Talk:Marco Materazzi/Archive 1

NOT Regarding Zidane's headbutt

i do believe that Materazzi is one of the most violent palyer of the game. Remember this AC-Inter game where he elbows one guy just before kicking another in his deepest intimity. Some scenes of his career should be rated above 18. An interesting stat would be the number of red card he got ?Kekel 10:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The folowing video show for what Materazzi is the best known. To have players like him world champions is a disgrace for football.

[[[1] [2]]]

Hard version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpG4AHlZrL4

Another proof of Materazzi's violent behavior. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gyu8W1g2co The commentators themselves insist on it being intentional. Look at how badly this elbow was.

also remember that vile elbow on juan pablo sorin of villarreal.

The elbow attack is shown in the link above. It should be in the main article, so I put it there but was reverted by User:Panairjdde, who has reverted several edits to the article but not so far (see User_Talk:Panairjdde) supplied a valid reason for reverting mine. My knowledge of football is insufficient for me to pursue an edit war on the matter, but if the link is not to be in the main article then I would like to see a valid reason why not. Viewfinder 16:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You should also say you failed to give a reason for adding it, as well as you should say that I reverted it because of your poor editing and presentation of the fact.--Panairjdde 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Poor presentation was not the reason you gave for reverting my edit at the time I wrote the above. Expect it back soon with better presentation. Viewfinder 18:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC) As a matter of interest, does anyone reading this know if Materazzi was carded for the Sorin incident? Viewfinder 19:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/ simply glorifies violence and anything on that site extracts violent acts and presents then for your viewing (dis)pleasure. Those Materazzi incidences are isolated, misrepresented, and taken out of context and simply make him look violent. The same type of editting can be done regarding Zidane, Rooney, or any other player. It proves nothing about the player in question. You could isolate video of Materazzi scoring and suggest he's a major attacking force even though he only has a few goals to his credit.

I don't think the you tube links on this page "glorify" violence, although they do expose it. Still, the commentary on the Sorin incident may have been over the top, I don't think the "assault" allegation was fair. So I have decided not to contest the deletion of the youtube link to this from the main article. But the Zidane provocation incident would appear to me to be very serious indeed and attempts by some commentators to dismiss it as "just an incident", or, even worse, to laugh it off with jokey fantasies, are misguided. Most people, especially competitive sportsmen, have finite tolerance levels and the deliberate playing on these to get the best players in opposing teams sent off is nothing less than disgusting. Viewfinder 15:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it very surprising that Materazzi's "uber-hostile" style of play is barely mentioned. Also, this article stinks of POV. Almost sounds like a Materazzi Fansite! Try to tone down the "Materazzi Rocks" style of writing. --59.93.244.237 03:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Zidane's headbutt

I think we should wait for an actual quote from a French player or Zidane himself before even mentioning any alleged "racism".

In this source [3] it just says "FOXSports.com's Jamie Trecker reports that French players told French media members that Materazzi used a racial slur which prompted the headbutt."... it doesn't state which players said this or even a direct quote, its pure speculation.

Lets wait it out and see what Zidane claims the reasoning was first before branding a player "racist" without any proof. - Deathrocker 07:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

When a news reporter says something happened it's more than "pure speculation". It may be second- or third-hand, but the reported said that something actually happened. Lets do the decent thing of presuming that a news reporter (even Fox) isn't just making it up. DJ Clayworth 18:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What planet are you living on DJ? Reporters lie and fabricate all the time.88.105.118.211 23:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

even trecker? Nateji77 06:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is disgraceful. Everybody knows that Zidane will probably not confirm anything regarding the incident, just as he did not regarding the Saudi player previously. Stating that as the sole criteria for including the information is absurd. THere are many other possible sources. If we get quotes of ALLEGATIONS then a statement that there were such allegations should be included, considering the importance of the match in which the incident occurred. Not only that, but all discussion of the incident has been censored from the main discussion page, labeled as "idle" and the article has been locked. But I do not see any evidence that the people who are locking the page, and deleting the discussion, are any more objective or trustworthy than anybody else. This page is clearly being run by Inter or Italian fans with no objectivity on the matter whatsoever. THere is also more than a hint of rascism in considering the entire matter idle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.101.252 (talk • contribs)

---

Whatever, you guys are like watching this page like big time. relax, get a life, it was just an incident. He doesn't care, he just did it and that's that. He can't go back in time and change that. It was distined to. Geez, big deal. The news will fade out in like a few days. I just don't get why you guys make a big deal. [[4]]

Please, only talk about the article, and not about whether it was disgraceful or not. Killfest2 09:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Just an incident, he just did it and that's that" - sorry, I beg to disagree. I think that it is very important that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth passes into the public domain. We have all seen what Zidane did, and he was quite rightly sent off for it. But what, if anything, did Materazzi do/say to provoke the incident? Viewfinder 10:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the provocation comment with a more reputable source, Zidane's agent. Xombie 17:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How to abuse of a source - POV

Mr. Xombie inserted this statement:

Later in that game he was involved in an off-the-ball incident; he was headbutted in the chest by Zinedine Zidane, who, according to Zidane, was provoked by Materazzi insulting the French player.[link]

Now, what would you expect from that link? That there is Zidane saying that Materazzi insulted him, of course. I noticed the link and said, "Oh, Zidane finally broke his silence and gave his POV on the matter, let's see", but — surprise! — the link was reporting the already known statement by Zidane's agent, according to whom Zidane does not want to say anything else than the fact that Materazzi told "something very serious". So I changed to:

Later in that game he was involved in an off-the-ball incident; he was headbutted in the chest by Zinedine Zidane, who, according to Zidane's agent, was provoked by Materazzi saying "something very serious" to the French player.[link]

And what happens next? That Xombie — surprise! — reverts my edit, claiming that "The agent was quoting Zidane, and "something very serious" implies insult." My compliments to Xombie for the way he can twist a source to make appear what he wants, not what the source says! I demand the text to be amended to show the truth, not Mr. Xombie's POV.--Panairjdde 18:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no POV. If you read the source, the agent is saying what Zidane said, and "something very serious" cannot possibly mean anything else in this context other than an insult. My wording is much more clear and in no way POV. Xombie 18:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My text says exactly what the source reported, so why are you changing it with your version, which is an elaboration and interpretation by yourself?--Panairjdde 20:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I side with Panairjdde. ABart26 10:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Dirty terrorist? What the hell does that mean? --80.116.137.150 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume that something was lost in translation, unless Algerians are, for some reason, particularly offended by that vague insult... -XI

I expect "Dirty terrorist" is an oblique reference to the allegations that Zidane's father was a harki, ie an Algerian collaborator with the French colonial authorities. EdwinGreenwood 11:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And you think Materazzi was aware of these 'allegations' do you? You think Materazzi even knows what a 'Harki' is? Tsssst88.105.118.211 23:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Zidane and Materazzi are both senior footballers playing at premiership and international level. I expect they are well aware of each other and each other's reputation. Whether or not Materazzi knows the precise expression harki, it is entirely plausible that he would know of these allegations and might use them as a means of deliberately inciting Zidane. EdwinGreenwood 11:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Materazzi might not know the exact specifics of Zidane and his ancenstry, but he probably does know enough to realize that terrorism would be a sensitive issue for someone of Algerian descent. I think the point is shown by alledgedly calling him a terrorist, despite the fact that a harki is a collaborator. There is a long history of French/Alegerian violence in Alegeria and at home in France. If a harki is a collaborator, why would he commit acts of terror? A harki would support the colonial regime, so it wouldn't make any sense to call him a terrorist.216.7.72.130 14:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde appears to have committed vandalism on my point regarding a rather infamous own goal scored by Materazzi. I am reverting this and putting this part back in the article. It is important to note major errors of players. Furthermore, since less wikiphiles follow Serie A, this section is in fact very infromative. Do not delete this one again, it is not irrelevant, it is an important error by Materazzi. It occurred very close to the World Cup and was cited many times by Inter Milan as a reason why Materazzi was a second team defender for their side. It was also used by Italian fans in the run up to the World Cup, as a basis for why Materazzi should not be included. Perhaps, you may not know this because you don't follow Serie A. - Nlsanand

First of all, be very careful when you call other's edits "vandalism". You introduced a reference to a useless information, and I removed it. Now, if you want it, discuss here, but do not call my edits vandalism. The info is a minor issue (defendes often score own goals) and blatantly POV in its formulation: "he also scored one of the most comical own goals in Serie A history, when he managed to put it in his own from near the halfway line, in a match against Empoli". Removed.--Panairjdde 11:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Guy, you haven't even appeared to have read the reference as it is a match report from the game. It was not a useless reference. It is also not commonplace for a defender to score from his own halfway line. I don't know what league you play in if you think it is. Now look I will admit I am on the more liberal side of admitting things into articles, however your deletion was unwarranted. I will point out there is a reference to Materazzi scoring a penalty in the World Cup Final. Is that a major incident? 5 players scored such a penalty for Italy alone! Now listen, I am willing to exclude the "most comical" as it does tend to have POV. However, this incident should be included. My local Serie A recap show called it the worst play of the year. I am sorry if I called it vandalism on your part. However, you essentially did not read my contribution and make a thoughtful edit, you simply deleted it! I will listen to your feedback on this matter. I am more than willing to change it, but please do not randomly delete others' work just because you have failed to understand the gravity of it. Thanks! - Nlsanand

I wouldn't mind (as an Inter fan myself) to see report of the own goal, and even to see it called one of the most comical. I guess only one of Riccardo Ferri's 8 own goals (the one in "rovesciata") can beat Matrix's own goal! - 81.208.106.65 06:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was one of the greatest own goals in football history. Maybe a link to a video should be included in the external links section: [5], [6]. David Sneek 11:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Aight, I am going to revert thanks to the help of David Sneek and his wonderful link. I am not going to say "the most comical" as Panairjdde feels it is not NPOV, and God knows he is very hard to please, judging by how many counts of deletion he has performed. Instead, I will say only "comical". But Panairjdde, please do not touch this again, as it really is useful to anyone wanting to learn more. Thanks! - Nlsanand

As a schoolboy, I was rightly told off for laughing in response to an own goal. I do not think the word "comical" is appropriate. It seems to me that he intended to pass the ball back to his goalkeeper but overhit the ball over the goalkeeper's head - an unfortunate error of judgement. I also think that the link is of insufficient importance to be in the main article but I will leave that to others to decide. Viewfinder 22:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Aight Viewfinder, would you consider having it in the trivia section? - Nlsanand

Zoro incident

From my talk page:

If you look at the original context in which I relayed the incident between Zoro and Materazzi, it was not phrased as proof that Materazzi is racist, but rather a highly relevant incident; additionally, it is not rumor, but rather something that Zoro relayed himself as being told by Materazzi (as described in the article). I respect your desire to avoid branding someone a racist; but I feel this incident is important to include if done in a proper way. That is, the mere fact that a newsworthy incident involving someone involved race should not be precluded from being mentioned. --AstroLad 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It was not a matter of racism, rather a matter of opportunity. The bad thing that happened to Zoro was the bad behaviour of the people watching. If you describe all of this, and then report the exchange between Materazzi saying something like "Zoro exagerated" and Z. answering "I don't mind your opinion", that is an irrelevant fact.--Panairjdde 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the reason why I removed the "Zoro incident".--Panairjdde 11:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dave Zirin makes this claim about Materazzi re: Zoro -

"It's wrong to taint Materazzi for the actions of Lazio's fans, but there is more. Earlier this season in a match that pitted Messina against Inter in Sicily, Messina's star African player Marc Zoro famously picked up the ball and walked off the pitch in protest of the monkey chants rained upon him by Inter supporters. In a stirring act of solidarity, many of the Inter players immediately showed support for Zoro's actions. But one opponent yelled, "Stop that, Zoro, you're just trying to make a name for yourself." That opponent's name was Marco Materazzi."

http://www.alternet.org/story/38780/

Terrorist

What does he mean when he says that he is not cultured and doesn't know what an Islamic terrorist is? Does he really not know or did he mean something else? 69.40.242.91 17:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think something may have been lost in translation. I've been trying to find the actual quote in Italian (without any success). Nicklob 20:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found one quote in Italian here [7].

Marco Materazzi ha negato categoricamente di aver chiamato "terrorista" il giocatore di origini algerine. "E' vero, l'ho insultato" ha detto l'azzurro alla Gazzetta dello Sport. "Ma non l'ho mai chiamato terrorista. Non ho neanche idea di cosa voglia dire 'terrorista islamico' ".

It roughly translates to:

Marco Materazzi categorically denied ever having called the player of Algerian origin a terrorist. "It's true, I insulted him" the azzuri player told the Sport's Gazette. "But I didn't call him a terrorist. I have no idea what 'Islamic terrorist' means".

A second source had this quote [8].

Di sicuro non gli ho dato del terrorista: sono ignorante e non so neanche cosa significhi.

Rough translation:

I assure I didn't call him a terrorist: I'm ignorant and I don't know anything significant.

>> The correct translation of Di sicuro non gli ho dato del terrorista: sono ignorante e non so neanche cosa significhi. is "Surely I didn't call him a terrorist : I'm ignorant and I don't even know what it [terrorist, NdT] means."

So in conclusion, I don't think any meaning was lost in translation. If I were to speculate, I'd say his claim of being ignorant really means that he doesn't keep up to date with such issues as terrorism (i.e. he's ignorant of current happenings in the world). Nicklob 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I can kind of understand what he's trying to say, but he must at least know what a terrorist is. 71.31.149.113 23:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the "Gazetta dello Sport" should gain a double z and be linked to the corresponding article, ironically as they did on Zidane's page. 81.208.106.65 06:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The first link to the FIFA official profile is wrong

The first link down there links to Alessandro Del Piero's FIFA profile. Please correct it.

Sabb0ur 23:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The following Information keeps being removed:

He was also involved in an incident with Messina player Marco Zoro, from the Ivory Coast. In a game against Inter, Zoro was subjected to monkey chants and other racial attacks throughout the match. Zoro picked up the ball and began to walk off the pitch in disgust. He explained that "[i]t was the classic treatment of black players in Italy - it happens all over the country, Lazio fans being the worst." While Inter players Adriano and Obafemi Martins persuaded him to stay, and club owner Massimo Moratti praised Zoro as "an intelligent man who acted in a brave and intelligent way," Materazzi told Zoro, "stop that, Zoro, you're just trying to make a name for yourself." Zoro later stated that "I didn't even argue with him, I've no intention of lowering myself to that level." [9]

Why?--Greasysteve13 07:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because it has little to do with Materazzi?  Grue  10:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The level of relevance is very low. It should not be included. Bruno18 01:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you consider the current world interest about Materazzi links with racism, this is highly relevant. World Cup is already over. All the talks in every news now is about racism in the game, and it is involving Materazzi, this *is* highly relevant.-- 172.177.41.98 13:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Materazzi's insult against Zidane was not racist in nature

Zidane has denied that his insults were racist in nature: see video at http://www.eurosport.fr/football/coupedumonde/2006/sport_sto924766.shtml (at about 2 mins. 30 secs.)

Also, 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

He wasnt asked the question... Following 2 sources

1. http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=19&art_id=iol115272613812Z350&set_id=

2. http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=277278&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__sport/

There might have been a racist undertone to the comment, but ZZ was evasive and refused to elaborate , however he assented that the quotes were on the line of "terrorist whore" inferred by some lip readers. That he wasnt asked the Q is senical considering the volatile nature, as also the riots a year back.

Zidane gave two different interviews. One to Canal + and one to TF1. I couldn't find the entire Canal + video online, but if you follow the eurosport link above and look for 'video' you'll find the TF1 interview. The question is asked after approx. 2 mins. 30 secs. F4810 12:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is what is said:

       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... "

F4810 12:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Question meaning not the following: "did he abuse the race/religion/etc..." but the q whether "was there a racist undertone". You can imagine that an insult to the family can have racial suggestions meshed in. Of course it is better to leave it at that. But proclaiming there was no racial slur, doesnt help that. It becomes a legal q then. And it digs up the subject even more by an exoneration neither given, nor(in the eyes of quite a few) deserved.

What does "racist undertone" means? Everything has undertone whatsoever, then undertone is just another word, just as suggestions. Undertone is something the intrpreter give to words, not something intrinsecal to the very sentence. Different interpreters give different undertones to the same sentence. It does help, therefore. We're talking about racism, not about merely legal questions, wheter Materazzi insulted Zidane or not. Materazzi never denied that.

16:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC) An undertone means a dismissive, smug, embedded or presumptive addendum that is secondary to the tone, but implied all the same. A "terrorist whore" is both insulting to the family and racist in its presumptuousness(among other things). So are a lot of slurs. But we wont get into them. And we shouldnt get into them. And, as you would see by now, we cant get into them since it is difficult to explain without stating them.

Materazzi has even stated that ZZ deserved the golden ball even after the incident. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071300288.html) However, an admission, just as ZZ's last night, is not a pardon. Racism is a problem bigger than both players. And hence before the 20th July disciplinary hearings one shouldnt speculate with headlines such as "Insult not racist in nature"

You will note that no news media(at least credible ones, or big names) have used that banner line. There is a reason for that; it is because that would be interpretation. What can be said is that the slur was primarily against his family. Rest is under investigation. Bringing it to the fore without knowing the truth(by headlining it) is, in my view, unwarranted. It doesnt serve to pacify and only exacerbates the debate.

Of course "terrorist whore" is racist in nature, since Zidane's algerian mother is muslim, thence (here comes the bias) terrorist. But that's the issue: saying "Your mother is a whore is very much distant from saying "Your mother is a terrorist whore", apart from the lack of politeness, which is little question in a pitch. Unpoliteness doesn't imply racism. We still don't know the very words Materazzi told Zidane. Apart from speculations, here's the point of no return in Zidane's words:

       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... "

Had materazzi called the frenchman's mother "a terrorist whore", he would have classified such words as racial so much rather than as domestic.

17:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Let me put it this way. As the oft quoted line goes "All nations are equal, but some nations are more equal than others" a la Orwell. "All undertones are interpretive, some more prone to interpretation than others". Let 20th July decide. Just saying domestic means the graver part or the addressed person or the one evoking more emotion might be domestic.

Again, the above might be termed as speculation and interpretation. According to one of the sources, and it would be difficult to produce that here since I read it some time back(right after the breaking news) and dont have the link and would have to scour the net if you dont take my word for it, ZZ nodded his head when the interviewer asked if the insult was along the lines of "terrorist whore" as concurred by lip readers employed worldwide. This opens the field to even more intrigue, one we should desist from before 20th July.

17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC) In fact try seraching for : "not racist" zidane : on google news. you will get one result as a user comment(a k a interpretation). So, lets not jump the gun yet.

Unless I'm mistaken, Islam is not a race, so "a terrorist whore" is still possible even if "not racist" is true.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Zidane nodded his head starting to give a reply to the whole question of the interviewer (Canal + Interview), just the way we say, "Well..." by introducing our point of view. Zidane answered loud and clear "no" to the question made in the second interview (TF1). I think french should accept the defeat with quiet resignation once in a while, instead of saying "C'est la faute à Materazzi". Racism is hateful but has nothing to do with headbutting in a WC final.

Trying to deduce if Materazzi's insult was racist from interviews and other second-hand sources sounds (regardless of being right or wrong) like original research to me, and should be dropped as per Wikipedia policy. Besides, there are things we'll never know for sure. Some of those happen in the World Cup finals.

What excatly, pray, is a first hand source? None of us have access to either player, nor are we invited to the 20th July hearings to listen in. So, it is interviews and "so called second hand sources" that form the basis of all discussion till FIFA rules. Verifiable resources have always been used as a part of the discussion 13:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)~

I don' know, or care. I'm not against using sources. I'm against trying to deduce the nature of Materazzi's insult based on any sources, as such attempts are explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia:No_original_research.

If you have a beef with the sources, i'd say washington post and itv are pretty reliable ones. And if you knew or cared Cyril Touaux has been reporting for quite some time. 05:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)~

No beef with the sources, as I said. The point is that a) the sources say that Zidane said the insult was not racist which is not the same thing that it, in reality, was not, and b) any attempt to reach the conclusion that the insult, therefore, actually wasn't racist is against Wikipedia:No_original_research.

If you scroll and read above, that is the whole point I am trying to make. Exactly in fact. However, others are entitled to a debate 11:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I read the section a little differently, as it is a bit messed up. 82.181.61.48 13:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Was Materazzi alone?

Or was this an overall Italian strategy to take Zidane at a crucial time? The article implies that it was all Materazzi's idea. The article is also overly critical, one might say biased against Zidane. Wallie 07:04, 15 July 2006 (UT

This suggestion is blind and biased: 1) Asked by Canal plus interwiewer Zidane claims: "J'ai jamais eu des contentieux ou des histoires anciennes ou de contacts auparavant avec n'importe qui, (...) non plus Materazzi, (...) non plus pendant le match". Whose translation sounds like: "Neither I had backdating questions with anybody, not even Materazzi... nor i had questions risen during the match" [10]. Timing: 11m 10s on

Discussion points

"This is not a forum for discussing football rules or racism! Any such messages will be deleted."

Why not? Who put this up??

Football rules and racism go to the very heart of the incident between Materazzi and Zidane. This appears to be an attempt to delete all comment that someone might not like to see. Wallie 07:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about Materazzi or football or the World Cup or any of these incidents at all. I have no interest in this discussion whatsoever. This Talk page is specifically for discussing changes to the article; it is not a general forum. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#What talk pages may be used for: "Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral. Partisan debates do not align with the mission of Wikipedia, and get in the way of the job of writing an encyclopedia." See also WP:ENC: "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MESSAGE BOARD" and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages,...", "Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech." —Centrx→talk • 19:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I would agree with a lot of this. We do need to be able to discuss things before we put them into the actual article, do we not? It is a matter of where to draw the line. Regarding the headbutting incident, football rules and racism should be able to be discussed, but only in relation to that incident. Wallie 10:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily comfortable with this general eagerness to draw racism into the incident just because it could've been a factor, without having any actual knowledge of that (and even with Zidane speaking to the contrary). Evidence that isn't there cannot support an argument one way or the other. 82.181.61.48 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Words and deeds. Offensive behaviour (art. 54, FIFA Disciplinary code)

It is debatable whether each and every wordly taunt has to be considered a fault. Taunting is routine everywhere on pitches across Europe, albeit some self-appointed overpolite french doesn't realise. It seems like he had neither ever played football himself nor entered a football stadium (not to talk of lip-reading watching a TV match). According to former England star Chris Waddle winding up opponents was common in the game when he played. "It was never an issue when I played, either here in England, playing abroad for England or playing in France for Marseille. Every team in England has its wind-up merchants, some teams have three or four".[11]. Materazzi's lawyer Vigorelli also warned that Fifa could be setting a difficult precedent, citing Francesco Totti's three-game ban for spitting at Denmark's Christian Poulsen during Euro 2004 as an example. "I wonder why Fifa didn't open up a case against Poulsen two years ago in the European Championships in Portugal after the reaction of Totti. This absolutely a similar case" Vigorelli adds: "If they want to attack a player for what he keeps saying on the pitch, they will be very busy in the future because it's quite normal that players shout to each other in a game - especially when it's such a stressful game." [news.bbc.co.uk/solpda/ukfs_sport/hi/newsid_5177000/5177140.stm - 17k - 13 lug 2006 -] Actually art.54 (Offensive behaviour) of Fifa disciplinary code could lead to a match suspension regarding Marco Materazzi[12]. In a couple of days we'll see if it's worth to be enforced according to Fifa disciplinary committee. In case of racial slur, which Zidane openly denied [13], things would have been far different, as art. 55 of same Fifa disciplinary code claims.

OK, so winding up is part of sport. It is not sportsmanlike but it has to be accepted. But Materazzi began by shirt pulling and nipple twisting, then followed up with insults. Zidane tried to walk away from them but it seems likely that the insults persisted until the French captain's nerve tolerance snapped. Zidane may have denied racism but he has indicated that the insults were of a domestic nature. The whole episode seems to be compatible with a systematic attempt to get the Frenchman sent off. That is more than a mere "wordly taunt" and FIFA should be very concerned. Viewfinder 21:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If there had ever been a "systematic attempt to get the Frenchman sent off", which is counterfactual,[14] then well experienced Zizou should have not naively fallen into. There are regulamentary ways to make the referee acquainted about harassment and taunting in order to get reparation, and a team leader as Zidane knows that pretty well. I'm afraid he just went out of his mind for a while at the end of a stressfull match, although a correct one till that moment. One might think Materazzi is a refined strategist or psychologist. I'm not justifying Materazzi at all, everyone in Italy knows his "highlights". I just hold that any harming reaction is much worst than hateful words. And justifying himself, as Zidane does, meaning he had to revenge his family's honour above all, that sounds kind of a medieval or (not so) ancient sicilian undertone. Zizou went wrong twice. No, Thrice. "I'm sorry but i don't regret" ("je veux m'excuser ... mais je ne regrette pas", just like Edith Piaf?): Will anybody please tell me what that really means?

I am not defending what Zidane did. I saw it and it was horrible. And, as you say, there were better options available to him. But keeping your head in the face of determined and carefully targeted provocation is not easy. (Deleted irrelevant comments about FIFA. Take them to the FIFA discussion page). Viewfinder 12:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well you and I have a different meaning of the word "horrible"... To my mind, the bombing of Dresdan is "horrible", what Zidane did is not. The wind up merchants that Chris Waddle refers to are engaging in a "bit or banter", like "better luck next time, old Chap", a million miles from the racist comments made here. Wallie 14:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Racist comments? Wallie please listen to famous Zidane's interwiew at TF 1 [15].You'll be disappointed about that. I understand 'it's more politically correct to revert major responsibility from great champion Zidane stemming from hard banlieu background onto tattooed nasty scapegoat Materazzi. In order to do so one must first find a heavy casus belli, as only a racial slur could be, not "just" an overinflated "Son of a bitch". Lip-reading reconstructions I've heard a handful, none of which agree. Italian harming words are dialectal or vernacular rather than standard italian. I argue the real dialogue is quite far from any attempted reconstruction. For sure Materazzi says "Tua sorella" (Your sister) and "Ma vaffanculo" (Fuck you). On july 20 a cross confrontation will take place in Zurich. Of course maybe I'm wrong and Zidane will disavow himself and say he was racially abused. We'll see. Last, I'm not so sure the wind up merchants couldn't say anything but a blunt "Better luck next time, old Chap". Any source?

Have a look at the articles on sledging, which is what the "wind-up" (English) refers to. There are all sorts of examples. As far as what was said, only Materazzi knows what he said, and he recent statements are to put it kindly, "misguided". He said that he never said anything about Zidane's mother. Well the proven evidence [citation needed] - (lip reading by forensic experts, quoted all over the place) states another story. Unfortunately, FIFA will take his word as a "true gentleman of sport". As for the statements that Zidane said were not racist, this is again interpretation. Some media quotes say that Zidane said the comments were racist [citation needed]. In other media quotes, they say they are not racist. Let the words speak for themselves. Anyway, to compare English football banter with this dialogue is not one and the same. Wallie 18:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wihtout knowledge of how accurate lip reading by (alleged) forensic experts under given conditions (off the TV screen) can be, such sources should not be cited in an argument. Quotation of sources all over the place does not render them reliable. 82.181.61.48 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No matter what second or third hand sources say. They look like simulacres, each reflect another, but none is the original. Anyone can retrieve on the web thousands of pages referring the most diverse taunts. Unfortunately such thousands aren't worthy a cent face to Zidane's interwiew. These thousands pages are actually rubbish. If we don't take for granted at least the very words of Zidane [16], then we can claim anything, included Zidane heard a heavenly voice compelling him to headbutt Materazzi. Why not?. But we have Zizou's own statements, that need no fuzzy interpretation. This is a turning point. It would be stubborn to insist against all odds. More. Fifa will take Materazzi's word as a "true gentleman of sport". I guess crossing Matrix's and Zizou's (not so colliding) versions FIFA will achieve a reliable truth. Surely none in Zurich will need retrieve rubbish floating on the web.

"As for the statements that Zidane said were not racist, this is again interpretation". Maybe. But it's Zidane's interpretation (Q:"et quand vous dites 'des paroles,' au fond, 'tres graves', est-ce que vous pouvez dire si elles sont d'ordre raciste..." A. "Non" Q "...si elles sont d'ordre familliale..." A: "Oui, c'est familiale"). It's not my interpretation (the heavenly voice). Not even yours. Truth can only be achieved through interpretation (Zidane's one, in this case), but not all interpretations (so to speak, ours) achieve truth.

Irony of Incident

I recently added a sentence on the irony of the incident. By citing that many sports fan and analysts were saying that, it eliminates the bias of the statement. If there's anything wrong with that, please tell me. Siddharthagandhi 21:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Beppe Grillo's opinion about Materazzi [17]

"Dirty Terrorist"

"Materazzi denied[3] that he called Zidane a "dirty terrorist" [4] or "son of a terrorist whore".[5]"

If the FIFA investigation, which ends in a few days, concludes that Materazzi didn't say any of the above insults, then they should be removed from the page. Those comments are media speculation. -Nicklob 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing needed.

This section is even longer than the one on Zidane's page. It needs to be edited down, FIFA's made a finding. It's disproportionate to the rest of the page. Dead men's bells 01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mother and sister insult

"He also denied insulting Zidane's mother, saying, "For me, the mother is sacred. You know that." [4] (Materazzi's own mother died when he was 14 years old.)"

There is no evidence to support this in the reference given. I read that Materazzi also said "If I had known his mother was ill I wouldn't have said it". Zidane stated plainly and stressed that Materazzi had insulted both his mother and his sister three times, he is hardly lying about that and if he was we would hear all about Materazzi calling him a liar.

The only thing in the link remotely like that is: "He has denied, however, some of the more vile insults referring to his wife or sister or calling him a terrorist." So I'm changing the first part of the sentence.

-He definitely said this. His mother is dead, so I believe him too.

http://sport.independent.co.uk/football/internationals/article1174042.ece

Check there to confirm, or just to a google search. ABart26 17:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

While technically "bastard" means "son of a bitch", it's widely used in italian as a synonim of "asshole". That, for example, could be an insult which Materazzi could've directed at Zidane while Zidane could interpret (rightfully) as directed to his mother.

I have to disagree. Bastard, as I know it, means a child without a father. Thus, it couldn't possibly be directed at his mother, if his father had recently died then it would be salient, but I don't know if this is the case. 'Figlio di puttana' would be the equivalent of 'son of a bitch' (lit. son of a whore), 'bastardo,' would be the literal traslation of bastard. I believe the definition is almost exactly similar. Though, it is entirely possible that he called him a 'son of a bitch' which he(Zidane) took as directed as an attack on his mother. ABart26 16:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

height

on a less interesting note- I added his height in feet and inches as well. As an American, when I saw "193 centimeters" that gave me a very vague idea as to what his height actually was. so I added "(6'4")" to it. ABart26 17:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The Animal

Is the nickname "The Animal" really widespread and stable enough to be included in the opening paragraph of the article? The given source says

A Frenchman known to his fans as "God" went on television to explain why he rammed his shaved head into the chest of an Italian nicknamed "the animal."

which could be quite different from being known as that, which IMO indicates that the nickname is not given just to reflect the current circumstances and may fade into obscurity. (I'm really not familiar with Serie A football and have no idea what the players are nicknamed; this is actually why I'm asking. Has Materazzi been commonly known, as a Serie A player, as "The Animal" or is this just something that's been coined recently and not yet established?) 194.157.147.48 10:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Materazzi has been known as the animal for years in Serie A, i have included a source form the Wall Street Journal as proof of this. If you are going to edit it for a POV infraction then email the journal :) Source: http://en.brazilny.org/index.php?/consulado/brazil_related_news_entry/world_cup_mystery_what_did_animal

User:Blumby 2.33, 26 July 2006

OK. However, the provided WSJ article does actually not constitute a proof. It merely refers to Materazzi as being nicknamed the animal; it does not state anything along the lines that Materazzi has been known as the animal for years. If true, there surely are reliable sources that state something to that effect? If not, I do recommend an edit on the opening paragraph on the grounds of NPOV and, perhaps, verifiability. (I'm not objecting to including the nickname in the case that it's an established one; I just want proper sources for that). 194.157.147.48 20:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Materazzism

In Germany, a name came up recently describing the ugly behaviour of demanding yello cards for the oponent in a football match by pretending fouls and so one. Since this behaviour significantly increased at the football championship 2006 in germany and italy was among thos teams who often made use of it to harm their oponent, german Tv mags allready speak of "Materazzism" as a synonym for it. 217.194.34.115 11:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting incorporating some of this into the article, or why do you consider this relevant? Please clarify. This is not a discussion forum on Materazzi, this is discussion forum on the article about Materazzi. There's a difference. 194.157.147.48 11:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)