Talk:Pelé/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The other 3 playmakers

In the 1970 team, there was Gerson as main playmaker or deep-lying playmaker, then Clodoaldo his partner in the double pivot who was used as an improvised defensive midfielder unless/until Gerson was man-marked (or not playing) and they'd swap, and then Rivelino who was converted into a left winger.

So you had:

+++++++++ Tostao  +++++++++++++++++ 

++ Rivelino - Pele - Jairzinho +++ 

++++++ Gerson - Clodoaldo ++++++++++ 

During this time Pele increased the amount of people coming to New York Cosmos games. The average amount of people coming to these games where about 20,000 people. Also, Pele used his popularity to promote soccer in the US. This brought more hope and interest for the game of soccer, and was the start of its revolution. The revolution continued to grow as Pele played for the Cosmos, but when he left the popularity started to die down. Though the popularity of soccer started to go down, Pele still inspired people to love the game of soccer, which was an improvement. Without Pele coming to the US, soccer may not be where it is today.

References

Why the article does not emphasize that he is considered the 'de-facto' best player in history?

Wikipedia needs enciclopedic information, and Pelé is, by many, even the world's football most respected organization, FIFA, considered the best player in the known football history. One cannot be considered the best by all the people in the world, this is impossible. But we have enough information from history books, football experts and media considering him the best player in history, and this article does not emphasize it when the information is so clear. Markweiser (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Pele was voted the best athlete of the 20th century by the highest sport authority (IOC), best football players of 20th century by IFFHS, World Soccer, France Football etc. There's not even one OFFICIAL STATEMENT of any other to be the greatest. If someone has even one, I WANTED TO KNOW. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

a simple google check reveals that both messi and maradona are way more often listed as the greatest ahead of pele, so it doesnt make sense to change it. we already have the statement of fifa labeling him the greatest so that should be enough FMSky (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Because he is not. The opinions of those organizations cannot convert into fact. At the end of the day, stats will be the metric that matters the most in terms of measuring how great a player is in history and not how a certain organization views the player. From stats alone, Messi and Ronaldo are better than Pele. Also, just for the record, there are many articles saying Messi is the greatest player in football history. Also, I am sure whatever those organizations said about Pele was during a time before the era of Messi and Ronaldo. Times have changed, those recognitions given to Pele are now outdated. Ae245 (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ae245: find a consensus firstFMSky (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@FMSky: the statement "labelled 'the greatest' by FIFA" is very inappropriate because of 7 reasons. One, it is biased and assumes that FIFA holds the highest and most trusted level of authority over the sport itself, when it does not or is disputed. Two, the provided source is no longer accessible and the archived version is smudgy. Three, even if you were to cite FIFA as a source, it would not be proper because FIFA is a primary source and by the principles of Wikipedia, secondary sources are required and not primary sources. Four, the source itself is questionable because it has written controversial and subjective information in the article such as scoring over 1200 goals in his career. His career goals reach not even 900. Five, the statement does not match anything written in the source. It says he is "the greatest", but the source does not say that. Instead it says "The greatest of them all" (all specifies something, just "the greatest" does not) in the title or "Player of the Century". Six, the manner in which the statement is phrased in the article is very vague. The greatest of what? Of all time? Of the last 50 years before the 21st century? Seven, it needs to be improved or removed to abide by the policies of this website. I understand your desire to protect this "Good" article, but for the betterment of it, such a misleading and vague statement is best removed. Ae245 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

FIFA is the governing body of the sport. Attributing a quote to them is in similar vein to the National Basketball Association who label Michael Jordan “the greatest”. By attributing a quote you avoid subjectivity (ie. a personal viewpoint). Nampa DC (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nampa DC: the quote doesn't match the source so it is a fake quote. The source doesn't work because the page is inaccessible and there is no trace of it on the internet other than the archived version. This can be akin to FIFA retracting their statement on Pele. Also, the fact that it was posted in 2012, when Messi's career was just getting started. It is obviously an outdated statement, considering how nothing is definite and the viewpoints of people and organizations like FIFA can and will change over time. Ae245 (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, does this account (Hells Bells7) belong to either one of you? Ae245 (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

One, it is biased and assumes that FIFA holds the highest and most trusted level of authority over the sport itself, when it does not or is disputed.. @Ae245: I agree but "according to FIFA" is not the same what "Pele has been wiedly redgarded as very the greatest of all time thank to FIFA", so current form is OK. If so short sentence is controversial then why you not remove from infobo information that Messi has the most FIFA Ballon d'Or (mentioning trivial infos about records of Golden Ball at infobox in the lead is ridiculous as suggests that anyone ever consider that award seriously, follow that rivalry for golden ball, or that Cristiano and Messi respetivelly oul have five times more such individual awards than Cruyff if they not play at the same era, even before 2016 when none of them won national title they were couple times mbest player of the year according to FIFA, why not remove table with records per WP:NOTSTATS and as FIFA is not trusted authority or source?). Dawid2009 (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dawid2009: I am not saying the phrasing is worded non-neutrally, but it's a bit vague to just say "Greatest" and especially citing a source from over a decade ago making it obsolete too. Also, I didn't say FIFA is not noteworthy but in instances like this where prose is written in the very top of the article, I think it is better to not write something that may be considered controversial as there may be many people to disagree with the view, even if it's written in the form of a quote attributing to an organization. I have also mentioned how the source is problematic but no one seems to be interested in rectifying it, maybe because these editors on here are fans of Pele and may prefer to write what is favourable to him or what, I don't know. Ae245 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The wording looks fine. It’s not a definitive statement, merely the view of FIFA. Had it said he was de facto the best (as the original editor proposed) then that would be an issue. His achievements in the game are extraordinary, which is reflected in the esteem with which he is held, therefore I don’t see why it shouldn’t also be reflected here. Emmett SP (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

PELE STATS

There are two international statistic sources, RSSSF and IFFHS, the second recognised by FIFA. ALL other sources are unofficial (including the Santos FC archive) except FIFA but FIFA has no recognised any number of officials for Pele (only the total of 1,281). The number of goals of Pele should be from any of those two sources and the same should be for every player (not always possible) . The choise is on wikipedia. Especially for Pele the numbers are two : RSSSF 775, IFFHS 765. The number 757 is an experimental number and not appropriate for wikipedia. And that's the way wikipedia should work : not based on media or anything someone can found in the web, especially for stats. The difference is one : RSSSF includes all the career goals, IFFHS only the highest level. This is according to their definitions. But "goals at the highest level" ARE NOT recognised as "type" of goals. FIFA (the highest authority of the sport) recognise OFFICIAL GAMES and FRIENDLY GAMES (there are also unofficial friendlies, called "training games" but they are out of any account). This "categorization" is followed in whatever I write in el.wikipedia and can be found in proper way in the list of "Players with 500 goals or more" of el. wikipedia. I hope that I assisted in understanding how football statistics work. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As nobody answered it is my duty to re-change your EXRERIMEMNTAL STATS. IF YOU DON'T KNOW, I KNOW. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

FIFA Games

Pelé is known as an icon in the football game FIFA 22 [realesed 1 October 2021] with an ovr of 95, making him the best player. He has appeared in most FIFA games prior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacklovesliverpool (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Surname.

Hi @Ciro Lyndo: - I noticed your edit here[1]. I thought that "do" was part of the surname, as it appears to be similar to other prefixes found in surnames in other languages, I.E - "De la" in Spanish (like de la Cruz), "Del" found in Spanish and Italian surnames (like Del Toro or Del Vecchio), the "De" or "Du" in French (De La Rue), etc. I'm not a native speaker of Portuguese, but it's my understanding that "do" means "of the"? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"Do" means literally "of the", and isn't a part of the surname. The majority of famous Brazilians remove the "do", "da", "dos" from their stage name. "Da" means "of the" but from surnames which A is the last word, like Silva. "Dos" means "from them", and it's from surnames ended with S, like Santos. Ciro Lyndo (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ciro Lyndo: - Interesting. So, for Portuguese-speakers, or at least Brazilians, the prefixes such as "do" or "da" are different from say, Spanish-language surnames? It's not like say, Benicio del Toro or Hernando de Soto, where the "del" or "de" (also meaning "of the" or "of") are part of their surnames (AFAIK)? Clear Looking Glass (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I really don't know so much about Spanish surnames. But, Brazilians with Spanish surnames didn't count the "del" as part of their surnames. The same occurs with Brazilians with German surnames, they don't count the "von" as part of the surname. Ciro Lyndo (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Notable mother's longevity

It is remarkable he was survived by his 100 year old mother Celeste Arantes do Nascimento.[2] [3] 201.17.92.33 (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Where the nickname came from

Wikipedia mentions that the nickname “Pelé” was given in high school because Pelé did not know how to pronounce the name “Bilé”, his favorite player, a goalkeeper at Vasco da Gama at the time. Pelé declared in his autobiography that he had no idea what “Pelé” meant, but that “Bilé” means “miracle” in Hebrew (פֶּ֫לֶא). פֶּ֫לֶא, however, does not translate as miracle, rather “wonder”.

Wikipedia menciona que o apelido foi dado no colégio por Pelé não saber pronunciar direito o nome “Bilé", seu jogador preferido, goleiro do Vasco da Gama na época. Pelé declarou em sua autobiografia que não tinha a menor ideia que “Pelé” significa, mas que “Bilé” significa “milagre” em hebraico (פֶּ֫לֶא). פֶּ֫לֶא, however, does not translate as miracle, rather “wonder”. 66.61.24.105 (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Was Pelé born in a favela?

Article doesn't mention favela and doesn't really have much about his childhood, but I thought he was born into that level of poverty. Seems worth clarification that I didn't get from visiting. Shanen (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

He was not born in a favela. He was born in a small city (Três Corações) in 1940. There were no favelas in small cities in the 1940s. I don't believe he was in that level of poverty in his childhood because his father (Dondinho) was already a soccer player in a major soccer team (Fluminense FC) in 1942. 201.17.92.33 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Place of death

Morumbi is a neighborhood in the City of São Paulo, located in the State of São Paulo, his place of death should be listed as "São Paulo, São Paulo". Neighborhoods aren't legal entities in Brazil, i.e.: they merely exist to define location, and hold no official administrative power like in the United States, if Pelé were to die in any of the other 95 neighborhoods of said city, his place of death would still be São Paulo, São Paulo. Bastewasket (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Pele

Died 59.94.195.42 (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

We know. PeachyBum07 (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

First World Cup goal

Mention 1958 world cup but the article doesn't include the fact he scored his first World Cup goal against Wales in the quater finals. 2A00:23C8:1581:201:15B9:8BF5:5632:103C (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

This could be a good suggestion for an edit. Do you have a citation to support the addition of this fact? Jurisdicta (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

First Black International Sports Star?

It says at the end of the top summary that he is the first Black international sports star, and there is a link to an article about proyecting Pele's legacy. But what about the legacy of Jesse Owens? 2607:FEA8:BCE5:300:B9DC:69CE:E0FE:47F8 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered this as well. OllyV (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

This looks like it's citing an opinion piece as fact. And Owens isn't the only one. Joe Louis was not only a hero in the country that oppressed his entire race in the 1930s, but widely known enough that the Nazis celebrated a German beating him once, and put considerable stakes on their man beating him for a second time. It's easy to think that football is the only world sport, but anyone in the world who had a newspaper or radio in the 1930s knew the name Jesse Owens or Joe Louis. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Think that’s a valid point. I’m removing “first” and retaining black global star. Nampa DC (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Children

I've reluctantly tagged the biographical detail of Pelé's first three children as unreferenced. All the references used in the "Health" section support the spelling "Kely". Davidships (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Messi for trying, though the ref given didn't contain that info - but a link from that did, so I have changed it accordingly (StyleCaster seems to be accepted as WP:RS. Davidships (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC Possible infobox image replacement

Seeing how when Elizabeth II, Angela Lansbury, Meat Loaf, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Jerry Lee Lewis, Bill Russell and other celebrities pass away, their infobox images are replaced by ones in which they appear younger, at the peak of their career, black and white, etc. Should this also be applied to Pele? Seeing how he had just passed, there might be some potential edits to his infobox so holding a consensus now would avoid disruptive editing.

• 
  Option 1; 1962
• 
  Option 2; 1962
• 
  Option 3; 1995
• 
  Option 4; 1970
• 
  Option 5; 1965
• 
  Option 6; 1962
• 
  Option 7; 1963
• 
  Option 8; (variation of Option 2)
• 
  Option 9; 1965
• 
  Option 10; (closeup of Option 10)
• 
  Option 11

I'm personally inclined for option 1. 2601:249:8E00:420:7D41:8C6B:2BFE:2201 (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. Both 1 and 2 are of him in his younger years, but 1 has a less distracting background and a better crop. Bremps! 19:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Change to Option 8. Just option 2 but with better background blurring.

  Bit of a rushed job in Photopea. Bremps! 07:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• I go for Option 1. as well. Safercontent (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 [edit: from the original proposed list] Option 6, even more so if the background can be blurred. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 23:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Change to Option 11. Color, in uniform, good quality, good framing. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 16:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 5 if as TarkusAB stated, the background is changed a bit to darken the lighting. Otherwise option 2. Option 9 or 11 for me. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  I was referring to the original options. I think @FMSky: should move their proposals to the original list to avoid confusion. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 05:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

moved --FMSky (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Anything but 3 Deceased should have a picture when they were in their prime, if a suitable one is available.—Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
• Option 6 or 7 providing a better crop is in place (centering issues). Option 5 has a massive stamp in the middle and an exposure on the left; a badly cropped position didn't help with the image either. Cheers, gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I would like to nominate another two images (Option 9 & 10) which I am personally favoring over. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
• im going with Option 11 --FMSky (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Option 4 it shows him as a footballer 2006toyotacorrola (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 for me for the infobox image 2001:D08:D2:38D6:91D6:C769:605C:A51E (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
• Option 11 Is a clear picture, does not have a distracting background and seems to be a good overall picture. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
• Option 11 It's bright and in color, and he's in uniform. It's also of better quality than Option 4. Scapulus (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
• Option 10 Is a good close up without a distracting background, and its the right size. Also captures him in his younger years. BlueShirtz (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 6 or 8. These have fairly good lighting with less glair on his face. Also Per MOS:PORTRAIT he is looking towards the text. Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 18:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
• Argh, why was Option 8 taken off?!! Looked really classy IMO. PeachyBum07 (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2' or Option 11 is the most suitable for me. I disagree with current image (Option 3) as after death of super star it is better to choose image from peak of career, and in fact almost evey moment of Pele's player career is his peak. 1962 fits too. First World Cup 1958 made his nickname O Rei, the last one (1970) made his reputation even greater when become first player to ahieve 3 WCs, in 1962 FIFA WC he had more limied role to triumph but in 1962 he was certainly at the top, he won for example interntional club competition that year with Santos. So personally I would choose black-white image from 1962 but it is just me. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2. It's a well-taken photo of the subject, it's the sharpest one and with the higher resolution. Please notice that image quality of Option 8 has significantly degraded (compare closely the two) due to aggressive compression and halving the resolution (file size shrinked from 1159 KB to 90 KB). I feel that the blurring of Option 8 is a bit unnatural, too. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3, he was more than just a footballer, after retiring he remained a prominent figure. Synotia (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 11. I support the current Option 11--Marginataen (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Pelé and race relations

I added a section under Pelé's political views to include his views on race relations but it was undone and I was told that while the matter was probably notable, it was not worded correctly.

Here are the sources: [4] Book by a history professor

[5] Academic paper

[6] Article in the Times (paywalled)

Other sources: BBC opinion piece but citing Pelé's biographer and discussing the contrasts in his life

The Conversation piece by professor, goes off on tangents but draws many of the same conclusions as other pieces

Opinion piece in the i

Though the subject is very nuanced and difficult to sum up in a few words, many sources agree that Pelé believed in overcoming adversity with individual discipline and silencing racists with his talents. Many sources also say that this approach drew critics. The source in the i also mentions that he did boycott South Africa during apartheid and maintained a strong bond with Nelson Mandela, something covered in other sources here. [7] [8]

Over to the community to decide on whether this topic is notable and how it should be written. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Preparing for Pele’s Death

I am announcing here that Pele’s health is deteriorating and worsening drastically, we should start making improvements I think we will hear about Pele’s death soon.. 2601:183:4081:FEA0:0:0:0:412E (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

No, don't make edits confirming his death until it is officially reported. While it is deteriorating rapidly, it is not confirmed. Once it is, go ahead and edit it. Crazyeditor23 (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

It is offitial Theknighted1 (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

yes my friends NYMan6 (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Nvm the article was fake Theknighted1 (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Official now MaskedSinger (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

yep NYMan6 (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

RIP RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

we lost a legend NYMan6 (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2023

His funeral will be held on Monday, January 2, in Santos City. After his funeral, He will be buried at Memorial Necrópole Ecumênica stadium. </ref> Mahesh K Rathi (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Really ‘the King’?

Was Pele really the king of football? Or is that overrated? 92.232.123.42 (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Elvis has left the building and now Pele has too, they're playing cards around Heaven's table^{[[citation needed [[]} PeachyBum07 (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Well said. Imadethis123 (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Pelé : Hebrew origin

The transcription of the Hebrew word seems wrong; see here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/פלא

In Hebrew this is pronounce /'pele/, which would be Pele in Portuguese.

Wathiik (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

"Hebrew origin"!! Just a curiosity and very trivial. So someone told Pelé that a word in a random language, latinised Hebrew, looks similar to his name, and he made passing mention of it in an interview, without suggesting at all that it was the origin of his nickname. If he had been reading this page back in 2007 he would discovered that his nickname meant "mouse" in Lithuanian, and is quite likely to have mentioned that too. All this fluff is quite unencyclopaedic and doesn't need to be mentioned at all, or at most consigned entirely to a footnote. Davidships (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

okay, thanks for clearing that up - just a coincidence then ... Wathiik (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

Hello

I would like to make a change to Pelé's country of birth in the information box. I would like to add a link to the page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vargas_Era"

Thank you Vadel91 (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This seems like it could be a contentious change, and add something to the infobox better explained in prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2022

Wikipedia article mentions that the nickname “Pelé” was given in high school because Pelé did not know how to pronounce the name “Bilé”, his favorite player, the goalkeeper of Vasco da Gama at the time. Article states that Pelé declared in his autobiography that he had no idea what “Pelé” means, but states that “Bilé” means “miracle” in Hebrew (פֶּ֫לֶא). פֶּ֫לֶא, however, does not translate as “miracle”, rather it means “wonder” in Hebrew. 66.61.24.105 (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

El C, can I get your opinion on this? The source states but recently he has found out that it means miracle in Hebrew. Does it mean wonder, and if so does it mean the type of wonder that could be synonymous with miracle? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Pelé means in other languages. It's complete and utter trivia. There are thousands of languages on Earth, the chances of Pelé meaning something poignant in one of them trends towards absolute certainty. – PeeJay 13:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It is somewhat noteworthy because it has been discussed in secondary sources. I'm ambivalent about keeping that piece of trivia in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Just because something has been discussed in secondary sources doesn't mean we have to mention it in the article. The two words aren't even pronounced the same, as noted below. – PeeJay 22:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: As discussed above, the piece of noteworthy trivia is mentioned as miracle in pretty much all the sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: merged. MaterialWorks _(talk) 21:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Death and funeral of Pelé into Pelé. I think the content in Death and funeral of Pelé can be easily explained in the main article, and having the fork is simply redundant– there is really not that much content on the separate article. A merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the main Pelé article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree Half-kratos21 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I will add information from the Portuguese article and let’s see what happens from there. Trillfendi (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree Iowauniguy (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree MusiBedrock (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Weak agree - The article in its present state certainly does not warrant a separate article, which to my understanding are generally reserved for highly notable state leaders such as Elizabeth II or Benedict XVI. Although, I understand that Pelé was an incredibly influential in Brazil and in association football, so if the quality of the article is improved I may change my opinion. Estar8806 (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Estar8806 I just expanded the article from the Portuguese wiki. Please check if that changes your mind. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 09:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Bestagon Thank you for your effort. But I still ‘’’Agree’’’. Yes, the subject of the funeral was highly notable, but the article itself is only six paragraphs and the funeral itself was not a massive public event, like that of the aforementioned Queen or Pope. Estar8806 (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Support: Due to reasons above. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The death and funeral are extremely notable on their own. The article can be easily expanded from the ptwiki version. Skyshifter ^talk 23:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose merge per Skyshifter. I've expanded the article somewhat. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 09:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pelé's jersey donated to Pope Francis.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't we delete that line quoted "Regarded as one of the greatest players of all time and labelled "the greatest" by FIFA," in Pelé????

Pele was regarded as GOAT by Fifa. The link taken to the fifa website was deleted. Don't you think he didn't regard as GOAT anymore by Fifa? I think it will be biased for footballers to call them Goat by Fifa. Understanding this, they may deleted that post completely. Thus. Though they deleted from their site, in web archive it will remain forever.

So, shouldn't we delete that line quoted "Regarded as one of the greatest players of all time and labelled "the greatest" by FIFA," in Pelé???? HridoyKundu (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

the article is originally from 2012 and doesnt exist anymore, so it does indeed seem like fifa doesnt consider him the greatest anymore. should be removed imo --FMSky (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Just because FIFA made some changes to their website, doesn't mean the line should be removed. He is still regarded as the greatest, which you can see on the citation right next to it. TotallyJimmyFallon (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

that article just says "greatest player of the 20th century" --FMSky (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Huh, it does. Sorry. I still think the quote should kept, even if it got link rot'd. TotallyJimmyFallon (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that line should be kept in the article. The FIFA titled article "Pele, Greatest of them All" still exists, just takes a while to open. Also, the fact that FIFA President Infantino recently called Pele the greatest player of all time adds further weight as to why the article should be kept in. Koppite1 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That is actually only an archive of the page, the original link is dead --FMSky (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

So what are we gonna do about this sentence? --FMSky (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless there is overwhelming consensus to the contrary, leave the comment in. Just because the initial link is broken, doesn't mean we can pretend FIFA never said it. The fact is, they did say it. And an additional link as been provided. Koppite1 (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

which additional link is that? i still only see the original archived one --FMSky (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the text say "labelled the greatest" or "labelled the greatest player of the 20th century"? The discussion above brought no consensus. --FMSky (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

• As the cited source ([9]) states Pele, who was once named by FIFA as the greatest player of the 20th century., the article should reflect the "20th century" wording. Omitting that means the article is making a bigger claim than the source does, and that is of course unacceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• The statement should be specific to football and state…Pele was labelled as the greatest football player of the 20th century... There are other sports and athletes who have excelled in them. To state, Pele was better than them or his contributions to sports in general was greater than these other excellent sports persons, does not seem to be correct.- Mnair69 (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Mnair69. Seems self-evident to me that inclusion of "football" is the context for the FIFA citation. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• The FIFA bit reads clunky and doesn't really add much. I would go with something like this:

Widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time, he was among the most successful and popular sports figures of the 20th century.

There's plenty of sources characterizing him as one of the greatest players. This summery is easier to read. - Nemov (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this. Ortizesp (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest

"Widely regarded as one of the greatest football players of all time, he was among the most successful and popular sports figures of the 20th century." Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Praise from FIFA is lede worthy, so my suggestion would be : "Regarded as one of the greatest players of all time and labelled "the greatest" by FIFA Chief Infantino, he was among the most successful and popular sports figures of the 20th century. " 80.249.61.73 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• it's a no brainer. Pele WAS regarded the greatest by FIFA but not anymore. The text should be removed. Outdated content and sources shouldn't have place on here, especially considering after that article was published, several newer players have evolved into contenders for the goat status. In fact, since Messi came into the picture, many reputable publications and organizations recognize him as the goat and not Pele. It's disingenuous to point at that 2012 (now-nonexistent) article and say FIFA still holds that stance. Ae245 (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

  "Pele WAS regarded the greatest by FIFA but not anymore"

  How do you know? FIFA have not published any statement to say they do or don't. All we know is that 2 FIFA Presidents have recently rated him the GOAT. Also there are reputable sources and organizations that recognise Pele as GOAT over Messi. HOWEVER, i'm fine with "Widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time, he was among the most successful and popular sports figures of the 20th century" if that has the greatest consensus. However, FIFA called him the greatest in 2012 as per Morbidthoughts suggestion below is a better compromise, in my view. Koppite1 (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  By revoking the publication of that article, FIFA acknowledged they no longer regarded Pele the greatest. Otherwise, there's no other plausible reason for them to do that. Ae245 (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  yes agree, that's indeed what it seems like --FMSky (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  A bit hasty to automatically jump to that conclusion simply because FIFA archived a document. They could have done that for a variety of reasons, such as not wanting to come across as biased in anyway. People archive documents for many different reasons. Can't just blindly jump to single assumptions . All we know is that FIFA issued that statement in 2012 and those who have represented FIFA at the highest level since 2012 (the various Presidents) have recently rated Pele as GOAT....so that doesn't really tally up with this notion that FIFA have done a complete 180 degree change of view. We simply don't know. Anyway, i think Morbidthoughs suggestion would have been a far better compromise. I don't see why we have to hide the fact that FIFA labelled Pele the greatest in 2012. No other palyer has ever been labelled Greatest by FIFA. Koppite1 (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not wanting to come off biased is another good reason to no longer acknowledge Pele as the greatest. I'm pretty sure, at least by Wikipedia standards, removing an web page from public view is a valid form of retraction. Currently I see that the archive page by Archive.org is the only piece of evidence proving FIFA ever made that claim, and as Wikipedia requires 'exceptional sources for exceptional claims', I'm not sure how it would be appropriate to place that statement anywhere in this article, much less the lead, citing just that source. Ae245 (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm surprised that anyone thinks that archive.org is unreliable to confirm what FIFA once published; even for the "exceptional" claim of what FIFA wrote in 2012. But if you want a secondary reliable source that confirms what FIFA once wrote in 2012.[10] Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• There are dissimilar listings over who is #1, (e.g. Mardona as #1 here, Messi as #1 here, and Pele as #1 here), so I think Nemov's wording best to show that.

Widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time, he was among the most successful and popular sports figures of the 20th century.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support Widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time, he was among the most successful and popular sports figures of the 20th century. per Nemov and Markbassett. This appears to be very widely sourceable and not hyperbolic - and readable. Pincrete (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m good with that. It would be okay to include the FIFA accolade as a citation to that as well, I think. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'm also for Widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time, he was among the most successful and popular sports figures of the 20th century. per above --FMSky (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
• I'm fine with acknowledging that FIFA called him the greatest in 2012. They did. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• FMSky, I don't think this RfC needs a formal close. There seems to be a consensus to include the quote:

Widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time, he was among the most successful and popular sports figures of the 20th century.

Unless there's a strong objection that should resolve this topic. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Sir Edson Arantes do Nascimento

You guys should put the correct title over there. 82.28.226.167 (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

He only has an honorary knighthood, which means he cannot receive the style "Sir". – PeeJay 23:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Portuguese: [ˈɛtsõ aˈɾɐ̃tʃiz du nasiˈmẽtu]

It’s wrong. It’s actually ˈɛdsõ(w) and na(j)siˈmẽtu 2804:14D:5C32:4673:65F3:A678:A213:A1B0 (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect quote attibution

The quote (Reference 94) is incorrectly attributed by the source referenced. The "goal" Pelé is talking about is this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgLlwDjTplY), not the save made by Gordon Banks. I would have edited the article to reflect this, except I'm not very familiar with editing Wikipedia articles so just wanted to make a note of here for someone who might know better. But that quote is definitely talking about that dummy. 2A00:23C7:D402:1601:8CB1:C314:8FEB:7178 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

huh 164.83.63.230 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

What exactly confused you? 2A00:23C7:D402:1601:D8E4:ABBB:6D9D:D2B7 (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)