Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

RfC on 'Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by some as the greatest of all time'

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Overall, there is no consensus on the wording to include in the article. While there are a number of mentions of this being widespread in use on the internet, this is contested by some, and a google search shows a number of contenders mentioned in sources, so I don't feel the sources support the inclusion of the claim. There have also been a number of counter-proposals for alternative wording, but unfortunately none of these have reached consensus either. Because of this, the article should omit the phrase for now until an alternative can be agreed upon, as this is a BLP. Mdann52 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Is the statement in the introduction of this article: 'Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by some as the greatest of all time' appropriate for C. Ronaldo?

Like I pointed out: you can find a 'source' for pretty much every claim, but making a statement like this in the introduction of an article gives it the impression as if it's the majority view and an obvious fact. I gave the – rather cynical – example of the painter Bob Ross. What if you can find someone who thinks Bob Ross is the greatest painter of all time, is that enough to make a statement like: some consider him to be the greatest painter of all time? This seems absurd to me, but it is the logical consequence if it's possible to say 'C. Ronaldo is the greatest of all time' when only one or two writers are claiming this.

So when is it possible to make statements like 'regarded as the greatest of all time' or 'regarded by some to be the greatest'? When are the sources sufficient? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment You can't use a single statement like that, with a single ref. It is barely cogent, and the opinion of one writer. The depth of feeling that make people affirm a decision of this type must be very wide, in instances like this. It has to be players, managers, coaches, pundits, radio personalities, the football commentariat, coming together and all saying who the best player is considered. Take a look at the Pelé article, He is widely regarded as the greatest football player of all time. During the time when he was at his height, everybody spoke about him, celebrated everywhere. scope_creep (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It would be muchneasier to support "regarded as one of the best", then "the best", which is always contentious.Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment – Many compare Ronaldo with Lionel Messi and one might definately argue that Ronaldo is currently the better player. Messi article says "Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as the greatest of all time,... " without any really good sources and I dont see why we can not do the same for Ronaldo. Qed237 (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The fact that one might argue that he's currently better, doesn't mean that he's immediately regarded as the greatest player of all time, let alone that 'many' are considering him to be the greatest. It seems to me that you would need a lot of sources to proof he's the greatest, not just two obscure columnists who are hesitantly arguing he's the greatest. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Agree with Qed. And both of you deserve a block for the edit warring. Kante4 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot) Wikipedia doesn't make value judgments, it reports what other say. So "often considered to be the best", when back up with verified sources, is all right. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 20:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Completely agree with Max Eisenhardt. The evidence used to defend the claim 'considered by many as the greatest of all time' is incredibly weak, and simply highlights the absurdity of the claim. O'Flannery (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Opinions should be stated and cited as opinion and ascribed to those holding such opinions In short, making any such claim in Wikipedia's voice is not a great idea. We might say in the body: "Writer 'Eddy Edwards' (example fake name) says Ronaldo is 'one of the greatest players of all time'" or the like, but placing the claim in the lead is exceedingly a poor idea. Collect (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Exactly what User:Qed237 said. The statement often considered the best in the world is not the argument here, since every week we see some player or the other saying that Ronaldo is the best or Messi is the best and we can find more than a dozen sources from distinct players/experts who regard them as the best. So the statement "often considered the best in the world" is true for both. The argument is the statement "regarded by many as the best ever". As User:Qed237 told & as I've been telling many times earlier, it's about keeping WP:IMPARTIAL between similar articles, in this case Messi's. In Messi's page, the statement is "regarded by many as the greatest of all time", but all you can find are claims from just 3 or 4 distinct players/coaches, rest all being just discussions & in one of those discussions, 5 out of 6 say that he's not the greatest ever. But still the statement "regarded by many as the greatest ever" has stayed. Since it's the same case with this article, I don't see why there should be a bias. So it should be either "regarded by many" in both the pages or "regarded by some" in both the pages. Stating "many" in one page & "some" in the other page, when both the pages have similar claims, is not acceptable. And since the other page was cleared as WP:GA, it would be better to keep it as reference for statements in similar articles rather than changing that article. Shady59 (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You can't take a few articles (by rather obscure writers) and use those to make a general statement. A statement like that should be based on consensus (which is difficult to achieve by means of articles alone). Only if a wide variety of managers, players and critics are citing someone as the greatest of all time, then I think it's allowed to make such a claim. This is only the case with Pelé, Maradona and Messi and it's definitely not the case with C. Ronaldo. The articles as sources on the Messi or Maradona pages should be viewed as examples of the common view. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• What you need to find is sources that state that many people consider him the best. You should not collect a lot of more or less individual opinions and take the conclusion yourself that many consider him the best; that would be original research, as Synthesis of published material. I do not care if you find a thousand editorials stating him to be the best, if you can not find one source collecting that data and commenting on it, then the claim is inappropriate. In short: you need one source to the "many people" claim, not many sources. - Nabla (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

@scope_creep, thank you for your reply. I agree, although I have to say that the exact quote is 'some regard him as the greatest....'. Is your opinion also true when someone adds the indefinite some in front of a statement? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

'some regard him as the greatest....'.Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete, people who have an opinion, in this case a columnist and a journalist. And this is exactly my point: the sources are clear, however, you can find a 'source' or people with a certain opinion for pretty much every claim (hence my example of Bob Ross). Shouldn't there be another criterium? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand, I was merely agreeing with you that it would be much better if something specific could be said, otherwise it's a bit meaningless, how do we know it isn't his mum? Pincrete (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete I agree, but in this matter the point is that it ís something specific. In this case it's a man named Rob Devine who wrote this article: http://metro.co.uk/2014/05/06/is-cristiano-ronaldo-the-greatest-footballer-of-all-time-4718859/ and a man named Kevin Baxter who wrote this article: http://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/la-sp-ronaldo-messi-baxter-20170506-story.html). Are these opinions enough to make a statement like: 'some argue he's the greatest of all time'. The statement is factual, but it seems to me a minority view that can be used for almost every claim. Hence my example of Bob Ross, I'm sure we can find some who would argue Bob Ross is the greatest painter in history. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Icewhiz, I agree, but the statement 'one of the best' is not supported by the sources. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Based on the comments above I suggest to stick to the notion of 'the majority view'. Since indefinite pronouns like 'some' can be used for almost every claim, I would suggest to avoid making statements like this. My suggestion is to change the sentence to 'one of the greatest players of all time'. So the suggested sentence is: [C. Ronaldo is] Often considered the best player in the world and regarded as one of the greatest players of all time. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• This discussion has been going on now for almost a week. Although I think it's fair to say that the majority here isn't in favor of making a statement like 'Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as the greatest of all time', I think it's perhaps best if we ask a moderator to decide what introduction is best for this article. I would suggest to change it into a much more neutral sentence like: Often considered one of the best players in the world and regarded by many as one of the greatest of all time, because it's reflecting the majority view to a greater extent (in this discussion and in general). Max Eisenhardt (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• The dispute resolution noticeboard can be found here; Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo.

@Max Eisenhardt: It is not a vote, but quality of the arguments that matters, and the two most experienced editors, myself and User:Kante4 seems to disagree with you. Qed237 (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Qed237:And who is deciding the quality of the arguments? You and coincidentally someone who agrees with you (and who happens to be a Real Madrid supporter)? You cannot be serious. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

We have both been a lot more neutral than you. I can not see this "majority" you are talking about. Qed237 (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I look forward to DRN and then impose the same to Lionel Messi whos statement is unsourced. Qed237 (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Qed237: First of all: where have I not been neutral? Secondly, let us count: scope_creep (1: 'you can't use a single statement like that'), Pincrete (2: 'I understand, I was merely agreeing with you'), Icewhiz (3: 'It would be muchneasier to support "regarded as one of the best", then "the best", which is always contentious'), Collect (4: 'Opinions should be stated and cited as opinion and ascribed to those holding such opinions'), O'Flannery (5: 'The evidence used to defend the claim 'considered by many as the greatest of all time' is incredibly weak, and simply highlights the absurdity of the claim'). And myself: that makes 6. Against Shady59, Kante, L3X1 and yourself (=4). My friend, please stop talking nonsense and read before you're making a comment. Statements like this ought to reflect the majority view. A lot of people view Messi as the greatest, this is absolutely not the case for C. Ronaldo. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you can also add to that the discussion above, for instance when Prayer for the wild at heart stated: 'It is WP:Original research to cite a handful of people saying, "I think dogs are better than cats," and then extrapolate a supposed majority opinion from that.' That's 7 against 4 if I'm not mistaken. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Max Eisenhardt: Then you might also add User:Anakimi who neutrally stated Perhaps the issue is to do with the meaning of the word "many"? "Many" does not imply a majority. "Most" does. No one is arguing about whether or not the majority think he is the greatest and Fact is, a lot of "unbiased" people in football do think that Cristiano is the greatest ever. Same way as a lot of them think Messi is the greatest ever. Whether or not there are more of them that think Messi is greater is a different issue. If you poll a thousand people about which of Pele or Maradona are better, 600 say Pele and 400 say Maradona, it doesn't mean only "some" think Maradona is better. Many of these hypothetical people think Maradona is better. The same applies here. Qed237 (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Qed237:I have no problem counting his opinion, although it won't change the majority. Also, it's not really substantiated by sources. For instance, 'fact is, a lot of "unbiased" people in football do think that Cristiano is the greatest ever.' Who exactly are these 'a lot'? I agree that there's a problem with indefinite pronouns in that they're unclear. When can you say 'many' and when can you say 'some'? I think the answer is simply consensus and common sense. That means that people can decide whether 'many' is appropriate or not. In that light, I don't think you can say that 'many' for Pelé, Maradona and Messi is the same as 'many' for C. Ronaldo. In the words of the first commenter in this discussion: It has to be players, managers, coaches, pundits, radio personalities, the football commentariat, coming together and all saying who the best player is considered. You can apply this to Pelé, Maradona, Messi and maybe Di Stefano and Cruyff. For C. Ronaldo however, it's completely ridiculous. The statement simply doesn't reflect the way we talk about this player. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You may think it is ridiculous, but that is your WP:POV. There are still many that think CR is the greatest (altough it sounds like not where you live). Qed237 (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Our opinions differ and this will be my last edit since no matter what anyone write you will argue against everything. Anyway, as I said Wikipedia is not a place for voting. Also you say "A lot of people view Messi as the greatest, this is absolutely not the case for C. Ronaldo", and that is your WP:POV and the sources currently in the article (well sourced compared to Messi) actually supports the statement of Ronaldo being the greatest. Qed237 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Qed237: You cannot be serious. Giving two (or three?) obscure articles that state C. Ronaldo is the greatest and then conclude that 'many regard him as the greatest'? You've got to be kidding me. Also, where have I said that we needed to vote? I'm not in favor of voting at all. I was merely pointing out that the majority here disagrees with the current sentence. A dispute resolution is not a vote, it's asking an objective third party to intervene. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Max Eisenhardt:You never address what's being explained, do you? You yourself told that two or three obscure articles saying Ronaldo is the greatest cannot be regarded as many. Well, first of all the articles being obscure is just your personal WP:POV, since all those are from credible sources accepted by Wikipedia. Secondly, you can only find similar & same number of articles for the claim on Messi's page as well. But still the statement stays. So just like User:Qed237, User:Kante4, User:Anakimi & myself mentioned, it's about keeping WP:IMPARTIAL between similar articles. And we don't see any reason why the same claim can be applied here. And since you seem to be a Burba, you probably don't know that Wikipedia is not a place for voting. I'm saying this because you've been squealing on my talk page about you having the majority, but I don't know what majority you're talking about, because it doesn't seem like you have a majority here. Shady59 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

1. You can't take three sources and extrapolate that to a general statement that says 'many consider him...'. It's not only absurd, you can also do that for a lot of other players (I gave you the example of Cruyff).

2. It's not matter of being impartial with regard to Messi vs. Ronaldo (a distinction you brought up). It's about two completely different footballers. Like I said to you before: Picasso is not the same as Bob Ross. What matters is the general view, and generally people don't consider C. Ronaldo as the greatest footballer of all time. He's absolutely one of the greatest, but the greatest is generally only applied to Pelé, Maradona and Messi.

3. I think I showed above that the majority of the commenters are not in favor of stating '[C. Ronaldo] is regarded by many as the greatest...'. That you don't read other people's comments shows your way of debating. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Max Eisenhardt: It of course is a matter of being impartial with regard to Messi & Ronaldo. That is exactly what WP:IMPARTIAL stands for. Greatest is generally only applied to Pelé, Maradona and Messi? Well, it of course is applicable to Pelé & Maradona, since you can find more than 20 distinct sources from distinct players/experts who state the same on both their pages. But how can you say it's generally applied to Messi? That's just your WP:POV. When there are only 3 or 4 distinct sources from distinct players/experts who consider him the greatest, how do you say he's generally considered the greatest? Maybe you read too much comments on fan pages on social media & count the comments from fan boys & consider them as general consensus. If that really is the case, you can find the same for Ronaldo also. If you say greatest is only applicable to Messi and not Ronaldo, then I say it's only applicable to Ronaldo, not Messi(although my GOAT is Maradona). So your WP:POV or mine doesn't matter. Unless you have strong and credible sources to support your claim, there's no difference between your WP:POV and mine. And of course, I can clearly see that the majority you meant is yourself and User:O'Flannery which I highly doubt is your own sock puppet. Shady59 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Shady59: Is that last sentence an accusation? If so, then perhaps it's now my turn to throw around some shortcuts: WP:GOODFAITH, WP:OM and WP:ETIQ. To answer your questions: I already mentioned that it's not a case of articles or sources alone. You can't decide how many sources are needed to make statements like that. It's therefore a matter of common sense and consensus, and we're here to decide about that. In that light, I already summed up the amount of users who are not in favor of the current introduction: scope_creep, Pincrete, Icewhiz, Collect, O'Flannery, Prayer for the wild at heart and myself. So what the hell are you talking about? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Max Eisenhardt: It's not a case of article or sources alone? Really? How else are you gonna establish a claim? And what common sense and consensus are you talking about. Saying that most people don't even consider Ronaldo even in the top 10 footballers ever? Is that the consensus & common sense you're talking about? Unless you have valid sources to support your claim, your so called common sense and consensus doesn't matter. You can say that Ronaldo isn't even in the top 10 where you live and I can say the same about Messi as well and that will become my common sense & I can say that is consensus. And the above users you mentioned told that only a few sources aren't enough to support the claim, but that's exactly the case with Messi's article. Nevertheless, reiterating Wikipedia is not a place for voting. Shady59 (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Shady59: Like I pointed out: indefinite pronouns like 'many' and 'some' are problematic. You can't always substantiate that by the amount of sources or articles (as they can refer to everyone, even C. Ronaldo's mum). I didn't say they're not important, however I did say it's not a case of articles or sources alone. It's also a case of general knowledge or common sense. It's very hard to substantiate that by means of articles (although not impossible), but I would say that a consensus in a discussion page like this also has a lot of weight. And the fact that the majority is not in favor of stating C. Ronaldo is the greatest of all time is demonstrating that. P.S. An example is what I showed to Kante: three random rankings of 'greatest footballers of all time' https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/the-20-greatest-soccer-players-of-all-time.html or https://www.thoughtco.com/all-time-greatest-soccer-players-3557621 or http://www.ibtimes.com/top-50-greatest-footballers-all-time-pele-maradona-messi-ronaldo-included-best-soccer-1624974. C. Ronaldo is in neither ranking on top. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Your POV and bias against him do not help. He IS considered as one of the best ever, just look around the internet, newspapers etc. There is a good chance also that he is, in fact, the best right now. Like it or not. Kante4 (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You stated He IS considered as one of the best ever. I couldn't agree more! But wait, isn't this exactly what I'm trying to say all along? He is indeed considered as one of the best players of all time. However, that some want to say 'many' view him as the greatest player of all time, is simply erroneous information. Like I – and many people before me – have pointed out, people generally only consider Pele, Maradona and Messi as the greatest player of all time. There are a lot of players who are generally considered better than C. Ronaldo (Di Stefano, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Garrincha etc.). Last but not least: stop accusing me of having a bias. Honestly, I couldn't care less about Messi (or C. Ronaldo for that matter). It's just that I can't stand these false POV statements in the introduction of each article. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Many people list those four players above Ronaldo? Would like to see some of those people... (No bias here as Zidane is my GOAT). Back to the subject, i would guess that "many" do consider him as the best, but like I said, i like Qed's idea. Kante4 (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What is 'many'? Two, three, ten? 'Many' in this context means that a great deal of people are viewing him as the greatest in contrast to other candidates. And that's exactly the problematic part. Like I said, most people don't consider C. Ronaldo in a top 5 or perhaps even a top 10 of greatest players (e.g. https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/the-20-greatest-soccer-players-of-all-time.html or https://www.thoughtco.com/all-time-greatest-soccer-players-3557621 or http://www.ibtimes.com/top-50-greatest-footballers-all-time-pele-maradona-messi-ronaldo-included-best-soccer-1624974). Again this is also a matter of commons sense and consensus (hence this discussion).

I share your appreciation for Zidane, although my goat would be Cruyff. But like I said, you can't take a few articles (for instance like this one: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sport/football-cruyff-the-best-player-of-all-time-platini-tells-afp-8138932) and make a generalizing statement like 'Cruyff is the greatest of all time' (same can be said about Zidane). There has to be a broad acceptance of that. The only three players that have that consensus are Pelé, Maradona and Messi. I can't see why that is POV or bias; it's simply a matter of fact. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Max Eisenhardt: What exactly do you mean by broad acceptance? The articles from thoughtco & Paste magazine? What are those websites and who are those writers? Do you have any idea about WP:RS? Maybe I'll start a blog & list Ronaldo on top of the greatest list and then cite it. I can clearly see your detestation towards Ronaldo when you say that most people don't consider Ronaldo even in top 10 of greatest players. But Wikipedia is not a place to register your revulsion. Shady59 (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Shady59: you are making assumptions about Max here, and it demonstrates how personally you take the comments regarding Ronaldo, further emphasising your lack of objectivity and unsuitability for editing this page. You asked what are those websites that he linked, well they are simply the first two websites that come up for a google search on the greatest ever footballers (I just googled it, try yourself), that is all. I hope that answers your question. O'Flannery (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Max Eisenhardt is talking sense here. If we look at the Cristiano Ronaldo page (ignoring anything on any other footballer's page) and take it as it is, we simply can not support the claim 'considered by many to be the greatest of all time'. The sources used to back this up are few and, as Max pointed out, simply finding one journalist who shares the opinion should not be enough to back up such a claim. If it was a more popular opinion then sources would be readily available, but instead the claim is supported by a random journalist for the LA times. Can we look objectively at the claim here please, and the sources used, and simply agree that 'considered one of the greatest' is more accurate? O'Flannery (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2017

The second note of this page needs updating so that it should also include the 2017's transfer of Neymar worth €200m with PSG. 86.180.71.223 (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Broken Link

The link 'Ancelotti tabs Real Madrid striker as greatest ever' is broken (note 1) O'Flannery (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2017

please change "widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time" to "regarded by many as the greatest of all time" because the page of his arch rival Messi refers him(messi) as. There is no one who can prove who is better of the two until now and only time will tell maybe after world cup 2018. Ronaldo has surely secured his fifth ballon d or next year and I see no reason why the two shouldn't be referred in the same way when both are equal. Aadinerd (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This very issue is being discussed just up the page. Please read this page before starting topics that are already covered. – PeeJay 20:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute

The following sentence has been removed from the article:

• Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as the greatest of all time,

References

• I have full-protected this article for a week to prevent the ongoing edit warring. If a consensus may be had for the precise wording then the protection may be lifted prior to that time and the sentence restored to reflect a clear consensus. If there is no consensus over the wording by the time the protection expires then none of it is to be added back as you will have not achieved consensus to do so. Start working towards consensus.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Above you will find Flannery expressing doubts about a sentence in the introduction stating that C. Ronaldo is viewed 'by many as the greatest player of all time'. I happen to agree with Flannery that this sentence is not reflecting the common view about C. Ronaldo at all. After an RfC, the following users, in various terms, expressed their skepticism about that statement as well: scope_creep, Pincrete, Icewhiz, Collect, O'Flannery, Prayer for the wild at heart, Nabla, Erik0609.

I'm willing to agree with a sentence that claims that C.Ronaldo is one of the best players in the world and one of the greatest players of all time. But to say that many people view him as 'the greatest of all time' is simply not true and it can't be backed with sources. Or in the words of Nabla, who put it very adequately: 'You should not collect a lot of more or less individual opinions and take the conclusion yourself that many consider him the best; that would be original research, as Synthesis of published material.' Max Eisenhardt (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It is a much an accurate set of statements, as opposed the POV push consisting of original research. scope_creep (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with MaxE, the kind of inflated claims proposed by others are simply not supported by the quality of sources. The fact that CR is even thought about as one of the greatest players of all time is praise indeed, he's up there with a top 10/20/?? depending on your pov, that's enough.Pincrete (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The statement "often considered the best in the world" has been there for ages, because of course many players/analysts consider him as the best player in the world and there are a million citations from various people who say that. So "one of the best" isn't even a right statement. The question here is regarding whether to change the statement "regarded by many as the greatest" to "one of the greatest" or "regarded by some" etc, but Max Eisenhardt even wants to change the statement saying "often considered the best player in the world" which has been there almost since the article was created, to "one of the best". This clearly shows his detestation towards the player which is more clear from his WP:POV pushes. Again, The statement in question here is "regarded by many" as the greatest. The citations provided clearly are of players/coaches calling him the greatest ever. As experienced editors like Qed237, Kante4 etc have already mentioned on the talk page, it's about keeping WP:IMPARTIAL between similar articles, in this case Messi's. There are only around 3 or 4 citations from players/coaches who call him the greatest, yet the statement "regarded by many as the greatest" is used, rest all being discussions and one of it in which 5 out of 6 people tells that he isn't the greatest. Since it's the same case with this article, I don't see why there should be a bias. So it should be either "regarded by many" in both the pages or "regarded by some" in both the pages. Stating "many" in one page & "some" in the other page, when both the pages have similar claims, is not acceptable. This is what Myself, @Kante4:, @Qed237: etc explained long back. Shady59 (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Like we pointed out, your suggestions are simply not true. You can't just take a few sources and conclude that 'many' or 'some' view him as the greatest, that would be 'original research' and 'synthesis of published material'. Regarded as 'one of the greatest' is an accurate statement and regarded as 'the' best of all time simply doesn't reflect the common view. If you take the first part of the sentence, then I don't think it would be fair to say that C. Ronaldo is 'often considered as the greatest player in the world', since Messi is by virtually everyone considered as a far better player. I therefore suggest that we make a compromise to the following sentence: Often considered as one of the greatest players in the world and regarded by many as one of the greatest players of all time. If this sentence is not acceptable for you, then I think it's best to agree with Berean Hunter and to leave the sentence out of the article in its entirety. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The sources are pretty badly condensed to be said to be describing him as "regarded by many as the greatest of all time", however, they make it clear he is often ranked as the best in the world. I think it would be most appropriate to say "Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as one of the greatest of all time" Your claim that Messi is considered as a "far better player" by vitually everyone seems a little over the top, however, I agree that his claim on being considered as the greatest is more widely supported than Ronaldo. Removing the sentence entirely seems unnecessary, describing him as "one of the best players in the world" seems inaccurate. Formulaonewiki (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Following from my previous paragraph, as User:Qed237 said: The statement often considered the best in the world is not the argument here, since every week we see some player or the other saying that Ronaldo is the best or Messi is the best and we can find more than a dozen sources from distinct players/experts who regard them as the best. So the statement "often considered the best in the world" is true for both.Formulaonewiki (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If we can find a compromise in that ("Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as one of the greatest of all time"), then I'm willing to agree. Although I still wonder if C. Ronaldo is really 'often considered the best player in the world'. I thought Messi is generally viewed by most people as a better player than Ronaldo. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree to "Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as one of the greatest of all time" for the foreseeable future. In terms of overall legacy, it may be the case that Messi is regarded as 'greater' over a career, however, in the last seven years, there have been points where either player has been considered to be the best in the world at the time. The existence of the Messi–Ronaldo rivalry page (though I doubt the need for its existence as a wiki entry) well documents the battle for supremacy year on year between the two. As for the 'greatest' claims, I think "one of the greatest of all time" is without any doubt, and any further changes ("regarded by some as the greatest of all time" etc.) should be made in years time when both Messi and Ronaldo retire from professional football, as tributes from fellow and former players, managers and professionals in the sport upon their retirement will better reflect their legacy and status amongst the greats of football history. Formulaonewiki (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right and I agree with the sentence you suggested. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

So we wait until the protection period is over and then insert the agreed sentence, assuming there are no further objections? Formulaonewiki (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

All things considered, this is an appropriate compromise IMO. — Anakimi_lambaste   18:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, although I'm pretty sure Shady59 is going to continue his behavior by trying to push his POV to change the sentence anyway. You'll have an edit war again in no time. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

As I told earlier it's about keeping WP:IMPARTIAL between similar articles. I don't have any issue with keeping the statement "Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by some as the greatest of all time" because we have only 4 or 5 different sources for the greatest ever claim. But the issue is that you only have same number of sources for Messi's article as well & yet it says "regarded by many". If some says someone is regarded by many, then you have to cite sources, many sources that tells the same. You can't blatantly say that it's general consensus because when I visit his fan pages users call him the greatest, so I consider it as general consensus. If you check the pages of Pele & Maradona, you can find more than 25 distinct sources from distinct players/experts who call them the greatest ever. So obviously there's no problem in having such a statement on their articles. But in case of Messi & Ronaldo, you can't find such distinct sources from players/experts who call them the greatest. So it should be "regarded by some as the greatest" in both their articles. It'll be a clear WP:BIAS if different statements are given on their articles.
Note: Since the main penmen here Max Eisenhardt and O'Flannery have been accusing me for pushing POV, let me mention this. As far as Max Eisenhardt is concerned, if someone check his contribs then they can clearly understand what his issue is. More than half his edits have been regarding this page, the statement and complaining to WP:MOP regarding the statement. It's as if he is on Wikipedia only to push his POV & change that particular statement on this page. And for O'Flannery, he hasn't contributed to a single article on Wikipedia other than changing this statement. Every single edit he has made on Wikipedia is regarding this statement. So it's clear who is pushing their POV here. That's the main reason why I mentioned earlier that I suspect sock puppetry here. Shady59 (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that 'considered one of the greatest of all time' would be a suitable sentence. In reply to Shady59's accusation, it was reading the absurd claim on Cristiano Ronaldo's page that actually made me decide to become an editor on Wikipedia. Shady59 seems to be under the delusion that simply because he is a more 'experienced' editor, this automatically gives his opinion on the subject more weight than opinions held by newer editors. That is faulty logic. His lack of impartiality has also been questioned on numerous occasions. O'Flannery (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Editors may agree on the wording but the sources need to be selected to support whatever the wording is. Be careful to avoid synthesis. Make sure that you have the wording carefully selected with sources in alignment and then make a subheading like === Proposed wording === and then follow with supports & opposes to make it clear. Right now, three seem to agree on a wording but others that have posted in this thread above have supported other wording so there really is no consensus at the present on any wording. If alternate wordings are suggested then people may !vote for those as well. Leave discussion in the area for discussion and keep the proposal areas concise with the !votes. Editors are more likely to participate when you have a clear format without walls of text.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter, there will always be someone who doesn't agree with anything accept his view; Shady59 is such a person. I think the the sentence Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as one of the greatest of all time is a good compromise and the majority seem to agree with it. By the way, a similar sentence is already included in the article, namely: The achievement fuelled public recognition of Ronaldo as one of the greatest players in football history (it's placed under the season 2013–14). So I really don't understand why this sentence needs votes or more debate. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Editors should avoid focusing on other editors right now and stick to the task at hand, consensus building. Whether you have a majority remains to be seen...and you are all working together to get something agreed upon. Strong formats help here where the RfC seemed to derail because of editors quipping at each other. Forget about the quipping and move forward. I will also say that if a consensus version may be gained then it will be enforced administratively. Anyone that skips the process here and thinks that they will subvert consensus by edit warring a different version later won't like it when my ban-hammer comes down on them. So just worry about getting good wording with supporting refs.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter seriously, this shit is getting completely crazy. Some idiot person writes his chauvinistic opinion on Wikipedia, and all of a sudden others have to go trough tremendous lengths to change it. Have you looked at the discussion above? Two lengthy discussions, a 30 days RfC and now proposed sentences and 'building towards consensus'. What a fucking mess. And how do you expect us to 'build consensus'? I mean, this isn't a political or scientific matter where you can rephrase issues. This is about C. Ronaldo fans writing their chauvinistic opinion on Wikipedia. How do you expect people to build consensus on that? You just agree with or you think it's utter nonsense (which it is!). And like I pointed out: the proposed sentence is already in the fucking article! What consensus do you need? To restate what's already written elsewhere in the article? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"And like I pointed out: the proposed sentence is already in the fucking article!" <== then there is nothing to add back or change then. When protection expires, leave it out (that is an option, you know). I pulled a sentence out that was being edit-warred and placed it here on this page. That is what is being discussed as I responded to the complaint at ANI. I'm not being drawn into an ongoing content dispute. I'm not going to continue to comment concerning complaints on editor behavior here. You need to strike the inflammatory in your comments above. You just went the completely opposite direction from what I advised. "...getting completely crazy"... No, the article is stable now and there doesn't seem to be any edit-warring or grand arguments happening.

You might try politely asking another admin's opinion on my current read of consensus here since you seem to have a different opinion of what the current consensus is. The protecting admin doesn't continue to comment repeatedly in the dispute so I'm sure that you will understand that I'm done with the back and forth. If you have made a compelling argument then others will support it and if not then you need to be prepared to accept the outcome. Your audience is the current editors at this article as well as any that come along later. Address them not me.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter I have better things to do then going to great lengths to 'build consensus' for something like this. I appreciate your effort to take the sentence out of the article, and your suggestion to leave it out of the article in its entirety is fine with me. As long as people don't write things that are simply not true (like C. Ronaldo is viewed as the greatest of all time, which is complete and utter nonsense). I was merely pointing out above that the amount of effort that is necessary to change things like this is absolutely absurd. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Wikipedia is not a place for voting. The citations refer to him being called the "greatest of all time", so "one of the greatest" wouldn't be the right statement here. But again, 4 or 5 citations aren't enough for the statement "regarded by many as the greatest". So the right statement here should be "Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by some as the greatest ever" or "Often considered the best player in the world and rated by some in the sport as the greatest ever". The latter would be more suitable according to my opinion. Moreover, from the whole talk page discussion, from what I read, it's clear that Max, OFlannery etc don't really like the player being discussed or might be fans of a rival player and Shady59, Qed237 etc have a special fondness for the player being discussed. So this clearly is not going be a healthy discussion. Talk pages shouldn't become ground for fan fights and decisions made should be unbiased. BreakerOfChainz (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The talk page needs a serious cleanup once the argument is over. And as mentioned by BreakerOfChainz, Wikipedia isn't a place for voting. Straw polls must be dealt with caution. Consensus is what's needed in a discussion. Now coming to the point here, the statement "Regarded by many as the greatest of all time" shouldn't be much of a deal here. As Shady59 pointed out above, if a similar article cleared as good has a similar claim without enough citations, I don't see any issue why it can't be applied here. But the other article being good shouldn't be taken as the frame of reference, because the statement there might've been added long after the article was cleared as WP:GA. So the article being good should have nothing to do with that statement. Coming back, the given citations here do refer to him being called the greatest of all time, so the statement "one of the greatest" is not suited here(if you're going to cite those sources). But as BreakerOfChainz mentioned, "Rated by some in the sport as the greatest of all time" seems to be a good option here. With that statement, "the one of the greatest" claim is comprehensible. But as already mentioned, there shouldn't be any bias between articles. TomSac (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I did a check on the similar article mentioned by Shady59 which is Lionel Messi. It was cleared as good article in 2009. But the statement "regarded by many as the greatest" was added for the first time on 8 September 2015‎ as evident from here. It was reverted to "some" many times by many users, but was changed back to "many" each time. Everytime by the same user. So as Tomsac said, that article being good doesn't have anything to do with that statement. It clearly is a vandalism in that article, making an exaggerated claim without sufficient citations. But that doesn't mean you need to do the same in this article as well. I would stick on with my statement "Often considered the best player in the world and rated by some in the sport as the greatest ever" for this article. The same applies to the other article as well. But if the other article keeps the statement "regarded by many as the greatest", then I would say you can't argue with keeping the same statement here. BreakerOfChainz (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting that two editors (BreakerofChainz and TomSac) have suddenly appeared, with accounts that appear to have been made in early August 2017, and so the nonsense continues. It was asked for editors to leave discussion in the area for discussion, but you have both ignored this and created walls of text in the voting area. O'Flannery (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@O'Flannery: Well, as far as I'm concerned, I don't require anyone's approval regarding my activities. And looking at your account, I don't see a single contribution from you to the community other than talking in this regard. It's infact ironic that a user without a single contribution to any article is actually trying to inculpate someone else. However, I don't want to be that person who picks on other users. User edits are open to all and you're free to check mine. And regarding commenting on the voting area, this discussion is too dragged-out and exhausting that you shouldn't expect someone to catch every single comment. Moreover, I don't think you can achieve consensus with this straw poll since it overrides the neutral point of view wrt to the other article mentioned above. My opinion on the matter still remain same as mentioned earlier. BreakerOfChainz (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: From Max readily agreeing to not including the statement at all, you might've got a clear understanding of what his issue is. He just can't stand seeing that particular claim in the lead. So not including any statement shouldn't be acceptable here for a player of his stature. And regarding him accusing of pushing my POV here, you can clearly see from the earlier discussion who is doing it. I've always been talking about keeping WP:IMPARTIAL between similar article claims here, which he never address to. As you can see, I've previously removed the 2016 UEFA Super Cup win from the player's honors list in the subsection as people keep on adding it, since he wasn't part of the squad and I'm the one who removed the FIFA Confederations 3rd Place from his honors list in the subsection saying it's not an honor. I would've definitely kept those edits if I was pushing my so called POV here.
Coming back to being impartial between similar article claims, as BreakerOfChainz mentioned above, the similar article in question too had the statement "regarded by some as the greatest" earlier. It was later changed to "regarded by many" without providing anymore citations. I thought the article cleared WP:GA after that stamenet was added, but as BreakerOfChainz, it was added years after the article cleared WP:GA. It was questioned on the article's talk page regarding the usage of "many" without enough citations. One of the discussions being this. The statement was kept, saying that a news publication makes that particular claim and is provided as citation. Well, it was said by the same user who changed the actual statement to "many", but nevertheless, that was the justification given. Similarly I'm hereby providing a new citation from another news publication claiming the same about Ronaldo. So if you can just cite 4 or 5 distinct players/coaches and a news publication and then state "regarded by many as the greatest of all time" on that page, then you should be able to do the same on this page too. Else, it would be a complete bias. As you can clearly see, you have similar claims, similar citations for both the articles, so it should be a similar statement for both the articles. It should be either "regarded by many" in both the articles or "regarded by some" in both the articles. Don't you agree?
Note: I too agree with the statement "Often considered the best player in the world and rated by some in the sport as the greatest of all time" provided, the same is used on the other page as well, to keep it WP:IMPARTIAL. Shady59 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha, this is unbelievable. Shady59 = BreakerOfChainz = TomSac. I'm not even going to start a sockpuppet investigation. Well, it's very simple, if you keep behaving this way, nothing will appear in the introduction of this article. If you're not willing to make a compromise then so be it. I'm fine with the current situation. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Really? But from the above comments & edit history, it seems more like Max Eisenhardt=O'Flannery. Anyway, why don't you comment anything regarding the matter instead of the blame game. Also you need to learn some serious talk page etiquettes. Again, as I told earlier, you can't achieve consensus with this straw poll since it overrides the neutral point of view wrt to the other article mentioned above. BreakerOfChainz (talk) 08:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Max Eisenhardt: Why is it that you never address to my queries related to the similar article and being WP:IMPARTIAL buddy? Why is it that you complain in this article that 4 or 5 citations aren't enough to be claimed as "many", when you only have similar citations in the other article too, but you don't have any problem there or never complain there? Now that the revision history and talk page discussion(before WP:RTP) of the other article is provided here and now that you know the statement in the other article was added long after the article was cleared as WP:GA and everytime the change was made by one particular user, why don't you go ahead and make a complaint there saying he's pushing his WP:POV or there aren't enough citations? Why don't you ever do that buddy? Isn't it the exact opposite of being WP:IMPARTIAL? From the discussion link given, you can clearly see that the statement "many" was kept in the other article despite very few citations, by saying that a news publication that mentions the same is given as citation, so that would be enough(by the same user though). Well, I even provided another news publication here in reply, that mentions the same about Ronaldo. So in every aspect, you have similar citations in both the articles. So if you don't have any issues with keeping the statement in the other article, you shouldn't have any issue with keeping the statement here, unless you're being biased, while I'm trying to keep a WP:NPOV between the articles. Moreover since the citations provided are pertaining to him being called "the greatest" & not "one of the greatest", I too think "Often considered the best player in the world and rated by some in the sport as the greatest of all time" is the right one, because "widely regarded as one of the greatest" would be the wrong claim pertaining to the citations. What do you think about this Berean Hunter? How about Formulaonewiki, Qed237, Kante4, Max Eisenhardt? --- Shady59 (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I did many times. I emphasized that this isn't a matter of being impartial, since Messi and C. Ronaldo are obviously not in the same category. So impartiality is not even an issue. The similar sources in the Messi article not only reflect the individual opinions of people, but also the opinion of the vast majority (common view) of the field of football (i.e. the opinion that Messi is arguably the greatest footballer of all time). This is definitely not the case for C. Ronaldo. Like I pointed out, in neither ranking is C. Ronaldo even considered as the greatest player of all time, generally not even a top 5 spot. Last but not least, the word some is very problematic. 'Some' can apply to everything, like I've said before: you can make about any claim with the pronoun 'some' in front of it. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Proposed sentence: "Often considered the best player in the world and widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time"

Support Formulaonewiki (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Support Max Eisenhardt (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Support O'Flannery (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Support — Anakimi_lambaste   01:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Tvx1 21:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Pure opinion which should be sourced and cited as opinion. As such, not usable even with a small consensus. Collect (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources and undue/irrelevant info

This edit has reintroduced non-compliant sources (Mail, Sun, Mirror, etc) used in support of personal information. And a fair bit of relatively unimportant info. Doesn't Ronaldo have a biography or two we could use rather than a hodgepodge of primary sources? The extraneous material should be left out pending discussion. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

They should stay in until the discussion is closed, that's how it should be done if i'm correct. Kante4 (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, User:Hillbillyholiday is absolutely correct. This material should not be reintroduced into the article without better sources and a consensus here that the material is necessary. At present it has neither. --John (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Where should references used multiple times be places first?

Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia eiditing and trying to learn, I have done some improvements to Ronaldo's page, if they are wrong in any way please revert and let me know what mistake I did.

I don't know how to format the tags correctly when using multiple references of the same source.

Should the sources for the Forbes and ESPN stats in the last sentence in the lead be in the lead or in the popular culture section later on in the page, I ask because there are no sources in the lead, which I assume is to do with the fact all the info is "Fact" that has links going to other wiki pages, though the last section of the lead I am unsure about

"One of the most marketable sportsmen, he was ranked the world's highest-paid athlete by Forbes in 2016 and 2017, as well as the world's most famous athlete by ESPN in 2016 and 2017."

or later on in the "In popular culture" section which is where the sources currently are

" In 2016, he became the first footballer to top the Forbes list of highest-earning athletes, with a total income of $88 million from his salary and endorsements in 2015–16.[459] He topped the list for the second straight year with earnings of $93 million in 2016–17."

"ESPN named Ronaldo the world's most famous athlete in 2016 and 2017."

Would the reference be in the lead, then a footnote (or whatever it's called) for the 'in popular culture' section?

Also could someone provide me a link on how to correctly use a reference more than one? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_using_a_source_more_than_once - this a good place to start?

Thanks Purij (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)