Talk:Diego Maradona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Diego Maradona article.
Article policies
Diego Maradona was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: August 17, 2006
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Update the picture

Can't someone post a picture of him lifting the world cup thats not copyright protected. I think that should be the picture most would remember maradona by. he is a footballer, and that was his greatest moment. ergo

It says he's playing for Liverpool in 1980!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqua lem (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too much honour

The following club titles had to be removed from his club title collection:

Reason: s he did use his hand, but it's as much the fault of the referee for missing it. I think it's unfair to call Maradona a cheat just because he hooked the ball in once with his hand (in a fraction of a second, one can call it a reaction). Anyway I'll put the general reactions to that goal in. Mandel 12:22, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

First, Maradona himself recently (22 Aug 2005) admited in his TV show "La noche del 10" he used his hand on purpose, it was NOT a reaction, and second, blaming the referee for that goal is like blaming a murder on the police because they failed to catch the killer, i.e. it makes no sense at all. Maradona had a lot of talent, he was a wonderful player and certainly didn't need to cheat to win games, many of us watched him conjure extraordinary goals out of thin air (what a better proof than his 2nd goal on that very same match), but he DID cheat and that, I'm sorry to say, does make him a cheater, there's no point on denying it. --BlackBaron33 18:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Wow, you can't be serious...first at all, who compares a hand ball with a murder? Come on, you can do better than that!!! That's the referee's job, what he actually gets paid for. It's his responsibility is to make sure no infractions are committed, not Maradona's. I mean, it wasn't the best example of fair play, but accidents like happen all the time. Referees aren't perfect! And plus it has been more than 20 years now...GET OVER IT...don't you English people have anything else to remember in the last quarter century...(oops you actually don't... ;P)...look, defining Maradona as a cheater is ridiculous...I'm Italian and a Roma fan so I know what real cheating is...so while England remembers him for a hand ball, the rest of the world will keep remembering him for how he self handed kicked your ass five minutes later. -- --Udonknome 22:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What absolute nonsense, how can it be the referee's fault that he used his hand? His cheating was much more than that single incident, his use of performance enhancing drugs was cheating for instance. Bob Palin 15:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How can it be not the referee's fault when the referee missed such a blatant foul? Furthermore ephedrine is never as a performance-enhancing drug; it's a stimulant, like coffee. [1] That chap's trying to lose weight, that's all. (if you've seen him before the finals...)
Yah, if Maradona is seen as a cheat by taking illegal drugs, then the footballers like Edgar Davids, Jaap Stam and Frank de Boer who tested positive for real ergogenic drugs should be branded cheats. For your info the glorious Zico, also took anabolic steroids to build up his constituents. Mandel 11:01, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
If this had happened to any English player in any match i'm sure they would have done the very same thing as Maradona did, let alone in a final match of the WCUP, so please get over the "Hand of God". 138.40.28.22
True, I'm sure many players would do it, like the thousands that fake faults and penalties, but that still doesn't make it right, does it?. --BlackBaron33 18:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that if we start applying the cheater label to every player that faked a fault, penalty or whatever then we're left with the fact that 95% of the players are cheaters. I say that if the referee convalidated the goal, then it's valid period. FIFA could've made them replay the match (as they did on Uzbekistan-Bahrain) and they didn't. If you wan't to find the guilty part, just blame the ref. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Zico took those while they were perfectly legal in football, having no law to prohibit its use at the time. Dont try to pollute the carrer of Brazils 2nd best player ever.

When argumenting against using video to aid referees, FIFA has repeatedly stated that referees are "the 23rd player, whose errors are a part of the game". Therefore, when players fake a fault (and they do in every single game), they are just following an implicit rule: if you can fool the referee, then it's legal. Maradona did only that when he scored with his hand, as almost any player would do if given the chance to help their national teams win. So, my English friends, stop blaming Diego and learn to lose a game with some dignity... [agus] 03:17, 11 December 2005

-- England did lose the game with some dignity; it was Argentinian dignity that was forfeited, and by Diego. He himself admitted that a less 'honest' defence ("They are probably the noblest in the world," [2]) than the English would have fouled him en route to the goal.

I don't care what fifa has said diving, using your hand ect is not ok as long as you manage to fool the referee. To me a player who uses his hand like maradonna did is a cheat.

Pfft get over it. It happened one time, and you can't even say that's all he did. Argentina didn't even win the game just for that: remember he scored the best goal in football history just a couple of minutes later. --Yago Stecher 09:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look at footage from behind the goal and slow it down you'll see that it was in fact an own goal by Fenwick and Maradona himself didn't actually score it. 00:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Jørgen Mykland 10:07 June 25 2007.

I just saw the footage from behind and yes Maradona did score hat goal. All Fenwick does is slide tacle him from behind (that is illegal and the referee should have given him at least a yellow card after the goal...WHAT A CHEATER!!!) and causes Maradona to fall during his last touch. -- --Udonknome 22:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All Time / All Times

Guys, cut it out with the back-and-forth changes.

What do we have this Talk Pages for? I think it's all times.

What does the rest think? --Marianocecowski 07:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you are writing in English it is "time" - there is only one instance of time (that we know of). If you were to use the word era it would be plural "best of his era" or "best of all eras". That is not a common construction however. Bob Palin 16:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean with 'English'? You can't deny that 'all times' is used (search the net) though maybe wrong. What about 'Modern Times', 'The Times', 'Medieval Times', 'The Old Times'?
Anyway, if it's 'more' correct to use 'all time', or it's the wiki-preferred british style, then 'all time' it is.
-- Marianocecowski 07:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"All times" means "every time". Unless you mean Maradona is the "best player every time", "all time" is it. No one says "an all-times great" -- that is not English. People say "an all-time favorite", "an all-time best". "All time" simply means the "best ever".
Check the dictionary. Mandel 12:46, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

This argument is nonsense. Both "all time" and "all times" are correct. It's just a matter of taste. You can use "time" to refer to time in general or "times" to refer to periods of time, but, all in all, it makes no difference to the content of the sentence. Stop the pseudolinguistics trash talk.

I visited this site in hope of intellectual discussions on one of sports greatest entertainers and instead I get Mr Plain(aptly named), the resident spelling and grammer checker.

"All times" isn't correct in the context of "one of the best players of all times" - this simply doesn't mean anything. As with many things in English there is no particular logic to it and it's just the way it is. And, given that this is an encyclopedia it's probably best if things are written correctly at all times (there it is correct).

[edit] Defenses in Pele's and Maradona's time

Video evidence of Pele's greatest plays shows that he usually had the time to "settle" the ball to suit his best available move (head, left foot, etc), whilst Maradona, on first receiving the ball, was immediately surrounded by defenders. Nobody will deny the relative athleticism and defending might of Italian calcio circa 1987 when compared to the Brazilian league in the 1960s, and this can be sustained by objective evidence (analyzing video, counting average goals per match, comparing tactics or measuring the amount the ball spends in the midfield, among others).

This is not meant to automatically create a case for Maradona being "greater" than Pele.elpincha 21:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please, let's forgo the gushing praise. He was an excellent footballer, as agreed by many as the greatest ever.

Surely this was started by an Argentinean, trying to prove Maradona to be greater than Pelé.

When will you people understand that you cant compare bananas and oranges? They are different (i.e. different times, different defenses, but also different attacks, and different laws of the game). Perhaps what bothers our 'hermanos' is that Pelé has had a more succeful carrer inside as well as outside the picth.

Maradona was the better player by far because he could do better things against better teams. Look at the 2nd goal he scored against england in 1986. That was brilliant. Pele could rely on his teammates to pass the ball with him far enough to get close to the goal. Maradona had hardly any, he created more goals by himself properly then pele. therefore he is the bettter.--Alexstorer 22:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If the quality of a player is defined by the amount of goals he scored, then Pelé is better than Maradona. You can go crazy with statistics, but the quality of a player is not something you can calculate. The issue of Maradona vs. Pelé is very subjective (basically brazilians for Pelé, argentines for Maradona, the rest split). It is an endless argument that will never have a winner, and you will get the same effect in countless other sports rivalries. ironcito 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maradona's nickname "El Pibe"

In many Spanish-language publications Maradona is known as "El Pibe". For God's sake, don't delete that part of the article just because you think it's just Carlos Valderrama's nickname. "Pibe" is a frequently used nickname which means "boy" or "kid". There are many soccer players who are nicknamed that way, not just Valderrama. See also RAE. Usual. Resultado de Listado de Usual (Real Academia Española dictionary entry on "pibe"). 2004-12-29T22:45Z June 29, 2005 06:37 (UTC)

that was an edit from an IP address (most likely, not a regular user), no need to make a fuss in here imho. SpiceMan 29 June 2005 06:58 (UTC)
The germane issue is whether Diego was called that. In my recollection - only a few times by the press in South America (outside Argentina) and Spain, and that is standard treatment for all Argentines, especially if they are short or have baby faces (see for example Javier Saviola, who has both). So I'd advise not having it here. elpincha 29 June 2005 09:14 (UTC)
If called Pibe, it was usually El Pibe de Oro. Yet, I'm not sure it's so important to have it in the first line of the article. (new section Maradona's nicknames??).
By the way, 2004-12-29T22:45Z, please make yourself an user (and use it!). --Mariano June 29, 2005 10:33 (UTC)
If i'm not mistaken, Pibe'd oro was a nick name given in italian. By the way, Mariano, look at User talk:2004-12-29T22:45Z. It seems that's the username already (is confusing, I know). SpiceMan 29 June 2005 15:32 (UTC)

[edit] Agreement with FIFA?

Guys, I never heard about this agreement Diego had with FIFA to be allowed to play in the 94 WC despite being on "Weight Loss Drugs". Does anybody have a source? Otherwise, I'd rather remove that part or at least replace it with something less conspirational-sounding.

--Sebastian Kessel 16:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a unwritten gentlemen's agreement. The WC needed Diego's figure (let's not forget this is business), and Diego had a lot of extra kilos before the WC.
I don't think you'll find any source, just Maradona saying me cortaron las piernas. -Mariano 06:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I was waiting for somebody to answer. :) I think that we have no sources and it's a serious allegation... It does make sense, but without a credible source it's slander... :) --Sebastian Kessel 15:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Now that you say it, I don't know how it came to be so wide spread in the collective imaginary.
But I feel it has to be stated somehow. I think it's OK as you left it. -Mariano 07:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D10s

A brilliant creation IMO. If it is in actual use, it could be mentioned right below the Church of Maradona stuff. And btw, I think most of us have seen the video segments on the Church, but is there any other source on its existence? On the Internet? elpincha 16:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I just rv'd the other image because it doesn't show him as a player. Let's get a free player image... the other one was just too ugly. :)

[edit] summit?

Perhaps something can be mentioned about the Summit of the Americas and Diego's resistance to Bush? Maybe about his political views if there's enough info about it. [3]

[edit] Croatian background

Irrelevant methinks. The article becomes heavy and less readable when everybody adds his/her pet detail on Diego (eg the Bucaram interview). For the sake or readability, propose not to keep. elpincha 08:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Great great grand father. not notable. Mariano(t/c) 10:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rabona pass

  • Rabona goal-pass MPG
  • Rabona pass MPG
  • Pic
  • Pic
  • ed2k://|file|Futbol%20-%20Maradona%20-%20Argentina%20Vs%20Suiza%20-%20Pase%20De%20Rabona.avi|8283036|D7248EC749DB0A352876749A224C7937|/ Futbol - Maradona - Argentina Vs Suiza - Pase De Rabona.avi
As far as I know, Claudio Borghi created the Rabona, as he couldn't strike well the ball with his left foot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.183.164 (talk • contribs)

Probably it was invented way before. The article doesn't claim Maradona invented it either. --Mariano(t/c) 13:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Hole" position

Shouldn't the position be "deep-lying forward"? The informal "Hole" term can be explained within the article or in Football (soccer) positions, but the datasheet should be more technical, I think. ironcito 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph and neutrality among articles

This statement was reverted as POV

  • "He is regarded by many as the best player of all time and one of the most controversial players in the history of the game."

to this version:

  • "He is regarded as one of the best—and one of the most controversial—players in the history of the game."

Not regarding which one is more adecueated for an encyclopedic article, the first one is neither POV nor false. At the same time, the opening paragraph of Pelé's article states he is "thought by many to be the finest player of all time. Often considered the complete attacking player, he was completely two-footed, a prolific finisher, exceptional at dribbling and passing, and was a remarkably good tackler for a forward. He was also famed for his speed and kicking strength." which I consider POV, and non encyclopedic.

The question is, if both are considered by a lot of people (and not only in their own country) to be the best player of all times, why do we have this unbalance in the Wikipedia? This is clearly not neutral, and should be revised. Mariano(t/c) 07:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole sentence is POV and should be removed from both players, I've tried removing it in the past but have met with hostile reactions. My POV is that due to his cheating and drug use Maradona should be the Pete Rose of football, ignored completely. Bob Palin 02:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please read or reread WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Both statements are true and objective. The first one describes an inportant point of view, the second tries to represent all points of view but loses the information that some hundred million fans think Maradonna is the best. Therefore, the first statement is the most encyclopedic. The Pelé article is correct in this respect. Feel free to edit away, but please keep in mind that removing/losing a POV shared by many is not the way to NPOV an article. The proper way is to add the other important point(s) of view. (I solved this by citing an important and reputable source.)
Personally I would say Johan Cruijff is the all time best, Pele a close second, Maradonna third. AvB ÷ talk 05:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croatian-Argentine

A recent research proved Diego Maradona has Croatian ancestries. Check it on the Internet [4] [in Spanish]. Mxcatania 17:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So what? Mighty irrelevant. elpincha 22:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not a polite response. Anyway, I think it's important. Since I'm tagging Argentine people as per their ancestry origin (see Category:Croatian-Argentines), I encourage Wikipedians to improve articles with those facts. Mxcatania 01:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Excuse Picha's expression, but yuo can't deny he has a point. Maradona might have Croatian ancestors, but that doens't make him Croatian; I probably speak Croatian better than him!. On the other hand, Quirino Cristiani was born in Italy, and moved to Argentina, were he became Argentine. That's what I call an Italian-Argentine. I'm not sure it's wise to keep this two very distinct things together, because if so, it becomes irrelevan where were your grand-grand parents from. Just my 5 cents. Mariano(t/c) 08:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I like the multiple points of view since they make me improve. As far as I know, the categories XX-Argentines have been created to input people with XX-ancestry (ancestors, diaspora, etc.), no matters remote or close liaison. On the other hand, to speak a language does not make you a native of a country and vice versa; I mean, you speak Croatian (excellent), you're not Croatian, I speak English, I'm not Briton. I stay on my position. My recommendation is to write some lines about that in the article, maybe in the part of the documentary produced by Balkans' Emir Kusturica and released in late 2005. Mxcatania 14:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't sure so I had a quick look around and saw that these categories (such as Category:Croatian-Americans) are truly for both native-born and of that heritage, though it seams a bit meaningless to me that way. I have Polish heritage, but don't feel polish at all. BTW: Kusturica is Serb, not Croatian, and Maradona's Croatian past is probably not of much interest to him. Sadly, I have no info about the film. Oh, one question, shouldn't there be a category such as Croatian descendants that would group all the people of Croatian heritage across countries? Mariano(t/c) 07:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, let me tell you that this subject's been extending so much, we can spend more time on improving other subjects of the Wikipedia instead ;-). I didn't know you have Polish heritage, it's fantastic. I think in a different way, it's just that, but the categories are given, and so on. A category "People with Croatian heritage" does not exist, just the wide category "Category:Croatian diaspora". Mxcatania 13:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let me posit the following. To be considered an X-Argentine, a person should comply with at least one of the following (using 2nd person for convenience only):

  • You are X, or at least one of your parents is X, or at least N of your grandparents are X
  • You participate in any form in the activities of the X-Argentine community
  • You participate, or indicate you wish to participate, in the public life of X
  • Your life and/or works reflects an affinity for X's heritage and culture

Since Diego complies with none of the above for X=Croatia and all N>0, I hereby declare him not a Cro-Arg, and happily proceed to the main page to delete the reference. Buenas tardes. elpincha 05:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Commenting on my own contribution (mamita). First, the above criteria are the most liberal version I could find (I'd say criterion 1 should be mandatory, and at least one of the others, but that's negotiable). Also, there are serious flaws in the Croatian heritage article in ya.com, such as claiming that one of his grandmothers would be descendant of Croatians, and then suggesting that the surname Maradona is found in Croatia, which would suggest looking into the male branch. The first claim is too remote to qualify imho, the second one is speculative. This is elpincha 06:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who is Elpincha, whether the first one saying So what? or the last one saying Let me posit the following. Unfortunately, this subject's been extending so much (not of my tastes), and the hard POVs of you et al give me no chances to tagging Diego Armando as Croat. Try to be less pedantic next time. Wikipedia do not want that. Mxcatania 12:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Come on, Mx, he is trying to make a point. The article has no reference to Croatia, and he could ask you to cite references about that. This discution already took place at Talk:List of Croatians#Maradona. Considering it was about a great grand mother, and that it was not proved, the conclusion was that we can't say Maradona has Croatian roots. Mariano(t/c) 13:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I am both. Let me tell you Max, some people including me see your activity as POV-oriented, but hey, let's not go down that route. Now seriously, the list of criteria above was an (imperfect) attempt to set up a filtering device to disallow people from just posting their pet X-Argentine tags, even when unwarranted. And that's the opposite of POV. (We could have a vote at some point, etc. I trust Mariano/Pablo/Seba/etc to provide good stewardship.)
I consider Diego's tagging as Cro-Arg to be widely off the mark as he is far from fulfilling any of the criteria. Moreover, I'd say that both Andrés Calamaro and Tato Bores should not be tagged as Jewish-Argentines, even if factually true, since if you don't do something to claim and assert your origin, then labeling you against the grain is non-essential, and may on occasion smell of racism. Most Argentines are content to be just Argentines, aside from the vasco or turco nickname or the occasional gefilte fish.
Bear in mind that people usually have 16 great-great-grandparents (except in some parts of southern USA) so one could be asserting that somebody is an X-Arg for up to |X|=16. My concern here is that people will both use this an an affinity enhancer (hey! Calamaro is "ruso" too!) or to label people for an accident they had (their "choice of" heritage) as opposed to what they did (example: how exactly is Mario Sapag an Arab-Argentine?). USA people do this tagging all the time, but I don't see a reason to start imitating them on this. This message was brought to you by elpincha 05:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I yielded my position. Wasn't it? I didn't change your edit, Diego is not a Croatian-Argentine anymore as per Wikipedia. You are still pedantic, on top of that by trying to win supporters, don't know, maybe by writing Mariano Cecowski, don't know. Please provide me who think my activity is POV-oriented. None wrote that in my talk page. May be you can provide me your examples. No tires la piedra y luego escondas la mano. You consider me to be POV-oriented. You are not the most qualified to do that. It's obvious we think in different ways. I work for myself, you work for yourself. We don't need this discussion. BTW, I offer my pipe of peace, if this fact regards one. Mxcatania 17:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
No os hagais drama. It is not personal, I just happen to love Diego and to not-love some tagging activity I perceive as distracting (I'd rather be remembered for what I do, not for the place my g-g-g-mother was born in), so *yes* I got a little pedantic over here. Ingeniero, che, que queres. I am actually very nice in person. Going to visit Alak soon. Let me smoke your pipe, let us both relax, next article. elpincha 21:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice handshaking. I'm happy to read these last words from you. I'll try to improve Diego's data with more relevant facts, next time. Mxcatania 21:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Mxcatania, even if he is completely right or completely wrong, is a diligent and valuable contributor to Wikipedia. Kudos to him, and please, Wikipedians, appreciate the hard work of Mxcatania and the many like him who make WP the place that it is. Incidentally, my two cents are that Maradona being of Croatian ancestry would at least warrant a mention in his WP page...but I leave that to the Argentines and the football experts. Paul 05:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the assessment of Max. We just happen to have disagreed, but that's old hat and nothing to get angry about. Now Paul, Argentines are different than North Americans regarding the nature of the link to the old country. If you Google for "third generation German American" you'll see plenty of links; even Kurt Vonnegut has called himself that. No Argentine would have done that in the past, even though there is such activity of late, much of it related to the search for an EU passport. elpincha 17:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Maradona does indeed have Croatian roots. One of his grandmothers was a Dalmatian Croat. In fact, one of his sisters was named Dalma because of this. But in my opinion, this does not make him Croatian-Argentine. <rant> I don't know why this is so common on wikipedia, that is people from a country trying to get that country linked to something. Canadians seems to be the worst, in so many articles there is some obscure reference to Cananda. </rant> Furpee 09:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant data

Sorry my fellow Equatorians, but I just deleted the information about his "talks" to play for Barcelona in Ecuador. This is highly irrelevant, as any good player is always "in talks" to play for any particular team. Moreover in Maradona's case, and specially when he was without a club at the end of his career. Besides, I think that information may be known only in Ecuador. Nobody remembers that speculative agreement (and with a reason). On the other hand, I would have removed the mention of Esteban Laureano Maradona, because it is also completely irrelevant: the comparison has been made only for the coincidence of surnames, but it never was more than a side comment. E. L. Maradona has nothing to do in a Diego Maradona page. But I left it to be discussed. Please, excuse my poor english. Nahuel

[edit] Croatian ancestry

His maternal great-grandfather, Mateo Kariolic, was born in Korcula, Croatia and emigrated to Argentina, where Maradona's grandmother, Salvadora, was born...

Assuming Mateo married an Argentine woman, Maradona would be at least 1/8 Croatian


Besides Croatian, Maradona is of mostly Spanish descent, I guess

He named his daughter Dalma, and people assume it's because of his Dalmatian heritage... which would mean that he knows/cares about his Croatian roots

(Dalmatia is a province in Croatia, where Korcula is located)

Should this be mentioned, anyone thinks we should add that

"he is of mostly Spanish origins with some distant Croatian roots"

Marco Polo is one of his ancestor, through his Croatian connection... Mateo Kariolic's father Gaspar Polic was a descendant of Marco Polo (Marco Polo was also born in Korcula, Croatia, and his original name was supposedly Marko Polic)

These things are usually mentioned on other's people articles...

You people should go on Keanu Reeves, George Bush's, Cher's, Val Kilmer's and whoever else's page and see that they're ethnic backgrounds are mentioned

Anyone in the USA with just 1/8 native american blood, has it mentioned on his page, Johnny Depp...

Argentina's president Nestor Kirchner's, chilean-born mother Marija Ostojic is of Croatian origin...

Ahora te das cuenta papa? No hay que frotar cada botella que encontras en la calle.

On Che Guevara page it mentions his Irish roots, it has an whole paragraph on it, mentioning his forebears and where they came from

Although a lot of Irish are saying his grandmother emigrated from Ireland, (which is a lot of balogni), his great-great grandfather did... which makes him 16%... it's probably even less than that, his great grandfather was born in 1817 and the original forebearer was born in 1715, so probably more like 64%, Maradona is 8% Croatian

Segundo Binayán, Maradona seria descendente do explorador por linha materna. A avó do ex-jogador era Salvadora Cariolichi, que, por sua vez, era neta de Mateus Cariolichi. Este croata, tetravô do astro teria desembarcado na Argentina no fim do século XIX.

Mateus, por sua vez, era descendente da família Polich, que são conhecidos por serem descendentes de Marco Polo. O sobrenome "Polich", na verdade, seria uma corruptela croata de "Polo".

WHO cares about Maradona being 1/8 Croatian? Thats so ridiculous .. Besides noone really knows, if that is really true - not even Maradona i bet ...

[edit] Drug addiction

It is perhaps no longer fair to state that Maradone is still addicted to drugs

[edit] Humala Page Picture

During the 2006 Presidential Election Maradona went to play in Peru with an implicit support for Humala's campaign. I thought maybe some people here would like to use this image on the section about his political views and add the info about the Peruvian election. I know alot of people probably view this page so I thought I'd just suggest it here on the talk page.--Jersey Devil 22:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, hte image look kinda weird to me. Anyhow, Maradona said that even though Chavez (with whom they are sort of friends), he has nothing to do with Humala: "A mí no me metan en boludeces. Nada que ver o estamos todos locos. Sólo voy a ir a ese país a jugar showbol, pero nada más". Clarin newspaper
I think (though not sure) that the image is a composite made up to illustrate the sayings by Alan García. You've got to be careful with this things not to use them incorrectly. Mariano(t/c) 07:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Individual honours

This part is rather uncomplete and, as we can see in Spanidh Wikipedia, his individual honors are much more than those that appear here. Through this link, you will see the complete list of all his prizes: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Armando_Maradona in the final part named "Distinciones Individuales". You may think, and why don't you do? the answer is in these words. My English is not correct enough in order to edit the Wikipedia. However, I know about Maradona and I am trying to aport more information. So, update it please.

PD: UPDATE THE FIRST PHOTO, THIS IS THE PAST, please.

[edit] On Hold

A one sentence introduction on an article this long? Come on now, just two or three paragraphs is fine, otherwise it can't possibly adequately summarize the article, fails WP:LEAD, and shouldn't be a Good Article. I'm putting this article on hold until somebody can expand the lead. Homestarmy 00:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's just about there, on this point at least. 4u1e 01:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Folks, can someone update with the pronunciation of the name? would help a lot. Thank you. --H P Nadig * \Talk \Contributions 17:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words, apparent Original research need fixed

This article reads like a fan site. WP:GA failed. The following instances of weasel words and/or uncited POV need fixed/cited WP:NOR:

  1. "regarded by many as the greatest" cited
  2. "inspiring the national team "
  3. "strong legs and low center of gravity gave him an advantage" cited
  4. "Villa Fiorito, a shantytown" cited
  5. "Maradona had an unhappy tenure in Barcelona" reworded and cited
  6. "It is said that while playing for Barcelona" cited
  7. "Maradona, due in part to his rebellious nature, got into frequent disputes" reworded
  8. "In Naples, Maradona transformed the local club" reworded
  9. "was the object of some suspicion over his friendship"
  10. "Maradona inspired the Argentine national team to victory"
  11. "Throughout the 1986 World Cup, Maradona asserted his dominance and was the best player of the tournament"
  12. "which became an instant bestseller " cited
  13. "even though Argentine officials have maintained that FIFA hinted that it would" cited
  14. "it is common for Argentines abroad to hear Maradona's name as a token of recognition" cited
- Davodd 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I get your point, but certain things shouldn't be changed. For instance 1) it is sourceable (actual references on the page), and it's pretty much the same as Pelé.
Then, 4: Villa Fiorito is actually a villa miseria or shantytown. For the rest: well, they could be rephrased, but saying he had "an unhappy tenure in Barcelona" doesn't seam completelly wrong, since he had several problems. Regarding Maradona leading the team to the World Cup, it is also widelly considered like that, and he was named the best player of the tournament. Mariano(t/c) 06:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Croatian Link

I have added his link to Dalmatia Croatia as Trivia. It's true so it should be mentioned. Then story is well known and has been covered by the press in Croatia and Argentina. The connection with Marco Polo is interesting too.

In Argentina today some 500,000 people have a Croatian origin. Jagoda 1 04:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mateo Kariolic is related to Marco Polo. Maradona is related to Mateo K. Very interesting when you look at that family tree from Korcula.Jagoda 1 03:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ephedrine

I recently removed the comment "testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs." with "failing a doping test". The point is that even though an stimulant such as cafeine, ephedrine can't be directly considered a performance-enhancing drug. Given Maradona's overweight during the early 1990s, and the abrupt loos of it right before the start of the 1994 World Cup, it is considered to have been used for weight loss before the competition(In defence of Diego Maradona - Eddie Veal, see also Ephedra).

Something more, Efedrina is not prohibited for sports in USA and other countries, mainly because it is not considered an enhancer ([5][6], "Fútbol, a sol y sombra", Eduardo Galeano )

I'm not trying to justify Maradona's methods, I'm just trying to remove certain bias from the Article. For instance, he was banned also for cocaine in blood, what is not mentioned in the opening text.

All in all, there's a hole section of doping in the article, and suggiesting that he took the drug to enhance his performance during the tournament is biased, for it cannot be proved.

I'll rephrase it to be more specific, yet more neutral. Mariano(t/c) 10:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradict tag

Merely tagged as opposed to editing because I don't pretend to be an expert on the matter. I just happened to notice the apparent contradiction of having a "short and weak physique" and a "short and strong" playing type in the same paragraph. Tjtoml 04:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "said by many to be the best" vs "widely held to be among the best"

There is constant reversion backwards and forwards between these or similar phrases in the opening paragraph. The article cited demonstrates that in an on-line poll to register preferences for the greatest player of the 20th century, Maradona received not only the greatest number of votes, but an absolute majority. Such a poll is unrepresentative, and open to block voting, and I would not be infavour of a comment saying that "most football fans consider him to be the greatest", but it does prove that many count him as the best. Although "many" is obviously non-specific, I would contend that it is less mealy-mouthed than "widely held". Likewise, it is verifiable that many have registered a preference for him as the best, wheras to say that he is "among the best" invites the question "the best what? The best 3? the best 20? the best 500?". Thus to say merely that he is "among the best" is to damn with faint praise, and to underestimate the esteem in which this player's ability is held. (I make no comment as to his character, except to suggest that it may have lead a significant number of people to be unwilling to give the recognition they might otherwise have done to his talent). Thus I propose that the first phrase in the heading of this section remain, but look forward to lively debate of the matter. Kevin McE 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion I started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Greatest" claims in several football articles. and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Greatest" claims. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Your position seems to be founded largely on WP:WEASEL: the top of that article reads This page in a nutshell: Avoid "some people say" statements without sources. My whole point is that here there is a source, and the source, an authoritative and relevant worldwide body, reports that a majority of those participating in a widely promoted poll say not only that he is "among the best" (which I would contend is a weasel phrase, for reasons stated above), but that he is "the best. Kevin McE 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stubacca's changes. Claims are okay if and only if attributed. "John Doe is the best flute player<ref>[2007 FooBar internet poll]</ref>" is not acceptable, but "John Doe is the best flute player according to a 2007 FooBar internet poll" is. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-15 17:16Z

I cannot see that a claim is any less attributed by virtue of being in the footnote than in the text, and the brevity desirable in a lead paragraph weighs against such detail in the opening sentence of an article. Kevin McE 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about whether it's in the footnote or not. The problem is an internet poll is not a reliable source. It's not even a secondary source. You can't say "Donatello is the world's favorite Ninja Turtle [7]". I'm not saying that Donatello isn't widely regarded as the best Ninja Turtle; I'm saying that an internet poll doesn't prove this, and if this claim is challenged, then it should be removed until it is supported by references. What is supported by the reference is "Readers of Slashdot voted that their favorite Ninja Turtle is Donatello [8]". Unfortunately for Donatello fans, that statement sounds wimpier; too bad, find a better reference to back up the original claim. That's WP:ATT for you - the onus is on the person trying to add/keep a statement, not the person challenging it. WP:ATT trumps concerns about the brevity of the lede paragraph. If "Foo says Bar is the best" is a crappy sentence, then remove it altogether; it doesn't mean you're free to write "Bar is the best." Can I give you more examples? "Americans prefer Rudy Giuliani to Hilary Clinton as 2008 president [9]" versus "According to a 2006 American Research Group poll, ..."; "Jeff Bezos was the most influential person of 1999" versus "TIME magazine considered Jeff Bezoes the most influential person of 1999." —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-16 07:01Z
But the statement does not say that Maradona is the best, nor that most people say he is the best (I agree with you, you could only say that most people in FIFA's on-line poll voted Maradona as the greatest footballer of the 20th century): it says that many say that he is the best: that is true, and the article cited provides evidence of it. To quote the NPOV policy "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves": the statement as it stands asserts a fact about opinions, and gives evidence to support that fact. So where is the problem? Kevin McE 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it now says "regarded by many" rather than "widely regarded". That's an improvement since it's at face value a statement that's supported by the citation. But "regarded by many" is vague in a misleading way: it either means "widely regarded" or "regarded by a non-trivial number of people". If it's the former, it's the same problem. If it's the latter, then "regarded by many" doesn't say anything useful. I could write "Maradona is regarded by many as not the best player", since 47% of users voted for somebody else. It's like the "some argue" problem that pervades Wikipedia. I could say "some argue that the Holocaust did not occur" and then cite someone who argues such. That would technically be a statement supported by a citation. But it wouldn't be NPOV; that statement is trying to imply that the Holocaust really didn't occur. Instead one should write, for example, "David Hoggan argued that the Holocaust did not occur". I am changing "regarded by many as the greatest footballer of all time" to "He played in four World Cups, including winning the 1986 FIFA World Cup, and received a FIFA award for best footballer of the 20th century." —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 08:03Z
Relevant discussion at → Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Greatest" claims

[edit] I Changed....

i maked one change. i put the current name for the 60m goal for we, the argentinians. its name is "The cosmic kite" or "el barilete cosmico"

[edit] Mandiyú de Corrientes

According to this article, Maradona coached a club named Mandiyú de Corrientes. Is Mandiyú de Corrientes and Textil Mandiyú the same club? --Carioca 05:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Check the Club's article in Spanish. --151.193.220.27 14:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Regards, --Carioca 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] name of article

This man is generally known by the two word version of his name: the middle name is neither necessary nor commonplace in making clear to whom one is referring. I have undone the move that had been made with no discussion and no meaningful edit-note earlier today. Kevin McE (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree and would have done so myself if I had noticed. Woody (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goals

I have a question, why did you include all the goals (national and international club cups)?, even when you put the note "Senior Club appearances and goals counted for the DOMESTIC LEAGUE ONLY" down there. Kyosukekun (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference?

In the first paragraph there is this "Considered to be one of the most overrated players of the 20th century". Considered by who? Please can you give us some reference because i feel this sentence is pulled right out of the hat. Thanx 131.188.245.159 (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalism. Delete and denounce. Kevin McE (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maradonna's birth

In the book 'The Ultimate Fan's Handbook' by Michael Coleman, there is a question in the quiz section that states: "Finally, even as you're reading these words, somewhere in the world a future footballing star may be taking his first breath. Will his (or her) mum be able to tell? What did the doctors shout as Argentina's star Diego Maradona was born? a) It's a goal! b) It's a footballer! c) It's a hand!" All that on page 37. The answer, according to page 38, is a, it's a goal. They were footall fans, and Maradona was the first male child born that day. I added this to the article, but was accused of vandalism. I've given you my source, is it reliable? I think so.86.135.209.39 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Think? You are posting nonsense. Remember this is an encyclopedia. We require verifiable facts. Keep the nonsense elsewhere please. -- Alexf42 16:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am quoting directly from the book in question, so sorry if it sounds informal. I added "When Maradonna was born, Doctors cried "It's a goal!" as he was the first boy born that day" or something along those lines. It was removed because it wasn't sourced. I am posting a source. Sorry if I sound unreasonable, but I'm trying to improve the article86.135.209.39 (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC) I've read the link you provided, and as a result will give more info on the book in question. It's a footballing equivalent of Horrible Histories- which has a good reputation for fact checking. It's published by Scholastic, which also has a good rep for fact checking. 86.135.209.39 (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)