueless as to the name of the bicycle kick since they were calling it the caracol in 1928. The Ramon Unzaga account is supported by various sources such as published books. Regarding the rest, Jorge Barraza's interview with El Pais is used as a source in the article, which is fine, but that doesn't mean what he says can't be challenged and verified especially when it lacks pertinent information, such as the name of the book he brings up.


 * Lol. In Chile people originally called the move "chorera," so don't go saying that Peruvians were clueless of their move. The term "chilena" was not even invented by people from Chile, it was invented by the Argentine press. On the other hand, people in Peru called the move chalaca, the people in Lima for a while called it caracol, but at the end returned to the original name developed by Peruvians for a move made by Peruvians. There might be a million books on Unzaga, but there is no actual original article. If you wish to seek more exact information from what Barraza states, then you might as well go ask him those things. As for reliability, Barraza's position in the world of football makes him a very reliable source.--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you mention Peruvians and reinforce the concept that it is indeed a nationalistic claim, I am changing it back to the original version of the claims being attributed to national origin. Including the fact that in each country the kick has gone by different names such as caracol and chorera rather than chilena or chalaca. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So you take out what I write and put it out of context, and then with that you come up with a conclusion? Nationalistic claim? Excuse me, but the only nationalistic person in this is apparently you. The claims as the names worked in the Spanish wikipedia, and therefore they can also work in here perfectly fine. Chalaca and chilena are the names by which the move is currently known.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 *  The original name developed by Peruvians for a move made by Peruvians is not taking anything out of context. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ROFL! You took out a section out of my reply and interpreted it to your own style. That, in the world of reasoning, is called taking things out of context. The term generalized my point, but the move was specifically invented in Callao. I already explained that, and you agreed with it.--MarshalN20 (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, mentioning things such as the existence of the Lima Cricket Club serves as historical content best applied elsewhere. No source has provided information that because of a game that they organized the bicycle kick came to be. You're linking point (A) which is the claim of origin, to point (B) which is the oldest sports club in Peru and not providing a direct link to the invention of the bicycle kick. You want the reader to draw their own conclusions, which is a disservice because unless there is a viable connection with verifiable sources than it's just an unverifiable claim, and you're left playing a guessing game and reading information that doesn't exactly relate to the invention. You say that Lima Cricket Club set up that so called game which resulted in a bicycle kick, well guess what I'm calling out the fabrication, because no source you have provided establishes that argument. All you're doing is trying to sway the reader by presenting an idea, but never offering evidence which is essential. You are adding more and more information, that presents game after game, but not one of those games mentions the invention of the bicycle kick or at least one being performed for that matter. So from now on I will allow you to keep adding information, but eventually someone will stumble upon the article and realize that a lot of the content really has no reason being included.  Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Allow me to add information? Hahaha. So now you're the boss of Wikipedia and you decide what gets in and what gets out? Hahaha. Seriously, don't attribute yourself jobs that you don't have. Nowhere in the article do I state that Lima Cricket set up the game where the bicycle kick happened. Unlike the other clubs of Chile, the Lima Cricket club of Peru was actively involved in setting up games and playing games during the later half of the 1800s. Is it my fault that Lima Cricket was, and is even mentioned, actively involved even with the sailors in Callao? No. Is it my fault that important Chilean sports club or football clubs were not involved in Talcahuano? No. Guessing game? Hahaha. Everything in the chalaca section is straight-forward and properly cited, and there is no need for guessing. The claim of origin is completely linked with the Lima Cricket club because that club was actively involved during those times. In other words, it relates by helping expand the minds of the readers on the matter of why the city of Callao claims the move as theirs (the small historical paragraph aids in presenting the importance of Callao during the early years of football in Peru). Now, if Talcahuano does not have a strong sports backing, then...guess what...it's not my fault!!!--MarshalN20 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)