Talk:Zinedine Zidane/Archive 1

All of you are just arguing here about which god made zidane, yours or mine . Zidane knows exactly who god is .Thats why he’s a great man, who doesn’t want to join your debate.

Untitled

PLEASE NOTE: All discussion about the World Cup Final Headbutt is under the "Headbutt" topic. Click the link in the contents and add to it if you wish don't create a new topic for it so it can all be kept together. SenorKristobbal 23:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden ball election

The article says "Although the polling continued until midnight, most votes were cast during half-time, prior to the headbutting incident" but thats not true since FIFA says it's impossible to tell howmany of votes belong to before and after the incident. In previous tournaments, the ballot has closed at halftime in the final and the winner announced soon after the match but in this case even thought the polling was open after the headbutting, Zidane won the golden ball. Which means that what zidane did had no influence on the voters. So, please clear up these nonsences and gossips and put some facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.193.87 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The [http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/5154248.stm referenced article] states the votes were "mostly carried out at half-time" and quotes a reliable source (BBC sports news correspondent Gordon Farquhar) as saying, "The vast majority of those votes were cast by journalists before the final was over and that I'm sure is why Zidane has come out top." --Muchness 22:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you check this out.( it's from FIFA, under "IRONIC TOUCH "). (A reliable source haha!sorry, couldnt stop it) [http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=reu-worldfifadc&prov=reuters&type=lgns]. Not to mention that the media committee for Golden ball cantake away the award if it wants to. The reason that Zidane still has the award because media wants to!

Hey ppl! don't you see what the man says is right? so, why don't you change that personal/fictional idea/story? Don't make me to sign in and do it by myself!

I agree with the protesting. Most of the votes ? What does this mean? 51%? 60% 99%? This is completely vague and therefore is an opinionated, unfair, but mostly journalistically unprofessional and peremptory comment directly aimed against Zidane, as this journalist has NO WAY whatsoever to check (or of he has than he should have, but he hasn;t done his job properly) how many votes were cast before the incident (other than the vague "most" which means nothing). I don't think the "reliable" (prove it!) source is so reliable, now, is it?! I rest my case. Indeed: Look at it this way: if 51% of the votes were cast before the incident, that meand that DESPITE the reprehensible headbutt, the journalists STILL think he's the best. Which really means he's amazing and judged as such. And that is exactly the same if 75% of the votes were cast before considering the margin Zidane had ahead. So appreciation is in the way you write it, and this comment is written in a mos unacceptable subjective way. This does not comply with the standrads of Wikipedia. On a separate note: I would also like to add that while headbutting is of course not acceptable, the golden ball rewards the best football player. technically. It is debatable whther a head butt shuould be part of this technicalities. One can see this has something completely separate Vs how a player is good. And Zidane was undeniably the best player, by far, of the tournament. So if he should be sanctioned, that should be with a separate type of sanction which has nothing to do with the golden Ball.

--81.170.73.117 11:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA can't take Zidane Golden ball away since it is given to him by media not FIFA so i suggest to remove that false citation and the comment from the FIFA investigation section too. you3f 18:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Blater did say that he didn't mean that FIFA will take the award. It means that FIFA finds Zidane guilty and sanction him ( he is retired anyways!). But media has committe of its own and it can tak some actions according the result of investigation if it wants to.

You're wrong. FIFA has the authority to step in and strip him of it if they deem it necessary. On a side note, does anyone know the original source of Materazzi saying Zidane still deserves the award? I can't seem to figure out what interview/paper he said it in...Dead men's bells 02:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zinedine Yazid Zidane, His Name

First up in this dicussion page shall be his name. His first, middle, and last name are Arabic. The pronounciation of his names in Arabic (using English pronounciation) is Zaynadeen Yazeed Zaydan. In the Algerian accent, which corrupts the Arabic pronounciation, it becomes "Zeendeen Yazeed Zeedan". So the transliteration of the Arabic name & the transliteration of the name in Algerian accent should be seperated.

Arabic: زين الدين يزيد زيدان,

His first name is a wonderful example of a complex Arabic name with more then one part.

Zaynadeen.

Zayn = beauty http://www.behindthename.com/php/view.php?name=zayn

adeen = the path/way http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Deen_(Arabic_term)

Zaynadeen means (the) Beautiful (one) of the Path. It is a descriptive name not meaning "beautiful path" rather the beautiful one of the path.

Yazeed = one who increases

Zaydan = overabundant twice (not twice overabundant)

The name Zaydan is the same as the name Zayd except the "an" ending means "two". Zayd = overabundant. Zaydan is emphasizing the overabundance of something that they possess, such as for example talent. One may say they possess an overabundance of talent. But with the word Zaydan, it is like saying overabundant twice of, for example, talent.

So his full name, like many Arabic names, could be put into one sentence. Zinedine Yazid Zidane The beautiful one of the path. One who increases. One who is overabundant, twice.

For the Arabic ear his name automatically becomes his description.

The beautiful one of football (his path). One who increases (advancing). One who is overabundant twice (in ability, talent, & genius). --by BB--

Thank you for that, very interesting. One question: I thought that Yazid was not an official name, but a nickname derived from the "Zayd" in his last name. Is this correct? If it is, the first line of the article should probably be corrected. 62.194.23.55 16:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is sometimes referred to as Yazid Zinedine Zidane, including in an article on fifa.com, and more often as Zinedine Yazid Zidane. Yaz is a nickname derived from Yazid. See the Trivia section of the article. Canadiana 17:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the topic of being called Yaz. Yazid (Yazeed) is his second "first name" (middle name in France) and the name he went by at home with his family. Yaz is the nickname of Yazid (Yazeed). His name, Zinedine (Zaynadeen), is used in Arabic more as a title then a name. Long ago, if one was special amongst the people, they may be honored with the addition of the title "Zaynadeen". A title of honor. Sometime prior to the European renessance, Arabs started giving that title of honor at birth, along with a the real first name which became the second "first name". So you will find many who have the name Zaynadeen also have a second "first name", such as Yazid (Yazeed). It just happens that his second "first name" is used in France as a middle name. So his birth name in Arabic would be "Zaynadeen Yazeed" then his last name Zidane (Zaydan). Just as an example, lets say one is honored by the queen with the title of "Sir", then someday people felt they didn't need a queen to give their child that title...So instead of naming their child John, they named him Sir John. --by BB--

The link to the Italy disallowing World Cup

Can we get that link of because this is an English page and the article i written in German, it seems a bit irrelevant if we cannot understand it.

Well, I used Google's translation service, and here is what I got: [http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faz.net%2Fs%2FRubEC1ACFE1EE274C81BCD3621EF555C83C%2FDoc%7EE0DB6C733FD4B4271BB2DF785640AD9EA%7EATpl%7EEcommon%7EScontent.html&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools]

Seems to be discussing player wages rather than disallowing Italy's win.

== == == the red card of Zidane was not faire == == ==

PFFF yes it was

FIFA Investigation

"FIFA investigation On July 11, 2006, FIFA declared its intent to officially investigate the incident.[29] It has been speculated in the German press, that the non-discrimination provision which FIFA adopted for its disciplinary code on 28 March 2006[30][31]. They married in 1993 and have four sons named Enzo, Luca, Théo and Elyaz. Zidane describes himself as a "non-practicing Muslim".[32] Allegations that Zidane's father was a harki, or Algerian supporter of French rule, have been denied by Zidane himself.[33]"

the part about him becoming married in 1993 has no relevance to this section of the page, can someone please clean it up? i would do it myslef but even my contribution would need cleaning up. thankyou.

"An Amendment regarding discrimination to Art. 55, Par. 4 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code [3] stipulates that if any player, association or club official or spectator publicly disparages, discriminates against or denigrates someone in a defamatory manner on account of race, colour, language, religion or ethnic origin, or perpetrates any other discriminatory and/or contemptuous act and can be attributed to a certain team, the team in question faces deduction of points in the group stage resp. disqualification in the knockout stage.

The new provisions had been adopted on 28 March 2006 and may lead to the FIFA Executive Committee imposing harsh sanctions and even disallowing Italy's team the World Cup victory if Materazzi is convicted of having insulted Zidane with racial slurs.[26]"

Seeing as the investigation was only announced today, I don't think the conclusion suggested in the above paragraphs needs to be displayed (yet). Here's the link to the ESPNsoccernet article that deals with the matter [http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=373731&cc=5901]. Nowhere (believe it or not) does it mention that Materazzi's use of language is being investigated. It would be really hard to prove the content of any insults exchanged between the two players. We should wait until the conclusion of the investigation before posting consequences; the paragraphs should be removed and replaced with a comment like "The investigation is currently in progress". --Nicklob 17:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean it Up

PLEASE NOTE: All discussion about the World Cup Final Headbutt is under the "Headbutt" topic. Click the link in the contents and add to it if you wish don't create a new topic for it so it can all be kept together. SenorKristobbal 23:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add an accent to Zinedine. This accent does not exist in French. See below for sources.

Whoever made that moving .gif, why not redo it but deinterlace it first? It looks pretty bad.

Thanks for the redirect, jheimans. I should have realized that a star of such magnitude would already have an article. --Ed Poor

Shouldn't this be under "Zinédine Zidane" rather than "Zinedane Zidane". This conforms with Wiki's policy of using proper names. Any objections? Mandel 10:09, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

the correct spelling in France is "Zinedine", pronounced "Zindin". The incorrect spelling comes from journalists mispronoucing this name. see [http://www.google.fr/search?q=pr%C3%A9nom+Zinedine&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official|Google search "Prénom Zinedine"]and [http://meilleursprenoms.com/Etymologie/Etymologie.php3?search=Zinedine&horiz=Go|this site on the Arab Etymology of first names] for references. Zidane himself has spoken up about the incorrect pronounciation and spelling of his name, according to the Europe1 Radio news in Paris.Musikfabrik 17:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should also add an ambiguation for the Zidane of Final Fantasy 9... :) -Aya

Just to let you all know I made a change from "Paris Saint-Germain's Enzo Francescoli" to "Olympique de Marseille's Enzo Francescoli". Francescoli never played for Paris Saint Germain but for Racing Club de Paris. After that he moved to Marseille. Since Zidane was a ballboy in Marseille, this makes more sense.I wank. Cheers! -- Teuv 22:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Requested move

proposal: Zinedine Zidane → Zinédine Zidane. His proper name, as in French, and no objections are raised in the talk page after I proposed it. Mandel 14:50, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

add: * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and a signature:"~~~~"

Oppose --Philip Baird Shearer 19:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Support as long as there is a redirect from the unaaccented version --131.111.8.98 19:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) 131.111.8.98 is an IP address belonging to one of the Cambridge University Web Cache Servers and as such is shared by at least several thousand distinct users.
Oppose - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles): In general, use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the name. Create redirections or disambiguations for other plausible links. violet/riga (t) 11:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Zinedine Zidane is his real name.--Greasysteve13 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---Add any additional comments on the "Requested move" below this line ---

PBS may I know why you oppose? Mandel 19:33, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Common ENGLISH usage. Using www.google.co.uk (which differentiates between words with and without diacritics:

about 132,000 English pages for "Zinedine Zidane"
about 2,680 English pages for "Zinédine Zidane"

At the moment because of the lack of the name without diacritics the English Wikipedia article will not show up on a Google search in many English speaking countries. If the page stays where it is this can be fixed, but if it is moved to the French spelling the page is unlikely to keep the name "Zinedine Zidane" which is the common English spelling Philip Baird Shearer 21:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zinédine Zidane redirects to Zinedine Zidane, so I don't suppose it matters, especially since there seems to be some debate about whether English or French should be preferred. As long as one redirects to the other, I'm neither for nor against. Seem a bit like a game of semantics to me. In fact, I didn't even know his name had a ´ until now. --Ben davison 21:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He's French, not English. The same with Pele, there's an accent on his name in the article's title. Since one directs to the other, what's stopping us from using his proper name? If you should know, Zinedine Zidane will still be credited on Google. Try "Robert Pires" and "Wikipedia" -- you'll end up on the proper page anywhere. Your worry doesn't exist. Mandel 14:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Pelé is a bad example, since "Pele" has an article different from "Pelé". --Dryazan 15:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you use http://www.google.co.uk ["Robert Pires" site:wiki.riteme.site] the page only shows up because of the subsection title "ROBERT PIRES SITES". Googles work diffrently in diffrent countries. If you use http://www.google.co.uk ["Zinedine Zidane" site:wiki.riteme.site] the Wikipedia page Zinedine Zidane does not show up because someone has changed the name to "Zinédine Zidane". Only those pages in Wikipedia which spell his name "Zinedine" show up. The same is true with other search engines like "Ask Jeeves Philip Baird Shearer 18:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Since Robert Pires always direct to Robert Pirès, and Zinedine Zidane to Zinédine Zidane, the results will still show up in Google UK. I have tried "+Pires +Wikipedia" in Google UK, and it shows up. Mandel 20:52, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 09:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Several remarks. The accent should not be there at all, his name is Zinedine (pronounced Zin-din as previously noted. The accent is an invention of French journalists. Second, also as someone noted before, he is not English, but he is not Arab either, he is Berber. The transliteration of his name into Arabic at the beginning of the entry is not just unnecessary, it is plain wrong. There is absolutely no justification for it. Names in his parents' homeland, Algeria, are not registered in Arabic but in the Roman script and cannot change, except by presidential decree (a legacy of French colonial rule). The name therefore is Zinedine Zidane and cannot be anything else in Roman or any other script. Kusyel.

Take that nonsense off about what the Italian said. It hasnt been proven yet. First he called him a terrorista now he insulted his family...blah blah blah. Also, I love the article makes it seem like Zidane was just listening to him. It's obvious as hell that they were jarring back and forth. So your telling me that Zidane invited him for a tour of his vineyard and Matterazi said your mother is a terrorist whore???? The way it is written has obvious favoritism towards Zidane. July 11, 2006

Greatest Player

It is inaccurate (or POV) to claim that Zidane is currently regarded as the best player in the world, as he does not hold the FIFA World Player of the Year award, nor is he being considered for the award in 2005. Obviously a three-time winner deserves his credit, thus I will change these statements to past tense if there are no objections. Karma Heretic 04:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Spelling of Zinedine

There are no accents in this name in French (do a google search on "prenom Zinedine" and you'll see....). The accent comes from journalists who mispronounce this name, which should be pronounced "Zindin". The accent should be changed in the article. Musikfabrik 16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If may differ

As he is of Moroccan descent, Zidane's name is of Arabic origin (زين الدين زيدان). As such, its CORRECT pronunciation is the Arabic one which, when reflected onto the Anglo-Saxon language, is pronounced: "Zin-al'deen Zidaane" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.14.126 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

To be fair, since it's his name he's allowed to pronounce it however he feels. The same goes for anyone with any name. That said, since he's French and (presumably) speaks French most of the time, we should probably go with the French pronunciation. By the by, the "al" in "al-deen" doesn't get given the full value anyway - it becomes "ad" as laam is a sun letter. BigHaz 07:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zin al- Deen means the "Ornament of Religion" Zin= Ornament (or Zein) and "Al Deen" means of the religion. Erpals 01:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion on a French Wikipedia user page (in French, sorry) concerning the spelling "Zinédine": [[1]] All sources consulted said that the correct spelling was indeed "Zinedine" without the accent. If anyone would like the sources, please consult the user Clio64, who seems to have good connections in the French Sports world. Musikfabrik 08:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Pictures

Can someone please put more pictures of Zidane? There's only one picture over his profile. The article will look better with more pictures. Zarif 17:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some-more

File:ZiZou.jpg

File:Zinedine Zidane-ar.jpg

Clubs before Cannes

Wasn't Zidane also part of some club whose name began with US before joining Cannes?

Zidane's religion

Nothing says he is Muslim, and naming his children christian names is on contradiction with describing him as "devout Muslim".

When he played for Juventus I remember in a TV interview he said that he said the Ayat al-Kursi before each game.

I am not sure what you would consider a Muslim name. Not all Muslims give their children Arabic names, in North Africa many people give their children Berber names that have no connection to Islam or the Koran, and in Turkey a lot if not most people have pre-Islamic Turkic names. Furthermore he didn't give his Children "Christian" names, he named them after his favorite footballers.

Zidane describes himself as a "non-practicing Muslim", which countless Muslims would describe themselves as, including myself. Not practicing does not equate to not practicing anything, and definitely does not equate to not believing. Further, his status as a Muslim is mentioned in countless articles because it is *notable*, being a controversial minority in France. This is evidenced by Salman Rushdie's quote: "[Zidane] has done more to improve France's attitude toward its Muslim minority.. than a thousand political speeches." Finally, players of a minority are referred to in every context, including, for example, Danish Kaneria's status as a Hindu on Pakistan's national team. If a Christian/Jew played for Turkey, his religion would be cited in any biography, whether he was practicing or not. I believe this controversy boils down to personal feelings towards Islam, and these should always be left out of Wikipedia. --Afinebalance 01:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that naming one's children non-Muslim names is not a contradiction of their beliefs, as Islam has no laws on what names should be chosen, as long as the meaning is positive. --Afinebalance 01:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? He is a non-practicing muslim. Just like all of the Italian team squad, just like all of German's team squad, so should I then call all of them Christian? You are not NPOVing here. Chaldean 03:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant, he does not partake in public religious activity, lobbying ,etc.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, just like all of the Christian players. Thats why its silly to call these guys "French Muslim" or "Italian Christian" Chaldean 04:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, what is "public religious activity" and "lobbying"?! Give me a break. He is quoted as calling himself a non-practicing MUSLIM. Once again, like I said, his position as a minority player is what is notable, not the religion itself. Religion would not be cited for any Saudi/Turkish/Tunisian players for example. --Afinebalance 14:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Zidane does not use his public position to promote Islam etc, etc. eg, he doesn't do photo-posters promoting Ramadan (as some Bollywood Muslim actors/actresses do), he doesn't encourage youngsters to become more religious as a way of improving their skills (Saeed Anwar the Pakistani batsman and now youth coach thinks that being a "good muslim" is prerequisite to being successful) and he has not become a religious commmunity spokesperson or an endorser of an Islamic political party (eg, Vitali Klitschko appeared on stage to endorse Viktor Yuschencko as Ukraine President).Blnguyen | rant-line 00:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. So Muslim athletes use their public position to promote Islam or they're not *really* Muslim? These assumptions hint at the platform some individuals are really standing on. I also still fail to see how this refutes the fact that he has *descended from a Muslim family*, which is all that is being referred to. There are countless articles across all mediums that refer to him as a Muslim, he himself is quoted as saying he is a Muslim, he has said in a TV interview that he prays a surah from the Qur'an before every match. Having said that, this is all overshadowed by the fact that it is his *STATUS* as a Muslim, not necessarily his degree of "Muslimness", that is important and notable, given the political climate of France throughout his playing career. This has been noted by several authorative articles for reasons that even illogical people would find hard to deny. --Afinebalance 01:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can ignore what I said and try and mock me if you want, but unless they are engaged publicly in religious activities or promotion then it is not a notable facet of their public life. I never questioned his integrity as a Muslim or want him to use his position as a notable sportsperson to promote a religious agenda. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is his religion referred to in countless articles? Because it is a notable status that he carries, being a superstar in a Western country who's descended from a minority group. He does not have to do anything. I'm not sure you folks know how an encyclopedia works, but it attempts to collect as many facts as possible. Zidane descending from a Kabyle Muslim family is a fact. Zidane's quote as a "non-practicing Muslim" is a fact (referred to later in the article, which has ironically remained untouched). Why don't you take out the Kabyle part as well since he doesn't promote his ethnicity either? There are many, many arenas on the internet for you to take out your feelings towards Islam, please do not include Wikipedia in them. --Afinebalance 02:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm an Islamophobe then? Note that I also removed the Parsi cat from Rustomji Jamshedji and the Sikh cat from Yuvraj Singh. About 10% of France is Muslim so that is a very notable minority. Nobody goes around sticking Muslim on all the Indian cricketers and movie stars do they - Also, for consistency would you say that " Salman Khan born (...) is an Indian Muslim moviestar who drink-drives and in doing so ran over and killed people sleeping on a Mumbai footpath? "Blnguyen | rant-line 02:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are Sikhism or Islam in India contentious issues? No, they're quite common. The story is quite different in France, regardless of the statistics. At the same time, Danish Kaneria's and Yousuf Youhana's (former) religions have been documented repeatedly since they are not common. I recommend you read the LA Times article on Zidane from June 4, 2006 [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-rotella04jun04,0,7920995.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions] (I'm sure it's discussed much more in French columns) to get an idea of why Zidane's background is important, at the very LEAST notable, in the context of Muslims in France.

At the end of the day we must ask ourselves: "Is this a fact?" Yes. "If it's a fact, is it notable enough to include relative to the amount of space it takes?" It only requires one word, so I would say yes. It does not refer to how "Muslim" he is, it simply refers to his background. Given these simple points and the passion from some to get rid of it (mainly AFTER he had his monster game against Brazil, how pathetic).. how can individuals NOT be seen (or mistaken) as Islamophobes? --Afinebalance 02:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is religious tension in India, more so than France, which is more secular, where there are no religious political parties of any note. Also in India, see Khalistan, Shiv Sena, etc. Well, I'm not an Islamophobe. Please see WP:AGF.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is ironic that you raise the point about France being secular, as this is a major reason for the controversy that currently exists in France. The sheer content on the Islam in France page gives a hint at what I'm talking about, as it is quite longer than most "Islam in.." pages. For the sake of staying on topic, the importance of Zidane's *status* as a Muslim in France has been referred to by one of the most infamous (or famous) anti-Islamic writers of our times, Salman Rushdie.. and it's almost a shame that I must use him as backup in order to make a simple point: it is notable. --Afinebalance 02:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Afinebalance, you've shown your true coloros with this discussion. You are obviously wrong and I'm sure the majority of Wiki would think you are going mad. If you feel like you are right about this, then start a vote Chaldean 04:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How am I obviously wrong? Are the countless articles that refer to Zidane as a Muslim written by writers who have gone "mad"? You fail to acknowledge the basic rule of an encyclopedia, which is including any *notable facts*. I don't think you've even bothered to read my arguments for including it, or you're just unable to respond to them. I do know I'm not going to bother repeating the details. You may have a bad understanding of the english language but I'm going to repeat this once more: this refers to the background he has DESCENDED from, and a background which has unquestionably impacted the way he is looked upon by many Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It is a fact that not even you can deny. --Afinebalance 04:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is kept, could you keep it out of the first paragraph and discuss it lower. First and foremost he is a footballer. the vast majority of the world sees him as such, rather than an icon of Islam. Sure he is a muslim, but as an icon, that is definitely not his primary importance.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Blnguyen's solution is sensible - I think it's interesting enough to inclusion in the article, but that's now how most people define Zidane. He is a professioinal footballer first and foremost, and he's not a Beckham-like figure with a visible off-field life. A sentence in the "Personal life" section should suffice. It should not be mentioned in the first paragraph, let alone the first sentence. Ytny 06:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...If you do a Google search on "zidane muslim," you will find many articles saying Zidane is a "devout Muslim." Yet, the interview (the link of which has expired, by the way), states he is a "non-practicing Muslim"? 24.23.219.122 08:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link is still live. The notes section contains two articles quoting Zidane as a non-practicing Muslim:

[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-rotella04jun04,0,7920995.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions]: He refuses to discuss politics, except for terse criticism of Le Pen in 2002. He calls himself a "non-practicing Muslim."
[http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2005/12/04/stories/2005120400430100.htm]: In early 2004, when the French Government proposed the bill to ban the use of religious symbols in educational institutions and work places, Zidane, when asked to comment, replied, "I have been a non-practising, non-praying Muslim and that is all what I would like to say about this."

Here's a third source for Zidane as a non-practicing Muslim: [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,1182707,00.html]. --Muchness 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you what I first thought of Zidane when I read the Personal Life section of Zinedine Zidane. The only description that describes about his religion is "Zidane describes himself as a 'non-practising Muslim'". And so, my first impression was that Zidane 'does not practise as a Muslim'???. How terrible I felt when I read through this Discussion Page & found out that the fact that Zidane is a Muslim was not even addressed. So, who's actually causing this misleading statement that gave a huge misperception about Zidane's religion? This must be corrected & not to be ignored as it is a clear FACT that Zidane is a Muslim, regardless of how is his level of practising it. Once a Muslim, you die as a Muslim for as long as you did not 'desert from being a Muslim'. The way that the Personal Life section was written is just too short (with no elaboration whatsoever of the phrase 'non-practising Muslim') to give an overall information of Zidane's life as a Muslim. Someone who can edit this section hopefully can quote Zidane himself as quoted as saying he is a Muslim, where he has said in a TV interview that he prays a surah from the Qur'an before every match. And not to forget to quote all that he ever said when being asked about his religion or his practises as a Muslim. Once quoted all these statement from Zidane himself, it would be self explanatory for people to know the whole truth about Zidane's religion. I'm begging for the whole truth to be revealed. I trust wikipedia as a credible source of information & I feel that I need to contribute & do my part to correct anything which was not rightly written or addressed. Regards. 60.49.37.146 13:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The level of practice that Zidane "appears" to be at has nothing to do with anything. Many people don’t know that David Chappelle is a Muslim. And if they do then they think he is “un-practicing”. These people have their reasons for not being very public about their faith, weather they are good or bad ones. I mean I saw Dave Chappele with my own eyes, he was on the same flight as me from new york JFK to JEDDA – Saudi arabia. I later saw him in medina too. I can give dozens of witnesses and articles too. And the issue of naming is blasphemous. During the times of the prophet Muhammad s, when people converted, they didn’t change their names to so called “islamic names”. Chineese muslims name their kids chineese names ect. Back to Zidane, It is a very important fact that he is muslim, it breaks stereotypes, improves muslims status in the eyes of lay-people (although I dunno after overtime...) and shows diversity. In the grand scheme of things, something that represents a competition of the whole world , the world cup is embodied by Zidane, a Muslim. A billion Muslims, other then the crazy ones, can feel connected. “That guy is a muslim” and can be proud rather than ashamed of their faith. That is huge.--Xe8 3061 19:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Anything that stands out (minorities) are usually talked about. Such as Zidane's parents being from Algeria and Muslim. It's not really that important, you can put it, or you can take it out. But the point is that it is usually put in because it is a minority thing, something different then the majority, especially when dealing with non-euro origin. For example. Andre Agassi. If you read about him you will find out that they always mention his fathers origin which is Armenian from Iran. Why didn't they mention his mother being Irish American or German American or anything. Wiki didn't mention it nor will you find it in an article.

JH: The intro to this article should describe Zidane as a "French Muslim football player." I think it's ridiculous his religion is being purposely left out... and I'd also like to state that I think it's unsatisfactory if it's noted anywhere other than the top of the article. One needs only compare him to the great Hank Greenberg who is described in his article as a "Jewish American" baseball player. Greenberg wasn't particularly religious either but was extremely popular with the Jewish American community during his time (see The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg, VHS '99). --69.110.231.237 09:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)JH[reply]

Thank you, JH. Most articles in any encyclopedia offer comments like "african american baseball player", "native american runner" "muslim scientist" "jewish director". The assumption being that if you are not of the majority, it is a worth while fact, otherwise we tend to assume you are the majority (whatever that majority be.) One does not have to advocate one's religion for it to be of note. It's not even important that the majority of the people *know* one's religion or background for it to be of note. I just learned from a Zidane link, that Edith Piaf is also berber. This is why one turns to an encyclopedia.--Kipruss3 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and disamb

I redirected "Zidane" here and made a disamb page cos the other Zidane was nobody. Skinnyweed 00:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 4 Zidane's listed on the disambig page, 3 real people and the FFIX character. This page should have the usual "Zidane redirects here. For other uses, see Zidane_(disambiguation)" text at the top. M0ffx 11:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a {{redirect}} tag. --Muchness 11:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock terms

In the lead section, instead of using peacock terms like 'top footballer', 'elite', 'genius', 'magician' - why not simply state that he's been tha FIFA World Player of the Year three times? The guidelines are pretty clear on this. Eixo 14:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-Up tag placed

This article needs serious clean up, not only is thier a lack of references, but its make ourageous claims, such as bieng the best plyer of this genration and the of all time. The third and fourth paragraphs, are just as bad, from the claims that he was the best of the real madrid team, by reputation alone, to claims that its due to his abscence that France, exited the world cup. Another tag of weasel words will also be put up. Very misleading article. (212.219.97.7 11:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

OR tag

Agree with above person. Statements like "Zidane is often considered to be the best footballer of his generation [citation needed] , and one of the greatest footballers of all time", "one of the game's finest artists", and the France 2002 losing because of him are suspect. Skinnyweed 20:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a basic clean-up, removing a lot of the gushing about what an amazing player etc. Some still remains, though it is generally accapted that Zidane is "one of the game's finest artists". The Arabic translation of the name remains, though perhaps it should be gone as there doesn't seem to be any justification for it.

I don't know what to do with this paragraph: "Zidane is one of the football icons of his generation and is known to be modest, quiet and self-admittedly shy. As a Guardian feature article says, however, Zidane also has occasional flashes of aggression on the pitch. One such display of aggression occurred when Zidane was red carded for headbutting Jochen Kientz in a 2000/2001 Champions League match for Juventus against Hamburger SV. He also stamped on a player in the 1998 World Cup and received a straight red card." It is currently under "legacy", which does not seem right, and the mention of the stamping incident is a repetition. Beev 23:06, 1 July 2006 (GMT)

I've cleaned up some of the article; also moving the final game section to the club career section; seems to fit better there. --Dococ23 18:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig

Let's agree to remove the disambig info, just because somebody has the same last name as somebody doesn't mean they deserve a redirect on that person's page, especially not for a minor fictor character. Should an article on Alan Jones have a disambig for all people sharing the name Jones? Mackan 03:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the disambiguation page, you'll see that there are two footballers named Zidane (Zinedine & Djamel), one fictional character named Zidane (Tribal), and one other footballer with a similar name (Zidan). That seems like enough to warrant inclusion of the disambiguation message. "Zidane" itself goes to Zinedine so it's fair to add a disambiguation page to that article. I know that having that redirect message is never nice but you have to keep control of your own personal emotions and maintain a neutral point of view. Skinnyweed 13:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is totally ridiculous as "Jones" does not redirect to "Alan Jones". Do not attempt to skewer opinion and spread deceit because we will know. Skinnyweed 13:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just disqualified yourself from commenting on this subject. Mackan 15:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you're unwilling to talk, even though you started the issue, we'll just have to wait for outside commentary. Skinnyweed 15:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't care any longer since you added two other players. I think the article "Zidane" could just as well be a disambig though. Still, I object to your way of "debating", you are rude and assumptive.Mackan 16:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better a "minor fictional character" than a "minor spectator sports player", I say! I never heard of this "Zinedine" character until an article on Digg about a guy provoking him [http://digg.com/world_news/Materazzi_s_Previous_Work_(Guy_who_provoked_Zidane)] Hackwrench 06:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of people typing Zidane into a wikipedia search will be looking for Zinedine, thus it is sensible for Zidane to redirect here. However since a few may looking for others, the {{redirect}} tag, that Muchness has just added, is sensible. M0ffx 11:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize there was a content dispute regarding the inclusion of a disambiguation header in this article – I should have checked first before adding it. Still, I think the inclusion is appropriate in this case, for the reasons stated by M0ffx. --Muchness 12:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine as things currently stand, and in line with WP practices.-- Deville (Talk) 19:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The vast majority" Yeah, right, and the vast majority of statistics are made up. Hackwrench 06:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the "What links here" pages for Zinedine Zidane and Zidane Tribal. Zinedine Zidane's article is more popular by a considerable margin. Alternately, try a Google search: "Zidane Tribal" returns less than 50,000 hits; "Zinedine Zidane" returns more than 6 million. --Muchness 08:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However some of those hits are going to be people by the name of "Zinedine Zidane" that are not this one. Much less likely for the made up name. Your turn. Hackwrench 11:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

I was wondering if someone could put his place of birth at the very beginning at the aritcle, so people wanting to quickly check his place of birth don't have to look hard.

68.78.137.203 (talk • contribs) added He is ALGERIAN to the bottom of the first paragraph, which I reverted. I have no knowledge of the player, so I am moving the comment here for further discussion. --TeaDrinker 21:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC) He is a dual national French and Algerian. As a French born person of Algerian parentage he is entitled to both nationalities and under Algerian law, he cannot lose his Algerian nationality. Kusyel.[reply]

i read earlier that he was of kurdish decent...........his middle name is an anchient kurdish religion what happen to that phrase why was it takin out? just wondering?

France Greatest Player

It was claimed that Platini is "the best French player of all time" in Platini's page.. Ofcourse, Platini is a great player, but the claim seems abit dated. Shouldn't this goes to Zidane, since if some recent basis exits, his 3 trophies of best player of the year, many of his peers testomonies, UEFA Golden Jubilee Poll are just few sources .. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/UEFA_Golden_Jubilee_Poll --86.16.113.121

ZXCZXC

There is no point talking about who is "the best" as this will always be strictly POV. Platini's page says he is "arguably the best French player of all time", which is probably quite a fair statement, though it might be more accurate to say "he is considered to be one of the best French players of all time". Of course, the same could be said about Zidane, and it would be accurate to say the same thing about both players.

"Zidane is often considered to be the best footballer of his generation" -- I think this statement in the opening paragraph of Zidane's article is seriously pushing the boundaries of impartiality. It's based an article which is full of praise for Zidane, in the same way that such articles always praise their subject. The author has clearly gathered together a small amount of evidence to support his view, and does not present any other possible alternative views. Not entirely convincing. Beev

Marseille Roullete

Should we add anything in the trivia about Zidane's trademark move? Did he even invent it himself?

hmm. yes and no. didnt Maradona do a similar thing..? im not too sure maybe someone can look into it. Or he has his own style of Maradona's move. im really not sure so dont flame me for being confused :P

The first time I saw it was in 1982, when Maradona played at the World Cup in Spain. But it is a Zidane trademark anyway, nobody else uses it as often and as effective. David Sneek 19:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^yea good point. he does it so smoothly. i would support it if it was added.

I added a video to the external links section. David Sneek 07:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

33rd minute goal against Portugal

If the time says 26:32 for example, they're in the 27th minute, not the 26th. That's was the case with the goal against Portugal, it was the 33rd minute, not the 32nd Soxrock 19:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'...notoriously hardscrabble ...'

This has two possible problems so I removed the description of the player's birth place: Firstly, it seems to be conjecture if no link is provided with decent evidence to demonstrate the point (specifically about the area La Castellane). Secondly, and (academically unless it is re-inserted by someone)I am prepared to take the flak on this - 'hardscrabble' is not, in my opinion, a well recognised adjective to non US English speakers. I'm British and I had to guess the meaning from the context so I would imagine non-native English speakers would have more trouble. He is a joy to watch though as I am sure all the contributors will agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.214.41 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm in the US and I have never heard anything like "hardscrabble" before either. For the sake of curiousity, could someone please define it?RSimione 03:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my edit (always forgetting password). Sorry, I assumed it was a US word as it appears in answers.com as: hard·scrab·ble (härd'skrăb'əl) adj. Earning a bare subsistence, as on the land; marginal: the sharecropper's hardscrabble life.

Headbutt

Stop all of this illiterate comments, no need to keep stressing on this event. Zinedine Zidane is a wonderful player and I believe there is no one, absolutely no one who can play as close to how he does. He is a very gentle, calm and kind person. He was *provoked* and that's all; that is why that incident happened.

Put yourselves in his place, what would you have done if someone tried to insult your mother (the one who gave birth and raised you from the day you were born)? What would you have done if you hear such torrid and dirty talking about your elders? For me, I would have killed that bastard!! I am very proud of Zinedine Zidane. He deserves much much more than a world cup.

"Nothing is more valuable than a mother, not even a world cup"...

So, I feel proud of you Zinedine. You remain and will always remain the best ever player I have ever seen on this planet throughout my entire life! God bless you.

In America, we have an expression: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." Why should he care what some moron says to him? Neither he nor his family was harmed by whatever insults were hurled. They are only words. Zidane let his team down at a crucial time. He deserves all the criticism he's getting. Wahkeenah 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this need to be locked. I can see that there is alot of people that likes Zidane career, but this is getting too anoying to see that people thinks that what Zidane did in reaction to cursing words. Its wrong to protect Zidane for his action and bash on Materazzi. Both are wrong, but words are said on every game, and violence is not accepted. What does mean for your "FAIR PLAY" campaign that FIFA wanted for this cup? What Zidane done was worst than anything that Materazzi said, lets accept this, its a fact. Fungos Bauux 14:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, some might think that Zinedine Zidane's reaction to Materazzi's insult was not handled the right way? As far as I am concerned, I have followed Zidane's career through the years, and in my opinion, he was a really calm and quiet person. Not only that, but there was an extreme amount of pressure on Zidane. First, he was injured in the shoulder, and that caused him to suffer a lot in the game. second, he was becoming frustrated because of their teams' playing. He attempted to score on the Italians a few times but failed. All of this built a lot of pressure on him. Finally, when Materazzi, and his insultive manners got to Zidane, he was just frustrated, mad, and confused. He could not take any more and he just let Materazzi have it. As far as I am concerned, this is the only physical attack that Zidane attempted in his career. Personally, I am proud of Zidane for doing what he thought was suitable. After all of this, the French people were still proud of what he did. I really don't care if you don't like what I wrote but this is my opinion and this is what a lot of people around the world think as well. By the way, the GIF image does not work on Imageshack and stuff. Put it on a real sharing website such as rapidshare.de . After that, include the GIF image link to rapidshare so we can download it. if you don't wanna do that, then just host it on a website of one of yours.

I don't dispute the red card, it's standard procedure for violent play. But I want to know what Materazzi said that would have provoked Zizou to do what he did. Nobody's really seen something like that from Zizou since the Saudi incident. It's like Zizou in 1989, fresh off the streets of Marseille. Doesn't verbal assault warrant a yellow card? I would have been happy if Materazzi got some off-field sanction for playing dirty. I also agree with Domenech. Although I was fully in support of Italy during their match versus Germany, I was ashamed at the fragility they showed by rolling on the ground without having been touched by any Germans. Seriously, stop shaming football like that. Trtskh 04:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone replace the animated gif with a static image... it's utterly annoying to see the same loop repeated over and over again, and links to videos are at the bottom. -mrbartjens 00:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the gif and removed the infinite loop. sikander 03:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to be included in Zidane's page eventually. I saw someone added it before but it was considered vandalizing. That's some of the worst I've ever seen in a world cup and coming from Zidane of all players! The only worse I've ever seen in soccer is the compilation of soccer fights they have at Youtube, just search soccer fights and you'll know what I mean. It's notable fights over the past few years done to "Fight Music" by D-12

Including the headbutt is fine but the stuff in the "Legacy" section is a little over the top.

The headbutt is not significant enough yet to be put into the opening paragraphs. Xombie 21:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that we should add the headbutt incident, people need to be informed. --Zaid Ibrahim 21:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dreadful stuff, why it had to happen on his retirement, hardly the highlight (or if so, god help us), and ultimately what a player, what a goal in the first 7 minutes, my god. ~~ blorg

The above statement is just plain wrong. Zidane is known to the world as a footballer. His football career is the reason this article exists. How that career ended should be in the summary opening paragraphs, as those paragraphs should outline his career.

I'm a zidane fan myself. But we can't let loyalty to him overcome good editing! The ending of his career was a shoking, notable event. It deserves to be put into the end of the opening paragraphs. --Wikipediastar 21:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it needs to be mentioned, but not in the first paragraph. Zidane's accomplishments throughout his career far outweigh this misdemeanor. Even Maradona's "Hand of God" goal is not mentioned directly in the first paragraph. --Lareine 23:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion: Zidane won´t be most remembered for his actions at the World Cup 98 but for this disgraceful end of his career. I think it should be included at the beginning of the article.

or should that be "won't be most remembered for his actions at the World Cup 98 butt for this disgraceful end of his career." ;-)

Don't you think that video showing the headbutt is a little extreme and ridiculous? I think it should be removed.

8.04 21:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zidanes headbutt did nothing but to cement how much of a badass he was. Not only did he just headbutt Materazzi (remember he scored the equaliser) he didn't come back to collect his medal. Comradeash 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't believe he was allowed to return to the field to collect his medal, due to his red card. Soapy Sunshine 21:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're totally right and this was mentioned by the English commentators. Indeed, even if France has WON the world cup, he would not have technically been allowed onto the field for the cup Nil Einne 11:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I strongly disagree, just take Eric Cantona for instance, he has done far worse and nothing is mentioned in the first paragraph. This is just one match on hundreds Zidane has played.

It is completely comparable to the Crystal Palace incident. Xombie 21:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly he is also the first person to be thrown out of the game during overtime during a world cup final. Just thought it might be significant.

to be fair for years to come if u mention his name people will think of the headbutt. Millions worldwide will have seen it. He was representing his country in the world cup final. A football fan will remember him as an awesome footballer who let himslef down in that game. A non-fan will purely remember the headbutt. It looks fine as is now and edits in reference to the headbutt should be added when there is more information. If they investigated the Rooney stamp they will certainly investigate this. SenorKristobbal 22:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This man is a legend.... I just saw him destroy his legend by headbutting an Italian clean in the chest. This is Incredible! (incredibly bad)--81.152.13.190 20:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... Why the hell did he do that?!

i dont understand why he of all people would do that... 71.254.210.160 20:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely horrible.--156.34.30.141 20:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell did Materazzi say to him!?!?

Apparently that idiot Materazzi twisted his left nipple and it irked Zidane.

Norum

Like that matters.

hes still a legend

The Guardian (UK newspaper) says online that Materazzi tweaked Zidane's nipple. [http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup2006/minbymin/0,,1788448,00.html] 203.217.72.38 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh my god...i am so disappointed.

SUCKER HEADBUTT FOR THE FUCKING WIN!!!! Zidane>ALL.

video of the headbutting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBV52GPhNjw&feature=Recent&page=6&t=t&f=b

video of materazzi doing all sorts of nasty stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpG4AHlZrL4&search=Materazzi

I want to know what Materazzi said to him. That was like a UFC headbutt. Jeez...

I don't think Zidan's headbutt was that big a deal. It wasn't as bad as Rooney's stomp. And if Zidane was trying to hurt the guy, he would have hit him in the face. [He totally deserved the red card though]

I can't believe you just said that, not as bad as Rooney! LOL... this was appalling and inexcusable behaviour ... :O --Baston1975 20:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal? are you kidding? he ended his career in shame and disgrace by getting kicked out of the world cup. A game 1,000,000,000+ people were watching.... poor bloke, it was pretty stupid of him

-Rooney's stomp hardly looked intentional. Zidane was PISSED, straight headbutted him in the CHEST.

~If Zidane didn't want to hurt him, then headbutting him in the chest was a pretty odd thing to do.

the french president gave him a "presidential rebuke" for that. he said, "i regret that the most "beautiful" sportsman in our country doesn't have the most beautiful moral quality". i think it is still important to highlight this. however, the french people still support him, in the champs élysées in paris, the ppl are chanting "merci zizou zizou zizou" and "merci les bleus". it seems that he is still highly regarded by the french people. watch TF1 for more information --Zaid Ibrahim 21:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the corrupt french president talkng about morals..LOL!!...Materazzi is a disgrace and I hope this incident brings some attention to name calling on the pitch...It must have been something very personal to make zidane react in this way....and after his great career , I would hardly think that this incident (headbutting a big-mouth Italian) will be the most famous lasting memory of him..

ZIDANE'S DESERVED RED CARD ALLOW ITALY TO WIN IN PKs. If Zidane was there then they wouldn't have missed one!

Not so sure about that. Everyone but trezuguet put their penalties away and trezeguet was extremely, extremely unlucky. Zidane present wouldn't have exactly made it much different i'll wager. After what Zidane did - Italy are most deservedly winners. If France had gone on to win i think the headbutt would have been quietly swept under the carpet. Italy did win and Zidane needs to hold his hand up and explain his actions...--Baston1975 21:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, i think they (italy) still would have won because the guy still would have hit the post and lost it for france. He was second in their lineup so if zidane was 1st he would have been 3rd and still missed...

It is unfair to Zidane to put that video on now, the whole story hasn't come out. You could see the guy insulting him before he got headbutted, so for all we know, he might've deserved it. Also, you shouldn't insult him for not getting his medal, I heard that the FIFA officials were pressuring him not to get it. Zidane is a great footballer and you shouldn't turn him into a disgrace. If you're going to put the video of the headbutt on, then you should also put clips of his famous goals. (Owen214 00:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The butterfly effect comes into play here ... if Zidane had still been playing everything would've gone differently; maybe it wouldn't even have gone into Penalty Kickoffs? And if it still did, things would be different ... different plays on the field, some players would be more tired than others, the PK order would be different (so the goalkeeper would handle the shots in a different order, and how he handles one shot can influence how he handles the next one)... All of this really makes it meaningless to try and say how things would have gone had something that has already irrevocably happened not happened. --Cyde↔Weys 21:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this needs to be removed: Ultimately, Zidane will be remembered for the numerous disgraceful antics throughout his career. The world cup sendings off and general disgrace to football. The French player will be remembered for having fantastic skill and poise but, more often than not, a lack of end product and ultimate disappointment. Overrated by many of his contemporaries, history will see this cheat sidelined as no more than an accessory to his relatively few achievements. --74.65.173.130 21:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not explain his actions, but Materazzi was at fault as well. He provoked Zidane verbally and this bone head move was retaliation.

Norum 09.07.2006

Trash talking is part of every sport. A professional player should not loose it and resort to violence on the biggest global sporting event in mankind's history! That said, I am Zidane fan and its just sad what he did. sikander 21:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Materazzi got WTFPWNED by Zidane. Then Zidane got WTFPWNED by the referee, possibly costing his team the game. Seems fair to me :-D Cyde↔Weys 21:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best description I have heard of it so far. But I think he was WTFPWNED by the fourth official, really. Sargant 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it when people who don't know much about football talk about football! It's cute!! Robincard 22:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been due to the fact that player was holding him back. Some have said - This should be an encyclopedia and then we read this!!! I think it should be removed as long as there no objectif source. --Jangli 21:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The itallian player instigated the whole thing by pinching zidane's nipple. Of course a badass like Zidane is going to headbutt you in the chest, it really should come as no suprise to anyone. In fact,Zidane's personal motto is "A pinch of the nipple deserves a headbutt to the chest, unless you're a chick, then its cool." That player was most certainly NOT a chick.

- any proof to that allegation? --Zaid Ibrahim 21:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES...You tube!

Zidane scored the penalty kick in the 7th minute, not the 6th. Someone with editing rights please remove the 'that bastard will soon die' line, as well as changing the 2 incredibly poorly written "sent off" references regarding Zidane being ejected from the 2006 world cup final game due to his red card.

What's the point of adding an infinitely looping animated GIF of a low point in the guy's career. A screen shot linking to the animated GIF would have been more tasteful, IMHO.

- Agreed--Baston1975 21:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the image to a link (Click for animation). I don't know how to link a JPG image to a GIF image... i.e Image:Zindane headbutt.jpg to Image:Zidane-big.gif sikander 21:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have no right to use the video in any form. Henry ^Flower 21:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Im Gilad (from the HebrewWIKI), here is the moment of shame. http://images.cainer.net//uploads/zidane.gif

The last sentence in Legacy needs to be edited because it is grammatically incorrect. Vnv lain 21:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, someone already altered it. Thanks.Vnv lain 21:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

someone needs to explain why zidane headbutted that italian guy --Zaid Ibrahim 21:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Zidane is likely the only one who heard it, he'll have to be the one explaining. I imagine it was a racial slur or something. — ceejayoz ^talk 21:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone should consider removing or at least editing the sentence at the end of the introduction that suggests that Zidane's legacy "might be tarnished" as a result of the headbutt. This is an encyclopedia, and we are not prognosticators. Let's leave time for a little perspective to sink in and let history, not a bunch of overzealous football fans with way too much emotional involvement right now, decide. fyfh99 22:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think link to images and/or videos of the headbutt are relevant. It might be a low point in his career but that does not mean it did not happen. It is also especially relevant since there was a lot of talk about this match being his final international appearance and for him to be thrown out of the match IS a notable event. sikander 21:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is too much, I am sure there would be an outcry if we had images of Rooney's stamping on his article. bruce89 22:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Rooney was not ending his international career during that match. There is a big difference. Everyone was expecting Zidane to play his best today and end his career by maybe winning the World Cup for his team and maybe even scoring the winning goal. Anyhow, doesn't matter to me anymore. sikander 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay for a couple of weeks at least, and then removed when the story dies down. --Burgas00 22:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Rooney stamping incident should be included. Either way, in such an important game, especially as it was his last, it should be included. Only by watching the clip can one understand how malicious the incident was.

Whether it is relevant or not is... irrelevant. We can't just use other people's images because we want to. We need a legal justification, and in this case there is none. Henry ^Flower 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A simple image is fine in this case. An image of an event can be used in this article since it is impossible to go back in time and get a free one. I know you all love this guy but the image has to stay.--God Ω War 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Headbutt Image[reply]

Seeing that link to the image of the headbutt incident, I think someone should include a link to this video http://www.youtube.com/w/Zidane-(El-Placer-De-Mira)?v=H9sL_mfrFcw&search=zidane , just to be fair to the guy, who is undoubtedly one of the best football players who have ever lived --82.126.244.242 23:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)vug[reply]

No, to be fair to the guy we would need to see the whole sequence of events along with what was said. Zidane and the guy are talking, Zidane starts to walk away, and then something happens to make Zidane turn around and head butt the guy. Is this anymore shaming that his other displays of anger? Punched a guy with AS Cannes, head butted Jochen Kientz in champions league match, stomped on a Saudian Arabian player in 1998 world cups. http://www.kabyles.com/article.php3?id_article=2271 My respect for him has not lessened. He is a very passionate player and is intensely loyal to his roots and his people. You can see after the heat of the moment that he regretted his actions. Sometimes these things happen. --Barnetto 00:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of wikipedians who aren't frequent editors who decided to take part in this article purely due to the headbutt. I think the best thing to do is keep it as it is with small bits about the headbutt and in a couple of weeks a new discussion with the wikipedians who are still around to decide how the article should address the headbutt in the long term. SenorKristobbal 23:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to change a word in the last sentence of the first paragraph, from "controversy" to "ignominy". Is that OK? Mwinog2777 23:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol,why vandelism,I don't see anything wrong. And yet some wiki-idiot screwed it up,Oh,well.

Oh wait,there is. There's the phrase FORZA AZUR written like that in all caps....anyone loves to have fun here.

Please someone remove the FORZA AZZURRI!!!!!!!!!! It's really awfull that we can keep this site serious.

An animated gif is really necesary? I think you guys are acting like a newspaper. I dont see any gif with he's champions league goal to win the cup or with any of the two 1998 goals against brazil in the final. This play is not representative of his career, i dont see this as an enciclopedia entry but a tabloid one. I hope in two weaks that gif is gone.

The animated GIF is way too much. A sentence or even a paragraph at the end is sufficient. There are other memorable moments in his career, and it remains to be seen just how much this one will be remembered. Therefore there's no need to put too much emphasis on it yet - this is an article not a news report.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE lets put the animated gif in there, how great is that? It's better than a photo of the incident. Batman2005 00:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION: Do you have the RIGHTS on the television snapshot to post it here?

ATTENTION: There are hundreds of TV Screenshots on Wikipedia. [2]

What's going on? Somebody comes here asking PLEASE PLEASE and you guys put the gif back up? Seriously?

if anyone is interested, i have placed a video of this incident on youtube -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOGL9y-ggVU

feel free to use if you feel it is revalant.

I'd argue against the need for an animation, myself. The article describes the incident perfectly well as is (we know who Zidane is, we know who Materazzi is, we know what a chest is and if we don't know what a headbutt is perhaps it needs to be linked), so what benefit is there in having an animation of the event? For mine, pictures go up for things which need visuals because the words aren't enough (what do either of the players look like? Stick a picture up and we'll know), but this is perfectly clear as is. BigHaz 07:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been sent off 14 times, e.g. stamping on a Saudi player in the 1998 World Cup; headbutting Jochen Kientz of Hamburg SV in the Champions League. Great player but sadly the end was fairly typical of the career.

There's no need for an animation or a picture of the headbutt. I think that it's irrelevant, especially considering the length of this article. Zidane is mostly known from his excellent playing skills, not from his sometimes quick temper. Of course the incident should be mentioned in the article but a gif would be exaggeration. Or if there would be a gif of the headbutt, then there should be at least five gifs of some of his best moments on the field. Windtalker 18:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you remove that animation? I loved it... at least post it here or on the article... I thought the whole thing was awesome... I think it is a great way to end his career fighting against racist pigs. Nice. Erpals 4:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop changeing the info about why he did it. Why does it matter why he headbutted the Italian player. If he's so sensitive to cost his team a world cup, maybe he's not the great player his fans tout him as. Mental stability is part of being a great athlete. Do you see Lance Armstrong get off his bike after being SPIT on by German fans to headbutt them? No, he continues on to victory. Sticks and stones and all that.

Why does everbody discuss here why Zidane did this headbutt? This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. I think a reference to this headbutt is part of it... but not the allegations that are done to it... except if anyone can proove something serious. I found sources citing he said "terrorist", insulted his family, insulting his relgion... and so on. So if nobody knows, why put it in an encyclopedia? Just lets leave it there. --Jangli 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zidane was one of the best soccer players alive, he can do magic with his feet. Anyone who watches soccer can appreciate his skills and abilities. On the other hand, Materazzi is not a football player, he is a scumbag or at best a gangster off the street of Rome in my opinion. He does not play soccer, he was hired by the Italian team to injure and disable the opponents' players so that the team had an advantage to win. Without the dirty tactics, the Italian team wouldn't even make it to the final. If you don't trust me see for yourself in this video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImAjXdTKfjg&mode=related&search=Materazzi] & [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HblsV-urHg] it is a compilation of how this guy plays. Notice how he aims his kicks at other players' knees, back, chest, and face. He is malicious and evil. I could not believe he wasn't banned from playing soccer at all. I believe the racial slur was just the last straw that broke Zidane's camel back. The World Cup final was shown around the world to a billion TV viewers. The truth will come out whether you believe the proof or not. I feel sorry for Zidane that such a top rank world class champion would sacraficed his chance to win the trophy just because of this scumbag. It was a mistake he may regret, but that headbutt was well done. I am not French nor Italian, I just gave me opinion as an observer. Italy won the trophy without honor. Shame on Italy. Kowloonese 04:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People keep demonizing Materazzi and claiming he "provoked" Zidane. Yet, this could simply have been a mutual exchange of obscenities or what Materazzi said could have been provoked by something Zidane said or did. There is no proof to substanitate anything at this point and any opinion or theory is baseless and most likely based on biases in favour of one team or one player over another. However, Zidane is not the calm, cool, and collected player his fans claim him to be. He has often exploded into spontaneous acts of violence including headbutts and stomping on players with a clear attempt to injure. While Zidane may have been a great player, albeit perhaps a bit overrated, his legacy as a violent offender will probably be remembered alongside his accomplishments. His headbutt to Materazzi was just one in a long list of Zidane offences. To suggest Zidane cost France the World Cup, however, is ridiculous. He was inneffective all game except for the PK and a header that Buffon stopped. Had Zidane taken a PK he may have missed. Certainly, Trezeguet still would have taken a PK and missed. Italy are deserving of their win and it should have actually come in regular time as France's PK came as a result of a clear dive by the French player and Italy did score a second goal which was called offside even though the player who scored was onside and the offside player was passive/inactive; numerous goals have been allowed to stand when this has been the case.

I know by this I sound completely ignorant, selfish, childish, etc., but that's the least of my concern right now. I love Zidane and by him getting sent off with a red card has just put Materazzi as my personal sworn enemy. I cried when I sat there on the floor, watching Zidane walking out of the field. That's just so sad! Is it true that the Italian guy did that to Zidane's nipple?? Disgusting! And what about that lip-reading translation? Is it correct? Why, France could have won!!! 202.73.122.227 10:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The head-butt incident is, as expected, receiving quite a bit of attention globally. But I wonder why Zidane's page needs to have all the up-to-the-minute information? Why don't we wait a few days to see what is concluded from the episode and then put some a short description of the incident. I strongly disagree in having such a large section (in comparison to the rest of the article) for the 2006 world cup and this incident. syim 18:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been made a game out of the headbutting incident: http://www.hyggestedet.dk/index.asp?game=zidane Have fun ;)

hey, man that Zidane headbutting incident was ridiculous even if the italian guy (matzioni or something) said something to him all ya gotta do is ignore it, not headbutt him like a child will of vacnouver

Oh yes... the headbutt incident is now an apparent YTMND fad. It is appropriate to add this in the article? KnucklesEchidna 11:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this headbutt thing might be overused in this article, last I checked there were three pictures, two of the headbutt incident. One of the images I can see why it should be there, but should it really be used as the main pic?

I'm suggesting that the headbutt issue with regards to Zinedine Zidane be moved to a seperate section, where entire transcripts of interviews with Zidane and Materazzi, as well as attempts by lip readers to decipher what was said on the pitch could be documented in full. At least we know that a few lip readers got it right, with their transcriptions tallying with Zidane's latest interview. r4ge 11:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Head butted for the win, france fails yet again

I wonder what the French equivalent of "Butt-Head" would be? Wahkeenah 04:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail

The Daily Mail and several other sources have stated that the remarks were a racial slur based on some lip reader that they apparently hired. I have seen it slightly differently in different sources, but if we can find what the original was, I think its worthy of inclusion. As this is a current event and details can change rapidly, we should be careful to attribute this specifically. Here's the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=395046&in_page_id=1770 savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed elsewhere on this page, but other papers have hired lipreaders with varying results. I think it's noteworthy that newspapers hired lipreaders, but since there's no consensus on what was actually said, I don't think it's worth including the lipreading transcriptions. Also, I wouldn't consider the Mail the most credible of sources. Ytny 04:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would I, if I knew what other papers you are referring to that hired their own lipreaders (as opposed to republishing the lip-reading of another source). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 12:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eventual winners and to achieved

> On August 12, 2004, after France's performance in the Euro 2004, losing to eventual winners Greece, Zidane retired from international football.

This should say "losing to eventual winner Greece" or something like that. Unless football is really special and single teams are treated in the plural, which really makes no sense -- but hey, sports are strange.

> On July 9th, 2006, Zidane became one of only four footballers to achieved the feat of scoring in two different World Cup final matches

"to" is supposed to operate with infinitive form words (achieve), not conjugated ones (achieved).

that said, a lot of the "prose" in this article leaves an editor to be desired.

21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Sports teams and similar can be spoken about both in plurar and singular.

After watching the World Cup, I decided to log on to Wiki and read up on the players (in the USA, it's hard to find soccer/football games on television, so I barely know any of the players)... I came across this page and WOW, I agree with you, this grammar is horrible. I've already started cleaning it up and plan to continue. Srose (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take that nonsense off about what the Italian said. It hasnt been proven yet. First he called him a terrorista now he insulted his family...blah blah blah. Also, I love the article makes it seem like Zidane was just listening to him. It's obvious as hell that they were jarring back and forth. So your telling me that Zidane invited him for a tour of his vineyard and Matterazi said your mother is a terrorist whore???? The way it is written has obvious favoritism towards Zidane. --- -Anyways ya sry that was me that was vandilizing, thought i think some of my info should stay up there, but i totaly agree if you want to remove the whole pwned chest plate thing.-

Talk Page Protection

There seem to be various "new members" or IPs coming in here confusing this talk page with a forum. Wikipedia talk pages are not forums and they shouldn't be. Please leave your feelings about the match at the door and only talk about content relevant to improving the article. If this continues I'll ask an administrator to semi-protect this page.--Jersey Devil 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely correct. There are plenty of chatboards where any man can go and say whatever he pleases. This page is only for discussion about the article. I am an old man, and an American; I know nothing and care less about soccer. I can and will act with complete impartiality to remove any off-topic commentary unrelated to the editing of this page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two self-appointed candidates for godhood now present, more coming up your way soon...

Hah.. funny. thanks for keeping it on the Talk page, too. Kether83 02:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Who removed all of the external links? Zeeg 06:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The external links section was cleaned up here with the motivation "Wikipedia is not a link dump". See WP:EL as regards external links. --Oden 06:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is also not the only source for media on the internet, people need to stop acting like it is. You can't be everything or you become nothing. Zeeg 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Ball Award (vs, yes, Headbutt)

Currently, the text is as follows:

"Despite this [The Headbutt], on July 10, 2006, Zidane was awarded the Golden Ball"

This is intentionally misleading. It should be added that - though the Golden Ball was announced on the 10th - it was voted for *BEFORE* the Headbutt (ie, during Halftime) and, as such, it was not awarded _despite_ the offense, but rather _before_ the offense. 83.132.98.175 13:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree it needs to be corrected and it's clearly strongly misleading (assuming your claim is correct which I don't know), I'm not sure know why you assume it's intentionally misleading. Perhaps it's just a poor choice of wording on your part and you didn't mean to imply the person who wrote that intended to mislead. In any case, there's a good chance the person who added this simply wasn't aware when the voting took place and you should Wikipedia:Assume good faith Nil Einne 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right.

I didn't mean to imply that the person who wrote it was intentionally trying to mislead the reader: I meant that the "despite" is a bit of a weasel word, and - as such - often a bad choice, even when used in a completely impartial way.

Even if the person who wrote the sentence was unnaware of the voting time-frame (which is perfectly natural), they should have been aware that that choice of word may _suggest_ a certain interpretation of the facts.

Specifically, in this context, it could be interpreted by the reader as excusing Zidane's behaviour. "Sure he headbutted someone, but he was still considered the Best Player out of the 736, so it can't be that bad."

Regarding voting taking place at halftime, it can be found on any report of the Golden Ball awarding procedure. [http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking/story.asp?j=154935400&p=y5493598x&n=154936009 This one] is currently at the top of the Google News search. 83.132.98.175 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the voting schedule for the Golden Ball was changed. In 2002, voting was done up to half-time of the final match; this was changed so that voting reflected all 64 games played this year. [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/soccer/specials/world_cup/2006/07/06/bc.eu.spt.soc.wcup.fifa.ap/index.html] --Madchester 14:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will find in most reports that, though the voting time was extended to midnight, by half-time most journalists had voted.

"The vote was done mostly at half-time by journalists & France captain Zidane polled 2,012 points so those who voted for him did so before he head butted another player." [http://www.worldcupweb.com/WCfootball/content/show_article.asp?id=1068&cat=15 Source]

In fact, since by Half-Time the votes had decided the outcome, you will see in the vast majority of sources report that voting was *effectively* done at half-time. (Apparently, nobody expected the subsequent 45 minutes to pull a big upset on procedings, and voted as soon as possible.)

You can confirm this by [http://news.google.com/ Google News]ing it. 83.132.98.175 14:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "voting was done mostly at half-time" doesn't indicate what percentage of journalist chose to vote at that time. It doesn't even indicate if it was greater than a 50% majority, nor does it reflect the voting patterns before and after the headbutt. --Madchester 14:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following part of the sentence I quoted above - "those who voted for him did so before he head butted another player". 83.132.98.175 15:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We don't know the full voting trends of journalists before or after the headbutt. Did Cannavaro receive most of his votes after the headbutt? Disregarding the headbutt, did journalists vote for him after the realization that it was Italy, not France that won the final? Would it have been enough for him to claim Golden Ball instead of Silver Ball. We don't know and we can't assume that "most" journalists indicates a clear majority of votes needed to claim the Golden Ball. See WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. --Madchester 15:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the paragraph to this: "On July 10, 2006, Zidane was awarded the Golden Ball for the best player in the 2006 World Cup. The winner was selected by a poll of journalists covering the tournament; Zidane polled 2012 points, ahead of Fabio Cannavaro, who polled 1977 points.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/5154248.stm] The vote was taken during half time of the final match, before Zidane's headbutt.[http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup2006/story/0,,1817034,00.html]" I thought the despite was slightly misleading, and felt it was definitely worth having the note that the vote was taking before Zidane's headbutt. Is this all right with people or do you think the new paragraph should be altered in some way? Vickser 14:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "In a break with tradition, voting by journalists covering the tournament will remain open until midnight Sunday, with the winner announced at 10 a.m. local time (0800 GMT) the next morning" [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/soccer/specials/world_cup/2006/07/06/bc.eu.spt.soc.wcup.fifa.ap/index.html]

Voting was up to midnight local time, well after the incident. --Madchester 14:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. ESPN, as well as the just cited Guardian, has it as before the headbutt. "The prize was decided by media votes, cast before Zidane was shown the red card."[http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=373632&cc=5901] I'm not quite sure who to believe, but it seems to me that more sources at the moment have it as halftime. Perhaps we should cite two opposing sources and change the sentence to read "Reports vary as to whether the vote was taken before or after the headbutt."

Okay, BBC has it that the vote was "France captain Zidane polled 2,012 points in the vote by journalists mostly carried out at half-time." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/5154248.stm] What seems to have happened is voting started at halftime and was left open until midnight, with many journalists casting their votes before the headbutt. Vickser 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though this is not scientific (and, therefore, inadmissible as justification), if the vast majority (Google News) of reports state voting taking place at half-time - and since the people who voted were the *journalists* themselves - it stands to reason that those who say that voting took place at halftime, voted at half-time.

Which would mean that the vast majority voted at half time.

On a serious note, I would again note the above quote:

"The vote was done mostly at half-time by journalists & France captain Zidane polled 2,012 points so those who voted for him did so before he head butted another player."

It states clearly that he got his votes at half-time. Perhaps the numbers we have been quoting (eg 2,012) are the votes at *half-time* and not at midnight? Can anyone compare with the number of eligible journalists? 83.132.98.175 15:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor point, but an editor has been rewording the article to say that voting for the Golden Ball was close. Per WP:OR, an edit counts as original research if "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"

That is the case here, because the editor is interpreting the facts without citing a reference to support the interpretation. If a reliable source cannot be found that characterizes the voting as close, we should simply state the result of the ballot as reported in the referenced article. --Muchness 08:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slur mention

There were rumors of a slur causing Zidane to lose his cool in '98.[http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup2006/comment/story/0,,1816900,00.html] However, as noted here, there has been no suggestion of that for the 2006 incident yet.[http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup2006/story/0,,1816934,00.html] I changed this in the Trivia section. If anyone has something that says otherwise, please reference it. Vickser 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that the slur was mentioned in the final game section. There's no article cited that says that, so I've removed it. Vickser 15:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how a Saudi Arab can "racially" abuse an Algerian Berber, please enlighten me. Is it not like a German "racially" abusing an Englishman?

I don't understand how Sunni Muslims can go out and round up Shiite Muslims and slaughter them, with the only way of distinguishing targets being looking at the last name on the national ID card (and picking out traditional Shiite last names), but there it is. --Cyde↔Weys 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The slur used by the Saudi player was "harki" which means Algerian who fought for France against Algeria. Some are alleging that this was the one used yesterday. Makgraf 19:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I'm rather surprised that Cyde doesn't think a German can racially abuse an Englishman. Even a Irishman or a Welshman or a Scot can racially abuse an Englishman (and indeed it does happen). To be fair, abuse between Germans and an Englishman is more likely to take on a nationalistic character then a racial character but it doesn't mean racial abuse is not possible. BTW, Arabs are NOT Berber's. Nil Einne 15:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

APPARENTLY ZIDANE WAS CALLED AN "ARAB TERRORIST" BY MATERAZZI... AND THEN HE HEADBUTTED THE FASCIST ITALIAN IN THE CHEST PLATE! Erpals 19:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof that Materazzi is a fascist.

Initially, Materazzi pinched his left nipple. Zidane laughed it off, and as he was running back Materazzi said something else that made him do a 180 in mid-sprint. It if wasn't a racial slur I'll cut off my left one Jaskaramdeep 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The camera didn't get the voice but it got the image. Any lip-reading Wikipedians here? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please! Calling all lip-readers, please can someone tell us what the defender said? --Timtak 01:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to various news articles a Brazilian sports channel, Globo, employed lip-readers to reconstruct the exchange and claim that M called Z's sister a prostitute twice before using an "unamed course word" [http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_sports/view/218322/1/.html].--133.62.200.220 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If my babelfished Italian is to be believed, an Italian News article [http://notizie.alice.it/notizie/search/index.html?filter=foglia&nsid=11986721&mod=foglia&pmk=rss] about a Franco-Moroccan site "livefoot.com" (this URL is not correct) claims that Zidane says that the insult had nothing to do with "Islam or my family" and than he had congratulated M and been forgiven. I wonder if anyone can find the original site. It is French language. --Timtak 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The closest site seems to be http://live-foot.com but it has little about the incident.--Timtak 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Materazzi himself has not spoken publicly about the incident except to deny a claim by Paris-based anti-racism group SOS Racism, made on Monday, that he had called Zidane "a dirty terrorist"." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/france/5164094.stm]19:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Daily Mail (UK)[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=395046&in_page_id=1770] lip-reading (but non Italian/French speaking) expert and interpretters claim that Materazzi called Zidane a "n*****" and then the "son of a terrorist whore," (despite M's denial of the use of the word 'terrorist'). Zidane's mother is reported to be in or visiting hospital at the moment and it is claimed that he is particularly sensitive about her at the present time. I am moving this down to the accusation section. --Timtak 01:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"According to the BBC, (as reported in the Guardian[http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup2006/story/0,,1817551,00.html]) Materazzi said, "I wish an ugly death to you and all your family," and then told Zidane to "go fuck yourself". --Timtak 01:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the London Times newspaper[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,28783-2263995,00.html] "After an exhaustive study of the match video, and with the help of an Italian translator, {Jessica lip-reading expert} Rees claimed that Materazzi called Zidane “the son of a terrorist whore” before adding “so just f*** off” for good measure." (This *may* be the same expert as was employed by the Daily Mail)--Timtak 03:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The UK Sun newspaper [http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/1,,2006310771,00.html] carries 3 theories, "Top lip-reader Marianne Frere revealed the Italian told Zidane - who understands the language after playing for Juventus - a high ball was "not for feccia like you". Feccia is an Italian insult meaning scum or s**t. {Then as Z walked away} "We all know you are the son of a terrorist whore." He added: "Viffanculo". (f*** off)." and (2) "A source close to the Italian squad claimed that after twisting Zidane's nipple, Materazzi asked him: "What, don't you like it?" The French captain replied: "A bit too hard to turn me on." But Materazzi shouted: "Well, I did it that way because I know that's how your mother likes it."" (3) Materazzi’s agent denied any racist slur — and said the attack came when Zidane offered to swap shirts later and the Italian replied: “‘I’d rather take the shirt off your wife.”--Timtak 04:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITV News has just reported that the slur was "I slept with your mother last night" Zindane then walked away at which point Matterazzi then said "Your mother is an Algerian whore" this is when Zidane turned and headbutted him. What upset Zidane was that his mother was taken into hospital yesterday and he was extremely worried about her. This was on the ITV News program at 10:30pm but I can't find an oline reference. (AurgornN 22:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

At this point it;'s all speculation as to what was said and done. Get a bunch of "professional" lip readers and you'll get numerous different interpretations. Already, we have lip readers suggesting it was racist slur and others saying it was something to do with Zidane's mother, sister, and/or wife. Regardless, from reading the news stories stated or referenced above it seems both players are at fault for what happened asthey were insulting each other back and forth. Why blame only Materazzi?

Undue weight

Why so many informations about 2006 world cup and so few about that of 1998 when Zidane won the tournament?--Pokipsy76 15:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment. This page is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry of Zinedine Zidane, with emphasis on both the highlights and lowlights of his career. Breaking out the 2006 World Cup because of its timeliness but neglecting to include the 1998 World Cup, which arguably is what made him a "legend," presents a distorted view of Zidane's career. So does including a picture of the headbutt but not including a picture of Zidane scoring one of his headers in 1998 or performing his spin-o-rama move.

Another possibility would be to condense the 2006 World Cup entry to a couple of paragraphs. The Maradona and Pele entries, for instance, do not break out detail for any particular World Cup. If we use the Zidane article as a precedent, it means that we will need to add a "1986 World Cup" entry to Maradona and a "1990 World Cup" entry for Lothar Matthaus.

Please do not mistake this comment for a defense of The Headbutt. This only goes to improve the balance of this entry. —Aviado 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately many users turn this site into "WikiNews" instead of an encyclopedia. That's why so many biographical articles are very unbalanced and others plain stink. All we can do is try to improve them. ChaChaFut 01:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a kind of encyclopedic digest of the news, rather than news itself. It's true that it's unbalanced from a long-term perspective, but right now the 2006 final game incident is what many people want to know about Zidane. Eventually, we will know what is important in this section and we can condense it, I think, but now is not the time for that. It's good to see that this section is fairly well-documented at least. Documenting the 1998 World Cup is not quite as easy at this time, but expansion of that section will come in time. Canadiana 18:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full ACK! I think users come here *right now* to get a balanced view of what happened at the game. If the presentation of facts is informative and backed up by current news reports and multimedia, people will like it and surely won't mind finding more than they had expected. In fact, the wikinews entry sounds much more journalistic, and that's good! Regarding the long term: Don't worry, the bloat will get shaken out over the next few days/weeks. But as I see it, the headbutt is a rather big issue at the moment (look at youtube.com - they had > 2m views of the headbutt videos in just two days; same on google video - Zidane and Materazzi are pretty much all over the place), so for now, we should do everything we can to have people being thrilled by the comprehensiveness and up-to-dateness of Wikipedia. Zakaria5000 19:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, because its easier to write about recent events. I don't think that we've said too much about the 2006 World Cup, I just think we need to say more about the 1998 (and 2002) Cups. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 12:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

"Zidane is the first and only player to be sent off in two separate non-consecutive World Cup finals (1998 against Saudi Arabia, and 2006 against Italy)." The 1998 final was between France and Brazil. This is incorrect.Smitty Mcgee 16:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not incorrect, I think 'finals' means the whole tournament, as opposed to the 'final', which is the last game.

I'm going to clean that up and switch it to World Cups just so people don't get confused. I'm quite certain that it's correct, but I'll also try to find a source. Vickser 18:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just putting it as "World Cups" would be incorrect because the World Cup includes the qualification process as well. "World Cup finals tournaments" would be more appropriate. Can someone please make the alteration unless there are any objections. I back it it with the second paragraph on this page FIFA World Cup (AurgornN 08:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I could not find any documentation for that bizarre claim (the only player to do it twice, but not consecutively ??), but I reworded it and tried to clarify whether it was talking about the final match or the finals (the tournament). Canadiana 00:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZZ would be the greatest footballer of all times but one thing is lacking patient.

A cameroon player was the first to be sent off in two world cups. I dont have the link. But that info , saying zz is the first, is definitely incorrect.

Inserting pictures into the article

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog or an AP feed. As such, an image of Zidane receiving a red card is not notable enough to be inserted in the article, especially when there is only one other image of him (which is isolated in the infobox). One cannot reasonably expect to see an image of Zidane's headbutt when one does not see images of him at award's banquets when he is receiving FIFA Player of the Year honours or UEFA's Best Footballer of the Past 50 Years. One must put things in perspective. If any picture is inserted in regards to the 2006 FIFA World Cup, it should be of the most notable event, which is obviously him winning the Golden Ball award, not receiving a red card. I'm going to remove the picture and I propose not replacing it without acheiving consensus here on the talk page hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, the most notable event I believe is him headbutting a player, having an image of this as it is his last game of his career I believe is quite important. Yes, it may make him look bad but editors didn't comprise whilst editing Adolf Hitler did they? Sorry that may be a bad comparison.--Andeh 17:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a terrible comparison actually, as you're basically comparing one of the worst human beings in history to a relatively harmless footballer. None of that is really relevant to the discussion at hand, however. You mentioned that it may make him look bad, but that's not really of any such consequence either. We are striving to acheive the highest quality articles that are factually accurate and adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Like I said in my previous post, receiving a red card (even on such a grand stage as the World Cup final) does not overshadow the Golden Ball award nor does it overshadow his being the three time footballer of the year or the best footballer of the past fifty years (I mention these earlier honours, because there are no pictures of the awards, either). His being sent off is definitely notable and worth a mention in the context of the World Cup, but it is not so notable that it deserves a picture when there's only one picture in article besides the headbutt. The insertion of the picture would lend to the notion that the red card was the most notable moment of his life, when it cleary is not. To put things in perspective, out of the hundreds of players who have been involved in the 2006 World Cup, one received the competition's highest individual honour. Dozens have been sent off for red cards. Again, the incident is most definitely notable and should be in the article, but in the proper context. I'd like to note that I'm not a particular fan of Zidane or the French national team; I'm just trying to make sure that the article is not compromised because of contributors' personal feelings and potential animosity to Zidane (such feelings are understandable and valid, as he did commit an egregious error, but an encyclopedia is not the proper forum to vent). hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? Surely you're joking. This has been talked about around the world. It might not be very flattering to him, but it is certainly extremely notable. --Asbl 17:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I made it known that I completely agree that the incident is notable and encyclopedic, but my apologies if I didn't. Again, I agree that the red card in the final (the headbutt) is very notable and should be mentioned in the article, but my issue is with overstating the incident with a picture hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 17:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how that is an "overstating". I cannot agree with you that the headbutting is equal in notability to winning the Golden Ball Award. Even people who did not watch the championship game have seen the head butting clip, but would not have heard of the Golden Ball Award. --Asbl 17:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's reasonable to say that anyone who's watched football before knows what the Golden Ball is. Next, by "overstating", I mean that the incident is sufficiently described in the article and doesn't require a picture. By adding the picture, the article suggests that the headbutt is Zidane's most notable on-field incident. The following is a NPOV statement, as evidenced by his UEFA award for being the best footballer of the past fifty years and his three time FIFA Footballer of the Year awards - Zidane is one of the best, if not the best footballers who has ever played the game. His red card is not his career's defining moment, and as such the picture should be removed so the Wikipedia article doesn't lend to that notion. Furthermore, receiving the Golden Ball is the World Cup's highest individual honour and is by far more prestigious and notable than a red card. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have to disagree with hoopydink. Zidane has had one true accomplishment in his career-winning a World Cup because of his participation and winning the Golden Ball this year. It seems to me that those accomplishments were nullified because of his disgraceful conduct on the field. If you think about it, what could really describe his accomplishments with him in a picture? A Golden Ball, a picture of the French winning the World Cup etc. Somebody also mentioned above, that, that incident is important because it is the ending of his career. It is true that, for everyone that has seen the headbutting, live or not, will remember Zidane as, "ooooh, that guy? The guy who butted some Italian guy in the chest in the 2006 World Cup?" Instead, if he had not headbutted, played hard and maybe win the World Cup, people would remember, "ooooooooh Zidane? The guy who ended his career beautifully with a French win of the World Cup? Oyo321 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the defining moment? It is regretably a big stain on his career. He will forever be remembered by that incident. --Asbl 18:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that one red card does not nullify his being the best footballer of the past fifty years. Sure, the incident was a stain on his career, but is not notable enough to warrant a picture. Please remember that we are trying to write the most factually accurate article. The picture is the only picture of him outside of the infobox and it is definitely not the most notable moment of his life, which the article now suggests. That is the only issue. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you insert a picture glorifying Zidane's career? Also, it isn't the red card that really would nullify his amazing accomplishments. I don't think, and probably anybody would, a red card would be a "stain" on someone's almost clean record. If it was a slide tackle from the behind, thne people would shrug and say, "oh, shouldn't have done that." Its the headbutt that really stays on people's minds. Oyo321 19:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I agree that letting this overshadow Zidane's entire career is not NPOV, I don't think that having a picture does that. A picture doesn't say "this is the most important thing ever," a picture says "this is an informative and important addition to the text." I also, more strongly, don't believe that us not having other pictures in the article is a good reason to remove one that presents a valuable piece of information. The video enhances the effect of the words and article as a whole. It illuminates the action in a way that would otherwise not be possible. I think it's a more important image than any (beyond a primary identifying picture) I could think of. It demonstrates far more than an image of him lifting the '98 World Cup would, even though I don't think that's any reason we shouldn't have an image of him with the '98 cup, if one were available. If a picture is informative and adds to the article it should stay. More pictures can be added later, and there's no need to let the best be the enemy of the good. Vickser 19:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that Mr. Zidane physically attacked anouther player in front of an audiance of at least 1 Billion people. To say that this event, particularly as it just happened does not warrant coverage, especially on the grounds that it would unfairly tarnish his reputation, is silly. What ever happened to letting people see the incident for themselves and allowing them to make up their own mind? Because right now the section on the incident is focused on why he did it, which is very purely speculation. why on earth is that more notable than coverage of the event itself?

As the event just happened, I think we need to keep speculation to a minimum, allow people to see the event for themselves (provide a link), and refrain from adding or taking anything from the section on his legacy for a few weeks untill the situation has settled and become more cleer. --Brandon Warzybok 19:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that we should be careful about overly editing the legacy section until things have calmed down a bit. However, I don't think that really supports the theory that we should not put up the video. If, as you say, the goal is to allow people to see the event for themselves, wouldn't having the image straight on the page be more effective than offering a link which many people will not bother to click on? I think the video provides a far more NPOV version than any description we could come up with. Vickser 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it makes him look bad it doesn't mean it shouldn't be provided. The picture is quite small and is near the bottom of the article. Just because there isn't pictures showing how sucessful he is doesn't mean it prevents his failures being put up does it? I just get the feeling you are defending him and removing a very notable image from the article. Remember, this wasn't just the world cup final this was his final international match.--Andeh 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a picture of him headbutting the player in the main box is a little too much. I agree it would lead people who don't watch the game to think it is all he is famous for. I do support putting the links and picture next to the paragraph about the incident so others can see it. Defining moment of his career: No, you would be ignorant to think that. Important issue: Yes and that is why it should be shown in the article User:K-Flow

I think the vandals were putting it in the info box?--Andeh 19:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with K-Flow, to make that the main picture would be unfair. Can we compromise and allow for a link to a video of the event instead of a picture? that way its not a picture blairing right in the faces of the audiance, but the page does create coverage that allows for people to actually see the event for themselves and make up their own minds. --Brandon Warzybok 19:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were people proposing putting it as the main picture? I would disagree with that. I do, however, think it should go where it was earlier, right next to the description of the incident. Also, I think that while we are debating whether or not the image should have a permanent place, I think it ought to go back to where it was. While we're clearly still working towards consensus, it seems like more votes at the moment are for having it. Would anyone strongly object to me placing it back in temporarily by the section on the 2006 Final? Vickser 19:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Oyo's and Vicksers comments, I think it's probably a good idea to insert some more pictures into the article (the hoisting of the 1998 Cup trophy, a goal being scored, him receiving an award, etc.) and letting the picture regarding the penalty stay (or an external link to the video of the incident), as it will probably be the most talked about penalty of Zidane's career. My only issue was that having the red card incident be the only picture in the article skews the NPOV of the article and leads the reader to infer that the penalty is the most notable moment in Zidane's life/career, when it's obviously not. I'll find some pictures in the upcoming days and I invite anyone and everyone to add some pictures that show the more notable aspects of Zidane's career. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we should review this matter after a few weeks. It seems that people are still very emotional about this incident, afterall the game was played only 24 hours ago. --Windtalker 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This will be one of the most famous images in football and definitely the most famous part of Zidane. Skinnyweed 14:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it was certainly the most notable moment of the match, before penalty kicks, completelty eclipsing Zidane's earlier goal, Henry's relentless 100 minute assault on the pitch after getting almost knocked out, Malouda's beautiful footwork, and of course Materazzi's first goal. It left the second place team without one of the world's best penalty kickers, 8 minutes from the necessity. I definitely don't think it should be the only picture in the article, as the man has done amazing things on the pitch for almost 2 decades now, but it definitely is noteworthy enough to be included. I realize I am late to the current debate.--Josh Rocchio 18:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final game

On July 9, 2006, Zidane became one of only four footballers to achieve the feat of scoring in two different World Cup final matches (he scored twice in the 1998 FIFA World Cup final), sharing the honour with Pelé, Paul Breitner, and Vavá. He scored in the seventh minute from the penalty spot. He nearly headed in the ball during the first period of extra time but it was saved by Gianluigi Buffon. His career ended in disgrace when he was sent off for violent conduct after headbutting Italy's goalscorer, Marco Materazzi, in the chest in the 110th minute. The game ended in a 1-1 draw and Italy won the championship after a penalty kick shootout. His agent, Alain Migliaccio has claimed that a "very serious" comment by Matterazzi provoked the attack.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/france/5164094.stm |title=Zidane blamed Materazzi comment |publisher=BBC Sport |date=[[2006-07-10]] |accessdate=2006-07-10}}</ref> He was the fourth person to have been sent off in a World Cup final and the first to be sent off during extra time.

What is so bad about that? Image too big?--Andeh 19:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its also only fair to include that Matterazzi denied the claims if we want to include the claims of Zidane's agent at all. --Brandon Warzybok 19:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the current version of the text, which I think provides more information. Even if people want to cut some of that out, though, I definitely think we should take out the "in disgrace" bit in "His career ended in disgrace when he . . ." It strkes me as unnecessary editorializing. Vickser 19:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone has put the image back up already, I'll leave it on as I really don't see any reason not to have it up.--Andeh 20:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section has too much speculation and unsubstanciated claims again. If we dont know things for sure at this point i think we really need to leave it out. --Brandon Warzybok 21:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough? Not notable!??! Are you kidding? It's reckoned that a billion people saw that match. And guess what they're still talking about. It's still in the news in England - several front page stories of national newspapers today, both "heavies" and tabloids. Not notable? Do me a lemon. It's one of the biggest football stories ever. "What did Materazzi say" has become the "Who shot JR Ewing" of football. --Dweller 14:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia correction

A minor note but it mentions Zidane was sent off in the 2006 World Cup final in over time. There is no such thing as over time in football, it is called Extra Time.

World Cup Provocation

What languages does he speak- bbc news used a lipreader to see what the Italian defender said to him that meade him headbut the guy- but unless Zidane speaks Italian how could that be- maybe the defender speaks French?

Again, why I want all speculation not confirmed by Zidane or Materazzi not included in this article. --Brandon Warzybok 21:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zidane played in Italy for 5 years of his career, he would understand what materazzi was saying. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He speaks Italian fluently as he was hundred of times the subject of press conferences in Italy during his time w/ Juventus. -- Szvest 12:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist Accusations

It is stated on the page under the 2006 World Cup Finals header that he heard his family was involved in 9/11. This is obviously vandalism and ought to be deleted.

Yes, ive removed that section in my last edit. It was blatant vandalism. I also removed the two claims of what Materazzi said. in a few weeks when people and the sports writers begin to calm down and stop speculating we will better be able to piece together what happened, but seeing as we dont even know what language the players were argueing in to include what one media group is claiming is just not warranted at this point. --Brandon Warzybok 22:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few moments ago some large black letters were displayed lower on the page. They were mixed up so I wasn't able to understand what wass written, but based on the previous comments, it was probably something by some rightwing-extremist. But it looks like somebody removed it now. Thanks.

Because whenever something bad is said it must be from some dirty right winger...

Yes you american fascist go awaty

Being accused of being a terrorist might be an insult in the US or UK that have recently suffered from bombings, but would not be used between a French and an Italian.Krouic 10:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Speculation

since many media outlets are "translating" different comments that are in some cases totaly different from one anouther, i think we really need to remove all speculative comments untill one is confirmed or substanciated in a better way. --Brandon Warzybok 00:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Then again, can we PLEASE give more prottection to this page and leave editing till there is some common sense here? It is ridicolous to have that video put and removed several times. That is NOT representative of zidane carrer's. This is NOT a newspaper, not a link dump, not a tabloid, but a enciclopedia. Our respect for the guy (or hate for what matteers) has nothing to do with his wikipedia entry. --phantom

Possible Vandalism

Under the picture of Zidane's headbutt that were recently added, includes a link to a video clip of the incident on youtube. The creators comments for the video clip on youtube are: "See the stupidity of Zidane as he headbutt's an Italian player for Unknown reasons.". There are dozens of versions of this same clip on youtube, most of which have neutral comments. Is this vandalism and should the link be changed to a version of the clip with netural comments in regards to the incident? -User:pallfy 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support changing the clip, but I doubt it's vandalism. (Full disclosure, I reposted the picture after hoopydink responded to my comment asked if anyone strongly objected if I put it up while we were reaching consensus because it seemed like more people wanted it up than not. I didn't check to see if the link went somewhere biased.) Someone probably just picked it without thinking or noticing the comment. You could try and find out who picked it first and ask them to be careful when linking things, but my guess is it's overkill. If it's a vandal, either he'll strike again and we'll catch him then, if it's not, nothing lost. I'm not enough of a video linking pro to fix this myself (I just looked at how it used to be and copy pasted the stuff dealing with the image from an old version), but I'd encourage someone else to. No point in linking to something biased when there are equally good unbiased sources out there. Vickser 02:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"for Unknown reasons" the unbeatable stupidity is to claim that Zidane headbutted Materazzi without any reason which the "unknown" implies. it was obvious that Materazzi cheated he was holding Zidane (as seen on the video) and he told him things, which can be assumed as cursing. BTW the FIFA has removed the videos from youtube on July 11th 2006.

Double source?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/france/5164094.stm

This link is listed double under the header 'notes'; how does one fix this?
Kevin Hughes 01:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. What you do is, on the first cite, add a name to the <ref> tag, like this: <ref name="Zidane_BBC">. And then on every subsequent mentions, put this in: <ref name="Zidane_BBC" />. Ytny 05:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

meme

Apparaently the headbutt are becoming a meme. What are we going to do with this. SYSS Mouse 03:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing because it hasn't become notable, yet.--Andeh 03:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lipreading transcription

Interestingly this transcription is beginning to pop up widely on the internet:

ZIDANE: "Ordinanza de tirare il costume" (Stop pulling my shirt)
MATERAZZI: "Taciti, enculo, hai solamente cio che merite..." (Shut up f****r, you only get what you deserve)
ZIDANE: "Si e cio..." (Yeah, sure.)
MATERAZZI: "Meritate tutti ci?, voi gli enculato di musulmani, sporchi terroristici" (All of you deserve that, f*****g Muslims, terrorist b******s)

Not even a 2 year old would speak such an Italian. While the contents of the previous transcription could be faithful, those cannot definetely be the the exact words.

Of note, the lip-readings that are mentioned in the article appear to have been done by people who don't understand Italian and so have used intepretors to help them. It would be interesting to see what an Italian lip-reader comes up with although I suspect at least in the short term, it may be rather difficult to find one willing to do so, or at least be publicly named. Actually it would be more interesting to see what Zidane eventually says perhaps. I'm not surprised that he has decided to remain quiet for now. If he were smart IMHO he wouldn't make any public comment until after the outcome of the investigation.Nil Einne 15:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Materazzi, meanwhile, has absolutely denied the terrorist comment. "It is absolutely not true, I didn't call him a terrorist, I don't know anything about that," Materazzi said when he arrived back at an Italian military airfield. "What happened is what all the world saw live on TV," he said, referring to the head-butting. Sjc 06:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored.--Greasysteve13 10:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has some serious NPOV issues. There is no mention of the red card in the legacy section, although this is clearly part of his legacy now.

As far as the lipreading goes, I think we should emphasize that the different papers have different results and, thus, the transcripts are unreliable. I added in the sentence "Several papers have had lipreaders try to interpret what Materazzi said, although they have come up with some very different interpretations." to that effect. If anyone would like to rewrite it, please do so. Vickser 15:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has the world gone mad?

Has everyone found their chance to come up with their own conclusions with no adequate and true theories? Why is it that individuals thrive for their needs and rights through lies, hatred, and racism? Why do people conclude that the insults shared by both parties were racial? There are two issues applied here and these are their roots !

Stereotyping Muslims: Many argues that Zidane proved himself to be a true Muslim through his aggressiveness. It is funny how once a star, Zidane was never referred to as a Muslim, and now that he had shown a little of his bitter side, he has become a Muslim. This is how far our world has been victim of hypocrisy and deception. It makes me sick to hear and see that people believe that "Once an Angel he's all yours, and once a devil he becomes Muslim".

A Window to Vengence: On the other side, people lack to understand that there is enough tension toward Muslims. It irritates me to see that the rumors were said to be "He called him a terrorist" or even better "He insulted Islam and Muslims". If that argument was to happen between Toni and Henry I am sure such accusation would not apply. As a Muslim myself, it is sad to see that with all the struggles encountered by Muslims, they still thrive for more, and that with all the struggle caused by the others, they too crave for more. The part that cracks me up the most is having the media as well as all these noisy people trying to translate by reading lips. Are people going mad? You can't come up with conclusions like that.

My suggestion to this issue is to get an explaination from both Zinedine Zidane, and Marco Materazzi before making up our own conclusions and provoking the world !Lebanese in USA 17:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Nøŗma[reply]

THE SECTION REPORTING THE LIP-READING TRANSCRIPT IS TOTALLY MISLEADING: IT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT THE TRANSCRIPTS AGREE OR COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER. HOWEVER, THERE ARE AT LEAST 3 DIFFERENT VERSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY NON-ITALIAN LIP-READERS (two reported by BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/5169342.stm and one from a brazilian TV channel) - AND THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT: one is wishing the death of Zidane's family, another one is an insult to Zidane's sister.

THIS SECTION SHOULD BE EITHER REMOVED OR COMPLETELY REPHRASED. 131.111.225.73 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above commenter, shouting notwithstanding. Since the lip-reading transcripts vary so wildly, why don't we just say something like,

Several newspapers hired lip-readers to transcribe the exchange between the two players, but with varying results. Since none of them is any more conclusive or reliable than the other, I don't see the point in putting any of all of them in the article. Agree or disagree? Ytny 18:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone find it odd that the papers don't agree but threw several diffrent extremely offensive remarks out, I think this is a case of the media trying to cause (even more) controversy for plubicity24.237.198.91 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zidane photo

Can someone who understand's Arabic confirm that this photo is under the GFDL Image:Zinedine Zidane-ar.jpg? Even better, could someone try and confirm that it was correctly licensed. E.g. if the person who uploaded it was the photographer. If not, try and find where it came from. It looks to me a bit like a professional photo and it's also just a thumbnail so it would be good if we could get more info on it. If you are able to confirm it is under the GFDL, consider uploading it to the wikicommons perhaps and delete the english variant? Nil Einne 15:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of large paragraph

User: Syimrvm just removed the information about what was currently happening with the note that it was unnecessary and that in time a more succint paragraph would suffice. While I agree fully that the paragraph as it was needs to be pared down and fully believe that it will become smaller over time, I think we should discuss this on the talk page and try to get some consensus about what's worth having up now. Vickser 16:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think one short paragraph for the alleged provocation (incl. lip-reading translations) ("dirty terrorist," "prostitute" sister, "terrorist whore" mother, "ugly death to you and your family" and wanting to take the shirt off Zidane's wife instead) and one for Materazzi's refutations would suffice. --Dead men's bells 16:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, it will get smaller and more concise. That's the goal in the long run, after the issue has been clarified by both players and the FIFA commission. As long as there is uncertainty, I think the information out there should be presented here. As stated in the FIFA investigation paragraph, this incident, esp. what was actually said, might lead to Italy being disqualified, so it is pretty important, don't you think? This sort of behaviour is the exact reason why FIFA introduced such a radical amendment to their disciplinary code in the first place. (I don't think they will be disqualified, though - but we'll see) Zakaria5000 16:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following: Vickser 19:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Regarding the substance of the argument, Zidane's agent Alain Migliaccio said, "[Zidane] told me Materazzi said something very serious to him but he wouldn't tell me what."<ref name="zidane_blame">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/france/5164094.stm |title=Zidane blamed Materazzi comment |publisher=BBC Sport |date=[[2006-07-10]] |accessdate=2006-07-10}}</ref> Several papers have had lipreaders try to interpret what Materazzi said and come up with different results. No one transcript has emerged as widely agreed upon.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,28783-2263995,00.html |last = Hughes |first = Matt |title=Read my lips: the taunt that made Zidane snap |publisher=The Times |date=[[2006-07-10]] |accessdate=2006-07-11}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=395046&in_page_id=1770 |last = Hale |first = Beth |title=Revealed: The disgusting abuse that sparked Zidane's fury |publisher=Daily Mail |date=[[2006-07-10]] |accessdate=2006-07-11}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/1,,2006310771,00.html |last = Peake |first = Alex |title=Sick taunt that riled ZZ |publisher=The Sun |date=[[2006-07-11]] |accessdate=2006-07-11}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussball/0,1518,426118,00.html |title=Materazzi räumt Beleidigung ein |language=German |publisher=SPIEGEL online |date=[[2006-07-11]] |accessdate=2006-07-11}}</ref>

Materazzi recounted the incident as follows: "I held his shirt for a few seconds only, then he turned to me and talked to me, jeering. He looked at me with a huge arrogance and said: 'If you really want my shirt, I'll give it to you afterwards'. I replied with an insult, that's true." He denied that the accusation that the comment was racist in nature or that he had called Zidane a terrorist. He also rejected claims that he had insulted Zidane's mother, saying: "I certainly didn't talk about Zidane's mother" because to him "the mother is sacred". Zidane's mother had been taken ill to hospital hours before the World Cup final.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,19757414-23215,00.html |first=Paul |last=Kent |title=Insult was to Zidane's wife |publisher=[[Fox Sports (Australia)]] |date=[[2006-07-12]] |accessdate=2006-07-11}}</ref> According to Materazzi, it was "the type of insults that we've heard before so many times on the pitch, and sometimes we don't even notice it".<ref name="materazzi_ESPN">{{cite news |url=http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=373706&cc=5901 |title=Materazzi admits to insulting Zidane |publisher=ESPN |date=[[2006-07-11]] |accessdate=2006-07-11}}</ref> Zidane's agent has told reporters that Zidane himself will speak on the incident in a few days.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/5169342.stm |title=Fifa Investigates Zidane Red |publisher=[[BBC Sport]] |date=[[2006-07-11]] |accessdate=2006-07-11}}</ref>"

Agree with the above proposal. Much more concise, but just as informative as what's there right now. Ytny 20:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I compressed it some more and tried to outbalance the claims somewhat. Can anyone add the citation for the Gazzetta dello Sport? (after "Materazzi recounted the incident as follows") Zakaria5000 20:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gazzetta reference is unnecesary, as the quote is also in the ESPN article "Materazzi admits to insulting Zidane." Vickser 20:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added a bunch of quotes from the various translations. As per agreement here, I've removed them. As they vary so widely, I don't think we should put up any translations until there's one agreed upon one. Vickser 20:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think they vary "widely" - reports about the alleged "son of a terrorist whore" are all over the place. In this case, I do not regard an interview in a single Italian newspaper as more NPOV than contradictory analyses by forensic lipreaders employed by English newspapers. However, I will wait until Zidane finally speaks out. On a sidenote: You really have to view the front angle video carefully. Materazzi says "Vaffanculo" at the end, without a doubt. Well, I am a final year student of phonetics (not my major, though), but you don't need to be able to transcribe in IPA to realize that. BR and looking forward to how this all turns out Zakaria5000 21:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some new progress

Hi, I am not sure if this article should be included here:

http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2006-07-11_1114278.html Since I am not a Wiki-nerd so some professional may decide it :)

Nice find! I am not a Wiki-nerd either, but maybe his remarks could be referenced in this article: Roberto Calderoli. What do you think? Zakaria5000 19:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting enough article, but it has nothing to do with Zidane directly, so it's not relevant here. Canadiana 20:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find! I am not a Wiki-nerd either, but maybe his remarks could be referenced in the following article: Roberto Calderoli. What do you think? Zakaria5000 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new archive?

I think there should be a new archive on this talk page.. getting really long..

Italy and disqualification

The paragraph on the possiblity of Italy being disqualified from the cup due to Materazzi's insult, strikes me as extreme wishful-thinking on someone's part, even if a German publisher got in on the act. Were FIFA to disqualify a side, based on an insult hurled on the pitch, it would be a significant scandal. Were FIFA to take back the Cup from the winning side based on such an occurrence, would be an event which would shake the sport of football to its foundations. I think stronger sources should be found for this sort of speculation before it goes into Wikipedia. --EngineerScotty 20:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed this too. I don't think the paragraph should be in there. Nobody that I've seen (ESPN, Guardian, BBC Sport) has picked up on this, and those are all papers that would mention this if it were at all feasible that Italy would lose the world cup. I think we should remove the paragraph, or just say there is the possibility of harsh sanctions. Vickser 20:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just read this on ESPN: Suggestions that Materazzi's remarks may have been vile or racist in nature have raised the issue of whether he should face some sort of retrospective action himself. Tournament organisers FIFA have given no indication they might pursue such a line but English referees chief Keith Hackett sees no reason why such a principle should not be established. Hackett told BBC Radio Five Live: 'They are reluctant to take action after the game but here is a situation where, if there is proof, for the good of the game, action should be taken. 'I am pleased the Football Association, in May, wrote a circular to all clubs, through the PFA and LMA, reminding everyone that racist remarks constitute a sending-off offence.' [http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=373706&cc=5901] Zakaria5000 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's discussing the possibility of banning or fining Materazzi, not taking the World Cup back from Italy. If there was any reasonable chance of Italy losing the World Cup, that would be an enormous story and that would have been mentioned as an explicit possibility by the press. Talk of sanctioning Materazzi is an entirely different matter. The disqualification paragraph is, I maintain, overly alarmist. Vickser 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I commented out the section, pending stronger sources. (Note that sanctions against Materazzi are a far different matter than sanctions against Italy). --EngineerScotty 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem... the article 55 has only 3 paragraphs (where's the 4th paragraph?):

That's what amendments are for. I have linked the revised article 55, it is commented out. Zakaria5000 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other note; the article contains the word "publicly". Is a taunt uttered on the pitch public? --EngineerScotty 21:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 4 is here: [http://www.fifa.com/documents/media/Revision%20Article%2055%20FIFA%20Disciplinary%20Code.pdf]. It would seem to indicate that it is theoretically possibly for Italy to lose the World Cup over this, however, as were yet to see the possibility mentioned in any reputable news source, I think it's alarmist and inaccurate to include it. Vickser 21:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI regarding "reputable news source": Der Spiegel (quote: "Der Spiegel has a long track record of uncovering political misconduct and creating scandals, earning itself the moniker "Sturmgeschütz der Demokratie" (assault gun of democracy)") - please compare this to La Gazzetta dello Sport (quote: "much of the journalism is speculative and sensationalist rather than the pure reporting of matches") Zakaria5000 21:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unhidden the part about the changes to FIFA's laws. While we don't have a source other than Der Spiegel on the disqualification, the changes to FIFA' rules are reported by FIFA itself and are pertinent to what will happen if its investigation finds the use of racial slurs without actually including any speculation. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 21:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is outregeous how people speculate on issues without any documentation. The allegation on the possiblity of Italy being disqualified from the cup due to Materazzi's insult does not have any logic. Are there any link to articles or news about that??? NO. So PLEASE REMOVE THAT ABSURD personal opinion! --- zip

The section in question is fully sourced. It doesn't make the claim that it's a real possibility or not a possibility, just that German newspapers have speculated on the possibility. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 05:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some random german newspaper speculated about it does not make it worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not be filled with absurd opinions found in sensationalist tabloids. The one who wrote the paragraph probably did not want Italy to win and is just putting his whishes (which are probably the same of the german newspaper because Italy defeated them in semifinals). Insults in the pitch is part of football. It is a common tactic to try to break the concentration of the rival.

It may be fully sourced, but it gives a false impression that this is a serious possibility. It needs to be edited to say that NO ONE ELSE has reported this.

The amended FIFA article states that if the contemptuous actions of a player, spectator, or official "can be attributed to a certain team" then the sanctions can be imposed. But, the chances of Italy actually getting disqualified are nil for several reasons. First of all, the scandal created would be enormous, especially in light of FIFAs "say no to racism" campaign. Second of all, how do you attribute Materazzi's action to the whole team? And finally, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that any racial slur was ever used (not to mention that Zidane has denied that Materazzi's comments were racist). The only two people who know what was said were Materazzi and Zidane, and naturally both of them are going to try and save face: Zidane by making it seem that what was said was much worse that it really was and Materazzi by trying to downplay his comments. There is no chance that such drastic measures would be taken with a total lack of conclusive evidence. The Der Spiegel article, makes it seem as though it is a fact that a racial slur was used. In fact, all available evidence suggests that isn't the case. It think the article on Zidane should be edited to remove the comment about disqualification until there is conclusive evidence that such an action is a distinct possibility. I have to agree with many of the comments above: as reputable of a publication as Der Spiegel is, it seems as though it is just sour grapes and overly wishful thinking on their part to even suggest that such action be taken.

Photos (Looking for a link)

Are there any high quality photographs of the incident, or even a website that has quality photos of Zidane/ the final? Thanks.

Try browsing football forums and asking this question. This is not a football forum. (AurgornN 17:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Aftermath section

The inclusion of "aftermath" reactions seems a little biased. It suggests to the reader that nobody is upset about it and everything's hunky-dory for Zidane, when several people have spoken out against it, including the Brazilian coach calling him a 'monster.'

Moreover, there's been no mention of the FRENCH reaction - and by that I mean more than just the president. The newspapers have soundly condemned the act: http://www.utvlive.com/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=32550&pt=s Dead men's bells 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. It does sound biased. Feel free to modify or add what you deem adequate. Zakaria5000 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edited, trying to include some of the negative reactions. I'm not a pro at this, obviously, so revise as needed with formatting and what not. Dead men's bells 02:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that now there's only mention of the french reaction: Chirac, le Figaro, l'Equipe, a "french advertising executive". Moreover, I think there's still need to include some negative reactions, since l'Equipe basically retreated, leaving le Figaro's as the only critical voice in the whole section. --Blindscape 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(A) Why didn't he go back on the pitch? Because a red-carded player must leave the pitch and not return.

(B) neither Ali, nor Jesse Owens or Pele "broke the rules the way you did." Anyone remember when Ali called Joe Frazier an "Uncle Tom?"

I was just quoting the newspaper. If there's a consensus supporting the desire to including a refutation to the newspaper's assertion that Ali wasn't unbiased and that he wasn't allowed to come back on the pitch (is that true even post-game? I trust that's what you meant, I just wasn't aware of it), edit it by all means. I was just quoting. --Dead men's bells 06:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When one is red-carded one has to leave the arena of play and an automatic one-game suspension is in force (except in England, whose rules differ from those of Fifa on the matter - in other words, in England the suspension can be appealed). As the awards ceremony, etc. is still part of the match he couldn't attend it. Also, I am pretty sure that he commiserated with his fellows the day after when they were feted by Chirac.

Pointing out Ali's statement was a way of deflating the hype about this a bit.

Provocation overhaul needed.

Sorry to be a pain in the ass, here, but the provocation speculation is just that - speculation. I don't have a problem with including supposed translations as long as which are reported isn't subjective. "Son of a terrorist whore" is what's there now and it's by far the most offensive of the purported insults, with no mention of the far more benign "I'd rather take the shirt off your wife." Either don't give possible insults at all until more information comes out or include more than the worst one.--Dead men's bells 02:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree it might be wise to include more comments, I think we need to be clear that the terrorist whore comments appear to have the most credibitility at the moment. Reason being because from what I've heard, two different papers have claimed they used independent lip-readers who came up with the same allegations/comments. One of those lipreaders is supposedly a forensic lip reader who has been used in court before. While it's true neither of these lipreaders AFAIK could understand Italian and I believe someone did use a lipread who could understand Italian who came up with different comments, I think most would agree that two independent lip-readers coming up with the same comments and especially when one appears to have experience in lipreading in such situations has the most credibility. Also for better or worse, the terrorist whore comments have been the most widely reported. (OT but Materrazi isn't helping himself by making stupid comments either. Claiming he doesn't know what a terrorist is hardly gives him credibility) Nil Einne 06:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, they have been, but if you look through the news articles added in the last few hours, there's a drastic increase in articles purporting it was an insult toward his wife. I understand that it's the most widely reported at-the-moment, but it's far from unheard of from earlier reports to be inaccurate in any given circumstance. There just isn't enough information about the lip-reading to warrant a single overriding explanation; there are thousands of "experts" who testify in trials in all countries whose credentials are far less than their title of "forensic expert" would suggest. Also, lip-reading is controversial in itself because of the variety of different phrases that can result in the same lip movement - a point that Wikipedia made on their lip reading page. Will it come out that he called him the son of a terrorist whore? Maybe, but it's just conjecture at this point and including it and only it because the newspapers seized on the most shocking interpretations is giving too much credit to sensationalism. It's possible, but it's not the only thing that is, and anyone in the field of lip-reading would tell you that relying on non-Italian interpreters brings up a whole lot of new problems.

I made an edit in the lipreading section saying that the interpretations "ranged from racist remarks about Zidane and his family to an inappropriate comment about his wife." That doesn't delete the "terrorist whore" comment further down on the page, but I think it's supremely fair to make it clear that not all of the purported interpretations are racist in nature. (As for the comment on Materazzi's not knowing what a terrorist is, I think that's subjective and that the version posted is misleading. The one I'd originally posted says he doesn't understand the full meaning of being an Islamic terrorist because he isn't very cultured. Questionable, certainly, but hardly what I'd call "stupid.") --Dead men's bells 06:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Materazzi has addressed the reports suggesting he called Zidane "terrorist" makes the alleged comment which he is accused of making itself worthy of inclusion. As far as him not knowing what a terrorist is is concerned, that is not speculation, but a quote. I've changed that sentence to be a direct quote rather than a paraphrase.--DaveOinSF 07:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian coach's comments

I appreciate we are just accurately reporting the Brazilian coach's comments but could someone perhaps find some reference or other that points out that Zidane was technically not allowed back onto the field due to the red card? I have seen other people who are apparently unaware of this fact and the fact that even the Brazilian coach is either unaware or considered it okay for Zidane to further break the rules by coming back on to the field suggests we should at least make it clear that Zidane was not allowed back onto the field, whether to console his teammates, collect his medal or collect the World Cup if France had won. Nil Einne 06:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, where in the article does it say that the Brazilian coach thought he should go back on the pitch? The only comment I see is the "monster" one. --Dead men's bells 06:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I read the whole section a bit to fast perhaps and/or I didn't quite remember what had been written. Indeed it was not the coach that commented on Zidane should have gone back on to the pitch and as far as I can tell, the article never suggested he did. Instead it was Le'equipe which has now apologised for their remarks [3] Nil Einne 08:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole issue regarding Zidane being called a "Monster", has been taken out of context. Carlos Alberto Parreira (Brazilian Coach) did call him a "Monster" but that only after the game against Brazil. Referring to his soccer abilities and not to the whole headbutting episode. Refer to the link below (in the part titled "WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT ZIDANE"): [http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/teams/france/5147908.stm]

I removed the part which stated the Brazilian coach called zidane a monster after the headbutiing incident.True, he was called a monster by Alberto Carlos, but only after Brazil's loss to France and definitely not after the final and most definitely not in a negative context.--Sagacious 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what about video refereeing on Zidane's headbutt??

this is forbidden by the FIFA and it's yet unclear if the 4th referee did use the giant screen or not. witnesses have seen the 4th referee watching the screen, while the concerned person claims he didn't.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.228.0.86 (talk • contribs)

It has been addressed elsewhere (Horacio Elizondo, for example) and I personally don't think it's an important enough an issue for this article. I don't think anyone other than Domenech has argued this, and both FIFA and the fourth referee deny using video replay.[http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=373704] It looks like a dead issue and I don't think it's noteworthy enough for any article that doesn't deal specifically with officiating.Ytny 09:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think anyone other than Domenech has argued this" :) watching the match on french tv; the commentators have reported this too, hmm, Domenech was not the only person watching the match i think. thanks for the link, as still yet a theory, the importance is quite low, and if he did (and i don't know about that), Luis Medina Cantalejo cannot admit he has watched the screen, not only because this is unlegal but also because it would create a legitimate polemical about Zidane's red card. i think we'll learn more about this after the FIFA's probe and Zidane's speech today. also it's unfair that Zidane was send-off while Materazzi who cheated and insulted another player was considered "innocent". 213.228.0.86 10:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I was watching in a pub, so I didn't hear what the commentators were saying, you're right that Cantalejo would not admit to using video evidence. I guess it's officially a dead story, but if you can find sources other than Domenech arguing the case, it might be worth noting. Still, I still don't know if it's worth including in this article. Ytny 10:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The English commentators reported it as well. Also, Henry has suggested video was used [http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=86&objectid=10390661] Nil Einne 07:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relative importance

since "this is not a message board" this is not yahoonews neither! the section about Zidane's headbutt is way too important on the article! his whole carrer is near as long as the headbutt, this is nonsense and unlegitimate. a single event doesn't need a such close up and must be reduced. 213.228.0.86 10:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are coming here for this at the moment. In a few weeks when it's all over, it'll be reduced to a smaller blurb. At the moment, however, it's current and complex. --Dead men's bells 14:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Zidane protected

answer below because he is good because he loves me

Stripped of Golden Ball?

It might be pertinent to include a mention of the possibility of Zidane being stripped of his award. It's all over CNN because of Blatter's statement. --Dead men's bells 14:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC reported it too. I added in a comment and reference to their article.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2006/5169342.stm] Vickser 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much focus on 2006 World Cup incident

Zidane's carreer as one of the greatests footballers of all time spanned much farther than the 2006 World Cup. It seems to me as if there is much too much focus on the headbutt incidident in this article. It doesn't make any sense that the section on the 2006 World Cup is one-third of the entire article. In a few months people will remember Zidane for his footballing genius, not the head-butt. Too much focus on it in this article. Should there not be a more organized way to balance the article? Xioyux 15:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He headbutted an opponent during the most popular sports event in the world, which was watched by a 1.2 billion people audience. That's a pretty notable thing to do; it deserves all the attention it gets in the article. If you feel the balance in the article is lost, perhaps you can restore it by expanding other sections. But I do not believe the space given to the headbutt is excessive. 62.194.23.55 16:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too would say that as the article is written now, this incident takes up far too much space. It also contains a lot that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia - speculations, lots of quotations from newspaper columnists, etc. If somebody want to read the latest speculations, there are lots of online newspapers to read. Battra 17:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Much of this doesn't belong here. Xioyux 17:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is obviously got out of control. Way too much attention to the incident. Way too focused on the WC2006... I still don't understand the need to include that image. Yes, all the media is having fun about it, but should wiki do so as well? Im not even a fan of zidane, but lets try and be objective, this is way out of proportion. How many more subtitles are you guys going to include in his article regarding the incident? Leave personal feelings aside. This is an enciclopedia not a tabloid! User:phantomcr

There's a lot of speculation because no one's spoken out yet. It's a current event. Of course it'll be pared down to a smaller section when everything comes out. Sheesh, it IS a big deal. 67.169.111.72 18:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZIDANE WINS !!!

- - Someone stated there was too much focus on the head-butting incident. Yes, The incident was a negative to World Cup, to France, and to Zidane. But!! He has hurt Italy most. The great focus on the incident has hurt Italy most. Let’s assume that France lost the world cup by shoot out anyway. Lets assume that Trezeguet would still miss his shot. Then what?! The 2006 World Cup tournament would be stacked with the other World Cup tournaments in the vault. People would forget that France played better then Italy in the final. Zidane changed all that.

- - The honest truth of the matter is, Zidane would have left the world cup in respect sure, one of the greats. But now he has left Football in a phenomenally grand spectacle. A grand spectacle befitting a gladiator. Zidanes calm demeanor, his gentlemanly-ness made this possible. If it were Materazzi head-butting Zidane, it would be totally different. Zidane will never get the negatives that Mike Tyson got for biting Holyfield's ear. This is not to say Zidane did the right thing, but sometimes the wrong thing makes one famous.

- - Zidane has not weakened his reputation, rather he has solidified his legacy and only hurt Italy's joy of the win. All will remember France in the 2006 World Cup, all will remember Zidane. People for decades to come will read “Zidane” research his videos and remember his magic. Not only have people been researching the Zidane head-butt, but by circumstance have been watching Zidane’s Greatest Goals, or Zidane’s Magic, or Zidane’s Ball Control, or Zidane: The Greatest Footballer. Maybe he was the greatest maybe not, but his head-butt has made him a contender for that title. Anyway you look at it Italy has not been able to reap the true glory of the win. Zidane wins. --by BB--

Why is this relevant? This isn't a Zidane fanboard, nor is Marco's wiki talk page a Marco fanboard. Can we please stick to the article? Dead men's bells 07:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canal+ Interview

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

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

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

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

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

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

[http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/sport/20060712.FAP8835.html?1816 PARIS (AP)] -- Zinedine Zidane has affirmed yesterday evening that the Italian defender Marco Materazzi had insulted his mother and his sister during the World Cup final that was lost by les bleus Sunday evening. Though he apologized ["Je m'excuse"], he said on Canal+ that nevertheless he could "not regret" his action. (...) Materazzi had said "very personel things" about "my mother, my sister", Zidane explained. There were "words that were very hard and that he repeated several times", words "sometimes harder than actions (...) that touched the deepest part of me." "I would have preferred to take a right on the face over hearing that," the former captain of the French team added. "It was an action that was not excusable and I wish to apologise above all to the children who may have watched it" ... (Feel free to improve my hasty translation) David Sneek 18:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The Geneva Tribune has this description, which partially corroborates the Corerriere della Sera[http://www.tdg.ch/tghome/toute_l_info_test/sports/zidane__13_07_.html]:

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

Which I've translated as:

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

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

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

Criminal Charges?

Has there been any mention of criminal charges for Zidane's assault on Materazzi? Or does law not apply to athletes on the field?

Re: The law always applies. There was a case a few years back where a hockey player in the USA attacked another player on the ice and was charged with assault. However, I have not yet heard about possible charges against Zidane. Manus Celer Dei 19:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zidane says insults were not of racist nature

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

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

ZIDANE: "non..."

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

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

Which translates into (god, how hard!):

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

ZIDANE: "no..."

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

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

131.111.225.73 21:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and for anyone (who understands french and is) interested in the video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSA_I-nFXOU here it is] at youtube. Darn I dont understand French. --Oblivious 01:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

My translation of that article's pertinent paragraph:

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

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

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

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

I agree that it should be mentioned. The answer "no" was clear. If it is not mentioned the reader believes that there is still room for speculation about the racist content, which is not the case. Read here today's Corriere's published article who repeats the "no" [http://www.corriere.it/edicola/index.jsp?path=SPORT&doc=ZIDA] Orbifold 06:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Other sources confirming Zidane's denial of racist insults:

from Le Parisien:

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

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

from Il Corriere:

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

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

F4810 11:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This:

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

has been removed from the article appearing on Le Monde, which was probably also the source for the Swiss newspaper. I think there is little doubt left that Materazzi's insult was a racist one. 193.62.198.107 15:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad link

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

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

The "Ben, oui" answer

I removed this from the article:

Asked if Materazzi had called him "the son of a terrorist whore" (referring to an analysis by deaf forensic lip reader Jessica Rees), Zidane replied: "Ben oui" (Well, yes)

The reasons are:

1) A source is not provided. The primary source would be Le Monde, but (as someone noticed at the end of section "Zidane says insults were not of racist nature") they have removed this sentence from their article (still accessible)... All the other newspapers were citing Le Monde.

2) This contradicts Zidane's denial of racist insults, which is reported by Le Parisien (http://www.leparisien.com/home/sports/mondial2006/article.htm?articleid=261030842), by several italian newspapers, and can be heard clearly in his interview with TF1.

F4810 19:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a source for that quote, it's still there (footnote 29: [http://www.tdg.ch/tghome/toute_l_info_test/sports/zidane__13_07_.html]). But I agree it's a bit suspect. I watched both the Canal+ interview and the TF1 interview and I didn't hear that question. David Sneek 20:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You're absolutely right. Neither interview has the phrase quoted in Le Monde. What CAN be clearly heard is Zidane's denial of the racist comments, and I'm going to update the article to reflect that. If anyone can find either video or independent evidence of his agreeing his mother was called a terrorist whore (which I can't imagine he WOULDN'T consider racist, but that's irrelevent - I'm quoting his "no" to racism response, not saying he said "My mother has not been called a terrorist "whore"), it can be added, but as it stands there's one newspaper and a bunch of people who copied from it, despite the fact that the interview video it's purported to be in doesn't contain it. Dead men's bells 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's speculation at this point. We don't know if he said it wasn't racist because a) he didn't interpret terrorist as racist or b) because terrorist just wasn't said. Zidane may have reacted to his mother being called a whore and his sister a prostitute. Not cool things to do, obviously, but the terrorist is the key word because it's what will make a difference between a shameful offense and a punishable violation of non-discrimination policies. Hopefully Zidane will clear this up during the FIFA hearings.Dead men's bells 05:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zidane's Mother's Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zidane denies that remarks were racist?

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

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

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Zinedine Zidane/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Well done with references in most places, however, there are some sections that still need inline citations. Also, try working the trivia items into the prose of the article. plange 23:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)