Talk:Pelé/Archive 2

Did Pelé win the World Cup three times? And other POV elements.
I thought I discuss this before editing the article again. The article states: He [Pelé] won three FIFA World Cups: 1958, 1962 and 1970, the only player ever to do so. However, in 1962 Pelé only participated in the first game and got injured in the second. To what extent can you say Pelé won the World Cup of 1962. Especially since most commentators agree that Brazil's World Cup victory of 1962 is mostly because of a very good Garrincha. Is playing only one (!) game means that one won something? After all, he had no part in 5 of the 6 games.

This also relates to the tone of this article, which is in my view a bit POV. For example, the article states: He is widely regarded as the greatest player of all time. The same thing can be read in the articles of Maradona and Messi. So apparently three players are the greatest of all time?! To continue: ''In 1961, Brazil President Jânio Quadros had Pelé declared a national treasure. During his career, he became known as "The Black Pearl" (A Pérola Negra), "The King of Football" (O Rei do Futebol), "The King Pelé" (O Rei Pelé) or simply "The King" (O Rei).'' This is a bit how conservative Christians talk about Jesus. Especially in the 'Reception and legacy' section of the article: not a single critical word.

Isn't this going a bit too far? For instance in this article, the accomplishments of Pelé are put in a more critical light: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/10874465/How-and-why-Peles-mystique-and-reputation-as-the-worlds-greatest-ever-footballer-has-been-overhyped.html. To give an example from it: ''His [Pelé] World Cup record, while impressive, is susceptible to overstatement. Injury in 1962 means that effectively, he only really won two World Cups, and was not the outstanding player either time. In 1958, it was Didi who was voted player of the tournament, while in 1970, it was very much a team effort, with the likes of Tostao and Jairzinho at least as important.''

Or on Pelé knowledge of the game: ''I believe that Pele knows nothing about football,' current Brazil coach Luiz Felipe Scolari said in 2002. 'He has done nothing as a coach and all his analysis always turns out to be wrong. He’s an idol in all of Brazil, but his analysis is worth nothing.'' Can this POV tone change? C.Gesualdo (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pele's level of involvement in the 1962 tournament is irrelevant. He was part of the squad in 1962, therefore he won the tournament, even if he didn't play in the final. – PeeJay 15:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not only the fact that he wasn't playing the final, like I said, he basically only played the first game. Can you say in all seriousness that he contributed to the overall victory (which attributing the victory to him suggests)? I wouldn't mind attributing a victory to a player who played the vast majority of the game excluding the final, but only the first game present and the rest of the tournament injured, that's absurd; Pelé had almost no role in the victory. C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * C. Gesualdo, as PeeJay said above, the level of involvement of Pelé is irrelevant for this purpose according to FIFA's own understanding: even the reserve players, who sit on the bench throughout the whole tournament and don't take part in any games at all, are also considered victors when their teams win the relevant cup, and receive individual championship medals accordingly. Therefore, as a matter of historical record, Pelé did win the 1962 World Cup, together with the other twenty-odd players of the Brazilian team. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but in the article the World Cup victory of 1962 is - in the light of the rather POV tone of the article - presented as an accomplishment of Pelé, which is of course not the case, since it's, like you said, predominantly an historical record. And that's my whole point: the whole article reads as an hagiography of the Almighty Emperor Saint Pelé. C.Gesualdo (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But it is one of Pelé's accomplishments. He may only have played in one match, but he was in the squad as Brazil won the competition, and he even scored in his only appearance. Whether you like it or not, Pelé won the 1962 World Cup. – PeeJay 16:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of me liking it or not, it's a matter of justification. An accomplishment is defined in the Merriam-Webster as: the successful completion of something. Did Pelé complete the World Cup of 1962? The answer is of course no. He didn't even play the most important games, i.e. the quarter-final, the semi-final and the final. His role was in other words completely meaningless. C.Gesualdo (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a justification. We have sources that Pele is considered to have won the 1962 World Cup. What do you have? An opinion? Sorry bud, but that's not gonna fly... – PeeJay 21:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * An opinion based on facts, smart ass. And indeed, if you consider winning a World Cup applies to substitutes as well, then Pelé won the 1962 World Cup. But that doesn't take away the fact that Pelé had next to no part in the World Cup victory, and that Pelé's achievements are thus overrated; which also applies to what I wrote with regard to Pelé being overrated and this article being POV. Did I hurt your feelings by pointing that out? In any case, you're not the decision-maker here and certainly not if you refuse to react on the content. C.Gesualdo (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a non starter as it fails (as an editor in the edit summary stated) on the grounds of undue weight. It's a fringe view from Liew against the thousands that say otherwise. There is also a case of POV pushing from C.Gesualdo by looking up the definition of accomplishment in a dictionary. That has no relevance to Pele winning three World Cups. Regards the tone of the article, see Shakespeare, The Beatles, Michael Jordan etc., people who have excelled in their field and widely perceived to have done so above all others.– DRodgers11talk 21:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The view of the journalist in question is irrelevant since we're talking about facts here. The journalist pointed out facts! Id est: it is a FACT that the majority of the goals Pelé scored came from friendly's. And it's also a FACT that Pelé became injured in the second match and had no important role in the 1962 World Cup. The low opinion of Scolari on Pelé knowledge of football is just as much a FACT as all the positive views of others. Why exclude al critical remarks then? Like I said, this lemma is completely uncritical and resembles an hagiography. C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cease inserting contentious material that has gained no consensus in talk. This is what the talkpage is for. You can also request Arbcom. The article was previously swamped with a multitude of sources – including from the sport's governing body – that proclaimed Pele the greatest. They were only trimmed down because there was that many of them. Plucking out one contrary fringe view – one that overwhelmingly the vast majority of those in the sport would dispute, including his own teammates, opposition players, and the 1970 coach Zagallo – is WP:undue weight. If 99.9% say one thing we dont then give the 0.1% equal billing. The tone of the article is in step with articles of similar level performers from other sports as commented above. Go to the Wayne Gretzky page and argue if the "tone" is not right. And do precisely the same to Michael Jordan. On Scolari, he has frequently made personal attacks on Pele (as Pele has also done to him) which is unencyclopedic. – Carlos Rojas77 talk 02:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is, and I think I stated that very clearly that - apart from the fact that the journalist in question indeed gives his opinion - the article contains several objective facts. In that light the view of the journalist is of no interest. I don't care about Jordan, Gretzky or American sports in general, but if you have facts that criticize their achievements, then I see no reason not to mention them (this is in fact happening with many Wikipedia articles, see for instance the article on Shakespeare). In the case of Pelé it's apparently forbidden to say he had no part in the 1962 World Cup victory (which is an objective fact). Same goes for stating that the vast majority of his goals were made in friendly games. And last but not least, why is it in your view - for instance - not a problem to mention the (positive) remarks of Zagallo, but not the (semi-)critical remarks of Scolari? I don't know how Americans view Pelé (perhaps similar to how they view David Beckham?), but the status of Pelé is in many countries not as undisputed as you're suggesting. C.Gesualdo (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

C.Gesualdo, you have been reverted by five editors and have done nothing to seek any form of consensus. Rather than edit war and seek to push your own POV, let's see how this resolves itself on here. To give my own two cents. Pele winning three World Cups is an historical fact, that you dispute this shows your intentions on the subject. On Pele's performances, he is widely regarded as having the greatest World Cup playing career in history. Young player of the tournament in 1958 where he became a global star, and player of the tournament in 1970 where he was a highlight reel by himself. All time top goalscorer for his national team, all time top goalscoer for his club, records that stand 40 years later. Those who played with him, those who played against him, those who reported on him, universally acclaim him. To cherry pick a recent opinion from a journalist who states he was overrated flies in the face of everything that's been said and written about him previously. – Chie one talk 12:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pele winning three World Cups is indeed an historical fact, but Pelé having had no part in the 1962 World Cup victory is also an historical fact! Why is it problematic to mention that? Pelé scoring a lot of goals is an historical fact, but Pelé scoring half of those goals in friendly games is also an historical fact! And that's my whole point, this article excludes not one or two, but ALL critical remarks. I don't object that the majority of views are positive, because indeed, most people regard Pelé as a great player, but does that mean critical notes or views cannot be expressed? Even though they're also historical facts? Same goes for the opinion of Scolari. Why do we mention the opinion of Zagallo, but not the opinion of Scolari? The view of the journalist in the article is indeed a minority view, but the article is almost entirely based on FACTS! Why can't we mention those facts? C.Gesualdo (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude, just give up. Pele has a medal for his involvement in the 1962 World Cup. He was in the squad, therefore he won the tournament, regardless of how many games he played. Personally, I don't dispute your argument that Pele scored most of his goals in friendlies, which is why I tried to keep that in the article for you (despite your protestations, I might add), but you've gone about this in entirely the wrong way. – PeeJay 14:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you even read? I'm not disputing that at all. I object however, that it's apparently forbidden to even mention the FACT that Pelé had almost no part in the World Cup victory of 1962. Why can't we mention critical notes regarding his achievements? Why can we mention positive remarks by Zagallo, but not the negative remarks by Scolari? We can we mention tons of journalist who think he's the greatest player in the history of the universe, but not one journalist who makes a critical remark? Are you so much in love with Pelé? C.Gesualdo (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But it is mentioned! There's a section called 1962 World Cup that explicitly mentions the fact that Pele only played in the first match of the tournament. But you're trying to make it sound like he didn't play at all! He even scored a goal! No one is trying to claim that the 1962 World Cup was the greatest achievement of his career, but the FACT is that he's won more World Cups than any other person in history and the 1962 World Cup was one of those. – PeeJay 15:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 'He won three FIFA World Cups: 1958, 1962 and 1970, the only player ever to do so'. Exactly where is that mentioned? This sentence gives everyone the impression as if Pelé had equal part in the victories of those World Cups, which is of course not the case. On top of that, I was referring to the entire tone of the article, as mentioned in the very first post in this discussion. In the 'Reception and legacy' section of the article, the writer keeps on bragging about (mostly) completely irrelevant people who have an opinion on Pelé. Why is it forbidden to mention add one critical note of a journalist of quality newspaper, who did thorough research and has good arguments (and FACTS) to support his claim. And finally, where is it mentioned that half of his goals came from friendlies? You wrote: 'In total, Pelé scored 1281 goals in 1363 games, including unofficial friendlies and tour games'. And that's exactly what I mean, where is it written that almost HALF came from friendlies? That's a different perspective. You're presenting Pelé achievements as uncritical and positive as possible. This POV tone has to stop. C.Gesualdo (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He won three WC's, simple as that. It is mentioned and fine as it is/was (whatever version is current). It does not matter if he plays 1 or 500 minutes during the tournament, being on the squad is enough and it should be added for every player than as those also won a WC. Kante4 (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Having denied Pele won three World Cups and changed the article from three to two World Cups wins on 7 July, C.Gesualdo states: "I'm not disputing [the three wins] at all." You don't know what your saying as you contradict yourself. You are attempting to push your own POV and downplay his career. On the argument of goals in friendles, who cares? He's the top scorer for club and country (the most successful country on the planet). He's the top dog regardless of goals in friendlies. The plethora of opinions on Pele were formed by his peerless club and international career. And to question the views from players and writers who saw him in the flesh (that Johan Cruyff, Franz Beckenbauer, Bobby Moore et al. know nothing), and then talk up a fringe opinion from a young journo 40 years later...it's clear what your agenda is. – Herve Reex talk 15:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Honors Section
The honors section in my opinion, is a bit long, and sometimes has honors like "being made a stamp by the DPRK", etc. I don't think a large amount are necessary. Thoughts? JerrySa1 (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the stamp one, but I definitely disagree with removing awards like the Ballon d'Or and the World Soccer Player of the Year award, since those are very big awards given by respected media outlets. – PeeJay 22:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

not a good source
The "total including friendly" part of the table in the goal statistic section should be removed because the source is from his club's website and that would mean his club gets to "decide" how many goals he has. Hence, it would influence the actual statistical facts about the world's greatest football players of all-time. 400+ goals in friendly matches is insane! No other football player's article has that.Ae245 (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and I would revert, but I don't have time for this. Other articles do talk about friendlies, and official tallies DO also include them. Jerry (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How can an official tally include friendlies? Friendlies are, by definition, not official. – PeeJay 07:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point..... Sorry. Jerry (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Pelé. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4578032.stm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lancenet.com.br/noticias/07-10-29/183561.stm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rsssfbrasil.com/tablesrz/rjsp1960.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/matchreport/newsid%3D512321.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151031101245/http://www.rsssf.com/sacups/copalibtops.html to http://www.rsssf.com/sacups/copalibtops.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.skysports.com/football/world-cup-2010/story/0%2C27032%2C17286_5688110%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100126041553/http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/bestbest.html to http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/bestbest.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://db.nelsonmandela.org/speeches/pub_view.asp?pg=item&ItemID=NMS1148
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/142571/unicef-denies-pele-corruption-reports
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://santos.globo.com/clube_historia_ptitulos.php?cod=10441
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151231035356/http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/best-x-players-of-y.html to http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/best-x-players-of-y.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/2000/12/11/pele_maradona
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121222221144/http://www.rsssf.com/ to http://www.rsssf.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://paginas.terra.com.br/esporte/rsssfbrasil/historical.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121222221144/http://www.rsssf.com/ to http://www.rsssf.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.santosfc.com.br/upload/site/Jogos%20e%20gols%20de%20Pel%C3%A9%20pelo%20Santos%20FC.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.life.com/image/first/in-gallery/32492/pele-a-legend-looks-back
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.360soccer.com/pele

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2017
Under New York Cosmos heading, it reads: Two years later, he came out of semi-retirement to sign with the New York Cosmos of the North American Soccer League (NASL) for the 1975 season.

the source is: [[1975 North American Soccer League season|1975 season]] which should be modified. Ghaylan de Damas (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: I think you were requesting a correction to the wikilink syntax, which I have done since it's a minor edit only. If I missed something please reopen this edit request with a more specific explanation of your request. Thanks, &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2017
Under New York Cosmos heading, it reads: Two years later, he came out of semi-retirement to sign with the New York Cosmos of the North American Soccer League (NASL) for the [[1975 North American Soccer League season|1975 season]]. Ghaylan de Damas (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Answered above. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Separate article for awards/honours
I want to propose creating a separate article for the list of awards/honours, and keeping a summary of his major awards/accomplishments here. Having an exhaustive list of things he was praised for during his career doesn't help when we can explain his prolific career in other ways. I suggested in the Good Article review that we should make something like this. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 16:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pelé. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108154314/http://national.soccerhall.org/famers/edson_nacmento.htm to http://national.soccerhall.org/famers/edson_nacmento.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead section
We have articles on Lionel Messi, Diego Maradona, Pelé, and probably other footballers all stating some variation of them being widely considered the greatest in history or of all time. At Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo, it was proposed to use the same language after Ronaldo's recent Ballon d'Or and subsequent hype. The very fact that we have at least three articles making the same claim, not to mention the perpetual "greatest of all time" debates that occur in every sport, suggests that all these articles should say: "widely considered to be one of the greatest ever" or equivalent to comply with WP:NPOV. It is obviously a fiercely debated topic and stating any one player as "the greatest" is non-encyclopedic. I have accordingly made this change but I am obviously open to establishing a consensus for the preferred language. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * There's nothing un-encyclopedic about saying that many in the sport consider [x] to be the greatest of all time on multiple pages. We're not saying that all of them are the greatest or even that all of them are considered the greatest by most, just by many. And they are all considered by many people (whose opinions on this matter) to be the greatest of all time. That's factual, logical, encyclopedic, and very, very relevant to their respective articles.
 * Just as an idea, would it make sense to create an article on this topic? Something like Greatest football player of all time where we can discuss all of them, which "greatest" accolades they've received, which people think which person is the greatest, etc.? -- irn (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not see why, simply because some Ronaldo fans are unhappy that Messi is considered one of the three greatest of all time, that the sentences for Pele, Maradona and Messi need to be changed. For a long time Pele and Maradona have been considered the greatest, with people debating which is the greater. Messi is the only other player to be consisently talked of alongside those two. Ronaldo, never, except by his own managers or fellow Portuguese (or himself). For example, FourFOurTwo recently compiled a 100 greatest of all time, which you can see here: https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/fourfourtwos-100-greatest-footballers-ever Pele, Messi and Maradona are widely regarded as being the greatest by players, former players and journalists, Ronaldo is not. O&#39;Flannery (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018
Please remove the "Total inc. Friendlies" column under Career statistics because it is false and is fan-generated content added by a user named Lsw10 (diff). There is no source to support the content. Friendly matches aren't even official.1.9.47.34 (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC) 1.9.47.34 (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is also a concern about the user's editing here.1.9.47.34 (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

KBE
Pelé’s article is protected. I suggest include after his name the KBE order title that he owns. It should be like that: “Edson Arantes do Nascimento, KBE ...” Pietovte (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Retained"
Can I suggest someone who understands what the word "retained" means go in and edit the article.

You cannot "retain" a title you lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4601:A446:7C0B:22C6:2B0C:B956 (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew is not Portuguese
It says in the article that "Apart from the assertion that the name is derived from that of Bilé, and that it is Hebrew for "miracle" (פֶּ֫לֶא), the word has no known meaning in Portuguese." This gives the impression that פֶּ֫לֶא is a Portuguese word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.5.46 (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it gives that impression at all. The way I read it, which I assume is the correct way, is that it’s saying Pelé (not Bilé) has no known meaning in Portuguese. I find it quite spurious that his nickname is derived from Hebrew, but that’s a discussion for another time. – PeeJay 21:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That sentence quite clearly says, through the use of the phrase "apart from", that פֶּ֫לֶא being the Hebrew for "miracle" gives the name a meaning in Portuguese. This seems incorrect. 109.145.5.46 (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn’t. You’re misreading it. – PeeJay 08:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Senior apps/goals in the Infobox
Hey, guys, I missed the original discussion, but, If I may, I'd like to add some points. I see that the numbers in the Infobox consider all the domestic competitions simultaneously -- but shouldn't it concern only the (main) domestic league of each year? Torneio Rio-SP, for instance, was never the main competition. Sometimes state league results would even be counted in the Rio-SP table. Besides, more often than not teams would avoid using 1st team players in some matches due to its smaller importance in comparison to the state leagues. Another point is that the last Taça Brasil took place in 1968, which made state leagues lose much of their relevance in the national scenario from 1969 on (thus no longer the main domestic leagues) since they were qualifiers for Taça Brasil. For those reasons, I believe it would be fair to use numbers from Campeonato Paulista only until 1968 -- plus all the numbers from national competitions (Taça Brasil + Torneio Roberto Gomes Pedrosa/Taça de Prata + Série A), which would add up 477 apps and 508 goals. Any thoughts? —Lesfer (t/c/@) 12:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Would like to edit
I would like to edit the Honours box such as changing the gold medals to "Winners" and removing "National Team". I believe that is not needed
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DannyS712 (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020
May I please edit this page for my classroom?We are learning about Pelé.We are a fourth grade classroom, we hope to get permission. 66.90.255.249 (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "please change x to y", you can also copy the article over to your sandbox and work on it there, then you can request on this talk page that someone apply your edits. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Minor change for spelling/capitalization
Please change "French three time Balon D'or winner Michel Platini" (under Accolades) to "French three-time Ballon d'Or winner Michel Platini"

Valkyr (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Was Pele really that great?
Other people are just as good, and I do agree pele is great. but others might be better...Bobbybill22 (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * While that may be true, please keep in mind that this is not a forum but rather a place to discuss changes to the article. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with irn. It's written that he was "one of the greatest" not "the greatest", which is true. Talk about other players, the greatest current player is considered to be messi but he wasn't able to match up to pelé's level. Uddhav9 (talk) Uddhav9 (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "wasn't able to match up to pelé's level": not the truth, just your opinion. Ae245 (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Friendly
Some of the stats in this article also count friendly games which I don't think is appropriate. I have not seen another footballer's article consisting of friendly statistics, so why should Pelé be an exception? I think only official games should be included in this article and all instances of friendly (games/goals) should be removed from the article. Ae245 (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

About his Street Football carreer
Yeah, trust me. He played street football, futsal and cricket. We should add some info on that. And please don't make a point without any solid evidence. Uddhav9 (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you think Indoor soccer at Radium Futebol Clube counts as futsal, or did he also play "indoor soccer"? IPOokap (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020
On this infobox: , I want to add youth teams. This is the changed infobox. Look at the youth section:

IPOokap (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the infoboxes don't seem to work, you can go into editing the wikitext and they will show IPOokap (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if this is a test or what, but I do not have sufficient information to fulfill this edit request, so closing. Aasim 00:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, if you want to show the wikitext in the infobox that needs to be changed, you can use   tags.  Feel free to reopen this request once you have done so.  Aasim 00:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Pelé played in these youth teams unofficially, without any information about the periods played and any statistics. The only thing I personally know is that he during his youth career in Bauru he scored more 700 goals. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020
Pele's appearances and goals should be 468 and 501 respectively in the first info-box. The figures 694 and 650 are representative of his total scored goals, i.e. in league and cup. But, according to Wikipedia's policy of having to show only the league records in the first info-box, it should pertain to Pele's info-box as well. As, every other player in Wikipedia have only their league appearance and goals in their first info-box. Your Neighborhood Friend 1 (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Check any other footballer's first infobox. Only the goals and appearances of league matches are stated. Check Cruyff Maradona Messi Ronaldo Neymar etc. In their first infobox, i.e. the box containing information of their name, d.o.b, height, spouse etc. Only league appearance and goals are shown. The same should pertain to Pelé. Thank you. Hopefully, you'll change it to 468 and 501. Cheers! Your Neighborhood Friend 1 (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

IFFHS has recognized 412 games and 470 league goals in Paulista championship, 84 games and 34 goals in Campeonato Brazileiro and 64 games and 37 goals in NASL. These are the official league goals of Pelé. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Pelé and the Civil War in Nigeria
There's a disagremment about the year that the exhibition game of Santos took part in Nigeria. But the truth can be found quite easily. -The civil war in Nigeria started in May 1967. -Santos played three friendly games in Argentina between 19 and 29 of January 1967. -The complete lists of Pelé's goals confirms that this exhibition game took part in Nigeria on 26th of January 1969. On 19th of January and 23th Santos played two friendlies with the National team of Congo and then travelled to Nigeria asking for a minimal protection from the ongoing war. The goverement of Nigeria ensured the Brazilian team for a 48-hour cease-fire. That's the absolute truth. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

More extended information can be found in a few sources like : http//news-af.feednews.com › Was Pele Really Responsible For The End Of The Nigeria?

Thank you. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Pele and the greatest scorers of all time
According to RSSSF Pelé in ranked third of all times in official games (1st Josef Bican, 2nd Romario) and third in total games (1st Josef Bican, 2nd Gerd Müller). FIFA has recognized Arthur friedenreich's 1329 goals but not the stats of Bican and Müller. So, the RSSSF statement for the rank of top scorers is in use. More of this, FIFA has no statistical authority and this is the reason why FIFA denied the recognition of the 91 goals of Messi (2012) as a world record. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

And FIFA recognized the goals of Arthur friedenreich without proofs! (simply they don't exist...) Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

League goals :explanation of note 11
In 2010, CBF (the Brazilian Football Federation) recognized Taça Brazil and the Torneio Roberto Gomes Pedrosa till 1971, as equal to Campeonato Brazileiro. So, the tables with Pelé's stats in Santos are due to this decision (and can be regarded as correct). According to this, Pelé would have scored 607 league goals (Campeonato Paulista 470, Campeonato Brazileiro 100, NASL 37). But this is a result of a decision taken on a national level. International statistics federations (IFFHS, RSSSF) are not obliged to accept what national or even international associations/federations (FIFA, UEFA) decide. The latest edition of RSSSF - Prolific Scorers Data, still recognise as Campeonato Brazileiro goals of Pelé only those since the official season the championship started (since 1971). Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

As a continue IFFHS currently describes Pelé as a scorer of 541 league goals. These are the facts that can be easily found. Not my opinion. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020
Change the location of Soccer Bowl 77 from New Jersey to Oregon. Portland Civic Stadium is located in Portland, Oregon. 24.16.33.241 (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done RudolfRed (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

KBE Sufix is Allowed! (Not Prefix Sir)
"When a foreign national receives an honorary knighthood of an order of chivalry, he is not entitled to the prefix Sir, but he may place the appropriate letters after his name. (...) An honorary knight of an order of chivalry uses the appropriate letters after his name, but without the prefix Sir because he is not eligible to receive the accolade." (Elizabeth Wyse, Jo Aitchison, Zöe Gullen, Eleanor Mathieson, ed. (2006). "Forms of Address". Debrett's Correct Form (2006 ed.). Richmond, Surrey: Debrett's Limited. pp. 98, 100. ISBN 978-1-870520-88-1.

Other reference: How Does One Become A Knight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zambrone (talk • contribs) 18:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ummm, okay? – PeeJay 19:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021
Website information is incorrect or has been compromised www.pele.com has been redirected to https://adamriveravo.com Also pele10.com is redirected to an online bookstore. Both websites need to be removed. I was not able to find an active website for the history athlete. Shawna-alala (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. pele10.com does not seem to be in the article. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 00:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Pele in Santo Domingo in 1976
In 1976 Pele didn't play against Violet atletic club in Santo Domingo.. The game was in Port au Prince, Haiti, Stade Syvio Cator. It was a promotion for Pepsi cola. It finished 2-1 for Violet Ac against New York Cosmos. Pele didn't score. I was there with my late father. 173.59.20.217 (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2021
I would like to edit this source because I would like to talk about him as an icon in FIFA 22 Jacklovesliverpool (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2022
Grammar error 2001:BB6:7B31:7300:50E3:D3A6:5308:F151 (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)