Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John (talk | contribs) at 19:21, 23 August 2017 (→Sources and undue/irrelevant info: ct). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cristiano Ronaldo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Football: England / Manchester United High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Manchester United task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Portugal Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Portugal To-do: edit history watch purge Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo. Improve key articles to Good article Portugal Lisbon Improve Os Lusíadas Coat of arms of Portugal More... Review Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box). Requests See Requested articles Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Misplaced Pages Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Olympics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cristiano Ronaldo was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 7, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Misplaced Pages: Meet the men and women who write the articles". BBC. 2012-07-14. Archived from the original on 2012-08-22. Retrieved 2012-08-22.

	Cristiano Ronaldo was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 30, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed August 17, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Cristiano Ronaldo received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

UEFA Super Cup 2016

I¨m starting a new section about this topic, because someone can¨t bear that Ronaldo is a winner of this honour and has a golden medal. Let¨s start this case: Though he was not in the squad (because of injury), Real Madrid, the 2016 UEFA Super Cup winner, was presented with forty gold medals by UEFA: http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/Regulations/02/24/06/02/2240602_DOWNLOAD.pdf Real Madrid credits him as a winner, in other words he was given on of the forty gold medals the club received by UEFA. The squad for 2016-17 is of 25 players and 6 technical staff=31, still 9 left: http://www.realmadrid.com/en/news/2016/12/cristiano-ronaldo-wins-his-fourth-ballon-dor

How about reading this? The pdf file does not say who won, and reamlmadrid.com is no third-party source. Of course they award it to him. Same with Neymar when he was not even in the same continent. I have yet to see a source where it says that he received a medal. @PeeJay2K3: Again it seems... Kante4 (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no hard evidence that Ronaldo is considered a winner of the 2016 Super Cup. He didn't travel to Norway, and simply receiving a medal does not mean you won the competition, if he did even receive a medal at all (which we have no evidence for). Also, the 25-man squad Real Madrid registered for the Champions League and La Liga is not the same as the one they registered for the Super Cup, so again, there's no evidence that Ronaldo was even considered part of the Super Cup squad. Sure, there may be nine medals unaccounted for from the 40, but even then we don't know that Ronaldo got one and it still wouldn't mean he won the competition even if he did. – PeeJay 16:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

UEFA is a third-party source. The title of the PDF is "Regulations of the UEFA Super Cup 2015-18 Cycle", and article 9.4 says "The winning team is presented with forty gold medals and the runner-up with forty silver medals. Additional medals may not be produced." It means every winning team from 2015- 2018 (2015: Barcelona, 2016: Real Madrid) will receive 40 medals. Also transfermarkt and Press Association Sport has put the Super Cup 2016 as part of his honours. He received a gold medal and won the competition, because he is a part of the winning team! I rest my case, now it is up to you guys. – SideMaster 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, UEFA is a third-party source, but they never actually state who gets medals, only that the winning team gets 40 of them. However, to reiterate, there is no direct evidence that Ronaldo was one of the 40. Same with Gareth Bale. Also, what authority do Transfermarkt and the Telegraph have to say that Ronaldo won the competition? They literally have no say in the matter. You keep putting together sources that only kinda support your point, but there is no source that actually supports it definitively. – PeeJay 16:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

If the case is he wasn't named in matchday squad, players such as Rubén Yáñez, could have Super Cup medal only, considering he was only named in that squad Price Zero| 11:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Who said they couldn't? – PeeJay 12:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to stoke this up again, but I feel the consensus on this is incorrect. For instance, Gareth Bale has posted a picture of himself with the UEFA Super Cup 2016 medal, and he wasn't a part of the squad either. Surely there's not much more "direct evidence" needed. In that case should only Bale's page be updated with the honor, and not Ronaldo because he didn't post a picture? There are 24 players on the roster, 6 on the technical staff – they have medals for all of them. There's literally even enough for all the players out on loan. What else could they do with the medals? There's no one left to give it to.

If the argument is that they didn't contribute anything to actually winning the that game and therefore that trophy, then all everyone on the roster not a part of the matchday squad for the Champions League final should be excluded from every CL honor. There's no way the club would qualify for the Super Cup game if not for the Champions/Europa League win, same as the qualification for the finals of the Champions League itself. If a player left the club before the Super Cup, then its obviously not credited to him. But this is pretty straightforward in my opinion. Tombstone5650 (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

See PeeJay's comment below to that exact question... Kante4 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

So, the only "official" thing is who was on the match day squad, and not whom UEFA considers as the winners? If UEFA felt the same way, they would award the medals to the players/staff on the pitch as they do, and keep the spare for themselves. Basically, by this logic, the actual physical medals that are awarded to players are meaningless, but the match day squad submitted is the defining authority? Tombstone5650 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Or do you know who the UEFA Gabe the medals to? Going circle in here... Kante4 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

All I know is that the "winning team is presented with 40 gold medals", according to UEFA's release. Real Madrid was the winning team. Now I don't know for sure that Florentino Perez doesn't keeps them in a shoe box under his bed, but I'm reasonably confident Bale was awarded one of them, and it's very likely that UEFA hasn't asked him for it back. I don't think they gave either Bale or Ronaldo the 2002 winner's medal, because they weren't playing for the club. They are playing for the club now, and the club has won the honor in this time, and they would have got a medal. I fail to see the reasoning behind the emphasis on the squad alone, and not an actual medal that the players actually receive. Tombstone5650 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Dont know for sure, confident that, very likely... nothing confirmed. Maybe @PeeJay2K3: has some thing to offer. Kante4 (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

What's confirmed is that Bale got a medal, what's not confirmed is that UEFA does not consider him a winner, and yet it is not listed as an honor on his page. So in this case we use something not confirmed to discredit the trophy, while ignoring actual evidence of a medal. The Real Madrid page has it listed, but we are ignoring that too. Ronaldo's/Bale's height cites from the same Real Madrid page. Should we remove it and find a "third-party" source? Tombstone5650 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this bit. I actually made a mistake by claiming that Gareth Bale should not be considered a winner of the 2016 Super Cup. This page says he was part of the squad, even though he didn't travel to Norway for the game because of his involvement in Euro 2016, so it makes perfect sense for him to be considered a winner - he has a picture of himself with a medal, he was in the squad, what more do we need? Ronaldo, on the other hand, was not in Norway and wasn't included in the squad, so has no actual right to claim he won this competition. The suggestion that a player shouldn't be considered a winner of the Champions League if he wasn't selected for the final is irrelevant, but also nonsense, since the Champions League also requires that players are registered for it before they can play. If a player doesn't play in any of the 13 games on the way to winning the Champions League, there might be more of a case, but saying someone shouldn't be considered a winner just because they weren't in the matchday 18 for the final is bonkers (the FA Cup and other competitions that do not require player registration, however, are another kettle of fish). – PeeJay 18:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually this is correct, Ronaldo was not part of the 25-man squad submitted for the game, so it's possible that he hasn't got a medal. Also his own website doesn't even list it. Anyway, the reason I embarked on this entire thing was because my edits had been reverted on Bale's as well as Ronaldo's honours section. I even posted that 25-man squad on the Project Football talk page but it seems like it was dismissed without even proper consideration, so I'd just decided to give up on it. @PeeJay2K3: thanks for making the correction in Bale's case. – Tombstone5650 (talk) 07:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Well if ronaldo didnt win 2016 super cup, then lionel messi did not win champions league in 2006, he was not in the squad of the final, therefore, you have to take that years champions league off his name. Arslandon (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Why? Messi played in that season's Champions League competition and was part of the Barcelona squad for the tournament as a whole (since UEFA requires that teams officially name a squad of 25 senior players). Ronaldo wasn't included in Real Madrid's squad for the Super Cup at all. He didn't even travel to Norway. – PeeJay 22:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What about 2005 Supercopa de España - Price Zero| 03:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What about it? Can we please keep the discussion on this page limited to Cristiano Ronaldo and not get into a pissing contest about which of Messi and Ronaldo has won more honours? – PeeJay 09:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. But he has that honor even if he wasn't name on that squad - Price Zero| 10:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove it. Kante4 (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, we should think that the super cup is played between winners of champions league and europa league and the fact that ronaldo was in the winning champions league squad should be enough. Arslandon (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You realise that the Super Cup and the Champions League are different competitions, right? Aside from the fact that winning the Champions League qualifies you to play in the Super Cup, neither competition has any bearing on the other. Ronaldo was not named in the Super Cup squad as he was injured, therefore he cannot be considered a winner of the 2016 Super Cup. – PeeJay 21:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem and ill accept the fact that they don't get awarded the supercup under there honors, but I don't understand why moderators are so strict on Real Madrid players pages...meanwhile Neymars page continues to allow him as a 2015 UEFA supecup and 2016 Spanish supercup winner despite the fact that he didn't play in either of those games...if I go add the supercup to Kroos, Bale or Navas page it will be removed tomorrow, but it seems know one takes issue with Neymars page as it went months without notice...maybe moderate the pages equally and stay on top of it like you do with Real Madrid players...for over a year the same wikiuser continues to put the supercup under Neymars honours with no consequences or warnings.A7xkid666 (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead an remove those as i did a few times. But I do not have Neymar or so on my watchlist. Be Bold or don't start the "why do Barca players have those honours..." saga... Kante4 (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I try but I cant be on Misplaced Pages everyday having some sort of edit war with the same person.A7xkid666 (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

And nor can we. Most of us have full-time jobs that prevent us from being able to monitor Misplaced Pages at all hours, and in the time we do have available, we can't all keep an eye on every article; there's more than 5 million of them, for heaven's sake! I monitor all players who have ever played for Manchester United, and that includes both Cristiano Ronaldo (RM) and Gerard Pique (Barcelona), so I get abuse from both sides, and to be honest, I'm bloody sick of it. I know people aren't adding the 2016 Super Cup to Ronaldo's page out of malice - Real Madrid won the competition and Ronaldo is a Real Madrid player, so the lay reader would see that as an omission from the page - but there are certain eligibility criteria that players have to meet for any competition, especially if you're going to start saying they won it. As you can see here, Ronaldo and Pepe were not included in the Real Madrid squad for the Super Cup, presumably because they were in the Portugal squad that won Euro 2016; and although he didn't travel to Norway despite playing for Wales in the Euro 2016 semi-finals, Gareth Bale was included in the Super Cup squad, hence explaining why he posted a picture of himself with a medal. So you see, I get it - Ronaldo fanboys want to add as many medals to his page as they can - but they can't do that without evidence. – PeeJay 18:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I have to start the discussion again. The main point is still whether players could actually have honours when they are not in squads of corresponding matches . My view point is still "yes". I said this because I already found several notable third-party source. All of them indicate that Ronaldo has the 2016 Super Cup honour (The same for Pepe and Kroos). For example, http://int.soccerway.com/players/cristiano-ronaldo-dos-santos-aveiro/382/ and http://www.eurosport.com/football/cristiano-ronaldo_prs27317/person.shtml These should be enough reliable. 七战功成 05:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Peejay and Kante. I myself thought they should have those honors, even if they haven't been in the squad, but Kante got me to realize that it also makes no sense. They didn't play in those tournaments, so why should they be given the honors? Ronaldo simply don't deserve the medal, he did nothing in the UEFA Super Cup, just like Messi did nothing in the 2005 spanish super cup, cause they were not even in the squad. Kante also says that of course their teams gives them the medal, but giving them honors in a tournament they didn't even play in, is an embarrassment to the sport of football. It will also most likely lead other people who read the articles, to think they played in those tournaments. It's historically inaccurate. Csknowitall (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice your posts until just now. The system didn't sent out notification. This is not decided by personal feeling or judgement. I insist on this point because I found there are a number of third-party sources show that he has the honour. We should pay enough attention to them. How could that be "embarrasing" or "historically inaccurate"? If according to what you said, why UEFA present a team with 40 medals? These are much more than the number of players who have played and coach staff combined. It's definitely possible that a player who is not in the squad of a game can have the honour. 七战功成 20:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely possible for a player who wasn't in the squad to receive a medal, but to consider them to have earned that honour is ludicrous. Just because someone gets a medal doesn't mean they've contributed anything to the team winning that competition; after all, a medal is just a token that the club can give to whomever they choose. Any third-party source that considers Ronaldo to have won the 2016 Super Cup is misinformed and should be ignored. – PeeJay 21:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The medal are from UEFA, not made by clubs themselves. UEFA present teams with much more medals than actually needs means that UEFA also consider that players who are not in the squad of the game can also have the honour. If being presented with medals doesn't mean player have the honour, what do? Your logic is actually ludicrous. "Any third-party source that considers Ronaldo to have won the 2016 Super Cup is misinformed and should be ignored", this is just your conclusion? Just based on your personal preferences and judgement? This is definitely not a reasonable argument. 七战功成 00:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@七战功成: If it helps, think of it this way – A player not named in the 25–man player list submitted to UEFA for the Super Cup has no chance of ever making an appearance in the game, and therefore no chance of contributing anything to the game. Players who are on this list could potentially feature in the game, similar to the unused subs. In this case, Ronaldo is no different to an academy player who was not on the list. It just does not make sense to consider him a winner. The third party sources in question possibly just referenced the Real Madrid website for the information, who are at liberty to "bestow" any honor they choose upon their players, official or not. If you can provide irrefutable evidence that UEFA considers Ronaldo to be a winner, then none of us would have any problem in adding the honor on his page. So far, there is no proof that Real Madrid have even given him the medal in the first place for us to be talking about the medals, and even if they had, it would have been a dubious distinction. I used to think the same way as you do now, but I realized that PeeJay was obviously right. Anakimi (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Anakimi: Ronaldo is definitely not the same as academy players in this. He is in the first-team squad of that season. And I don't know what kind of evidence could be called "irrefutable" to you, in fact, UEFA website never obviously indicate who are winners, who are not. The only information we can reference is just the squad. But as I said before, without being in the squad is not enough to shows that players cannot have the honour. Now the third-party sources should be the best evidence, since a lot of them all indicate the same results, we should consider them as true. As for this "The third party sources in question possibly just referenced the Real Madrid website for the information", this is simply a guess, cannot be an effective doubt. 七战功成 08:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

So, now we can add the honour to the list, right? 七战功成 06:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Nope. You are one against the others who disagree. Kante4 (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, let it go, man! WP:DROPTHESTICK would seem to apply here. – PeeJay 10:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree, you ought to give ideas and discuss the problem, rather than just saying such thing as"You can't do that, we don't agree with you". 七战功成 19:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You're shifting the burden of proof. If you think Ronaldo should be considered a winner of the 2016 UEFA Super Cup, you need to present good evidence that he should be; it's not on us to prove that he shouldn't. As it stands, no one has provided sufficient evidence for anyone to think Ronaldo won that competition, especially in the face of actual evidence that he wasn't in the official squad for the competition (and that's a squad that goes beyond the matchday 18). – PeeJay 19:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Who is "shifting the burden of proof "? Don't I already provide a number of sources show that he has the honour? You can't see them? What "evidence" is sufficient to you? I gave RM's website, you said it was not third-party source. I gave third-party sources, you said they were misinformed and should be ignored. No matter what kind of evidence I give, you always say that it's not "good", not"sufficient", just because the information they indicate is opposite to your ideas? You seldom provide reasonable arguments and just judge them by your own opinions. This shows that you are not seriously discussing issues at all. 七战功成 18:51, 2 July, 2017 (UTC)

As I said, you are shifting the burden of proof. If you want to include something on a page, you have to provide evidence from sufficiently reliable sources. Now, we can debate the merits of the sources you've provided, but don't start slinging mud at us just because we come to the conclusion that the sources you've provided aren't good enough. Real Madrid will obviously attribute honours to all their players because they want to aggrandise their squad, so I don't consider their website to be particularly reliable, especially since even if they gave Ronaldo one of the 40 medals awarded by UEFA, possessing a medal does not automatically mean you won that competition. As for Soccerway and Eurosport - the only two other sources you've provided - I don't consider them reliable on this matter because their opinion on whether Ronaldo should be considered a winner of the 2016 Super Cup is irrelevant when you notice the fact that Ronaldo wasn't even in the official squad for that match. Unless you can present evidence that UEFA consider Ronaldo to have won the 2016 Super Cup, I'll take a look at it, but as things stand, you've got precisely jack shit. – PeeJay 19:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, the point of the honours section is not to list all the competitions won by a team while the player was contracted to them, but to list the competitions that the player had a hand in winning. Ronaldo was not part of the Super Cup squad, so any suggestion that he played a part in them winning that specific competition (and obviously we don't count his contribution to the 2015–16 Champions League title, since that's a separate competition) is utterly ludicrous. – PeeJay 19:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you actually understand what are you talking about? You didn't explain where and how I "shift the burden of proof" at all. You said this just after I noticed that guy to discuss the issue more seriously rather than simply saying others are wrong. But this has nothing to do with so called "shift burden of proof". I already gave several important sources. So this is certainly ludicrous. And then, you never had even a little bit new ideas and logics. Just constantly repeated the point that Real Madrid side's source and opinions are not reliable. But the third-party sources are not relevant to these issues at all. You can't understand? And you just denied all the sources at will, without any serious logics and reasons, just because they didn't match your ideas. Are you actually discussing the issue? As of now, definitely not, from the beginning to end. 七战功成 00:12, 3 July, 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were having trouble with English - shifting the burden of proof is where the responsibility for proving someone is moved from one person to another. In this case, the burden of proof is on you because you want to add the 2016 Super Cup to Ronaldo's honours list, but you seem to want to try to make us prove why it shouldn't be there. That is not our responsibility, as it is always up to the person who wants to add content to prove that it should be there. I have explained why the sources you've provided aren't good enough; if you want to provide more for us to look at, we'll look at them, but as things stand, there's not enough here to warrant adding it. – PeeJay 08:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no meaning to play dumb. I am very clear about the meaning, and if your vision and understanding is not bad, you should know what I actually mean. I already gave sources, but you guys always denied them without good reasons. Then I pointed out the weakness of the arguments and the ways you used. How could that be "I let you guys to prove why it shouldn't be there"? It seems that it can only indicate you have trouble understanding this word. And you said you already explained "those sources are not good enough"? Yes, you really expressed your ideas, but you didn't give any enough good reasons. Your arguments and logics are always"I don't think a player who is not in the squad of the game can have the honour, so all the sources show that he has the honour are not true, reliable" or something like this. In a word, you deny and ignore them at will, just because of your preference. No matter what kind of sources I provide, you will always say it's not good, not reliable. It's not discussing, it's nearly being perverse. 七战功成 01:40, 4 July, 2017 (UTC)

If you can't accept the fact that your sources aren't good enough, that's fine, but I have explained myself on multiple occasions, and your continued insistence on including this "honour" isn't going to change that. – PeeJay 15:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Change what? Go back and seriously look at what you said, are those plausible explanations? You just constantly repeat you ideas without giving any legitmate reasons and just try to make others not speak. If you can't understand this, you should go back to learn how to really discuss questions. 七战功成 18:15, 4 July, 2017 (UTC)

Obviously your grasp of the English language is not quite sufficient to maintain a discussion. Yes, I repeat the same ideas because you can't get it through your head that your sources are bad. I've given you reasons, you're just ignoring them. Now please go away. – PeeJay 23:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Now only being able to label others? It's no doubt that you never have any legitimate reasons for your opinions. From the beginning to end, your only "reason" is just "those sources are opposite to your ideas, so they are 'bad'". I didn't ignore anything, because this is all you have posted, and it's that you obviously didn't discuss the issue seriously, by denying and ignoring other's ideas and evidence at will. As for the last words, that should be for you. 七战功成 04:59, 5 July, 2017 (UTC)

Bronze bust

I invite editors to assist with expanding the article about the recently unveiled Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. There are additional sources shared on the article's talk page. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

 Moved to draft space: Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

...do people really think this topic warrants a dedicated article? Anakimi (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2017: Number Suffixes

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Does anyone have any spare time on your hands? If so, great.

I have found numerous cases where the number suffixes "th", "st", "nd" and "rd" are of the same font size as most of the text in the article. They need to be changed by using <sup>"th", "st", "nd" or "rd"</sup> next to the appropriate number without spaces.

When you've finished do what you usually do as I think there should be a wikibot which can do the work for us as this will be very tedious to do manually. The explanation can be found .

If, however, you find this takes a long time to do, stop, continue watching for vandalism and other wrong doings and hopefully there will be a wikibot which can do the work for us. 86.185.127.76 (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, we shouldn't do that. As part of Misplaced Pages's style guide, the suffixes are supposed to be the same size as the rest of the font, and there's no grammatical reason to change it. Superscript suffixes are purely a stylistic choice, and Misplaced Pages has chosen not to do it. – PeeJay 19:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cristiano Ronaldo. 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/20130114011247/http://www.insidespanishfootball.com/ronaldo-will-miss-osasuna-clash/ to http://www.insidespanishfootball.com/ronaldo-will-miss-osasuna-clash/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140117144323/http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cristiano-ronaldo-deserved-the-ballon-dor-but-must-target-wc-now/445287-5-21.html to http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cristiano-ronaldo-deserved-the-ballon-dor-but-must-target-wc-now/445287-5-21.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Professional footballer Semi-Protected Edit Request

Could someone reinstate the term professional in front of footballer in the main page for Cristiano Ronaldo. I checked Messi as well as Sergio Ramos, Pepe, etc. and they all include the term professional footballer.

It's a bit disrespectful not to include the term since clearly Ronaldo is not an amateur footballer.

Thanks,

Velimir Vilypetkov (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to do it yourself. – PeeJay 18:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I would love to but I am not an authorized user. I haven't done sufficient posts/ edits. If you or anyone could do it, it would be great. Thanks. Vilypetkov (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Once again, can someone please add the word professional in front of footballer in the main page of Cristiano Ronaldo.

It now reads: Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro, ComM, GOIH (Portuguese pronunciation: , born 5 February 1985) is a Portuguese footballer for Spanish club Real Madrid and the Portugal national team.

It should read: Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro, ComM, GOIH (Portuguese pronunciation: , born 5 February 1985) is a Portuguese professional footballer for Spanish club Real Madrid and the Portugal national team.

It was there before and it was removed, which is not consistent with other players wiki pages. Here are some to name a few:

Lionel Messi:

Lionel Andrés "Leo" Messi (Spanish pronunciation:  ( listen); born 24 June 1987) is an Argentine professional footballer who plays as a forward for Spanish club FC Barcelona and the Argentina national team.

Sergio Ramos:

Sergio Ramos García (Spanish pronunciation: ; born 30 March 1986) is a Spanish professional footballer who plays for and captains both, Real Madrid and the Spain national football team.

Neymar da Silva Santos Júnior (Portuguese pronunciation: ; born 5 February 1992), commonly known as Neymar or Neymar Jr., is a Brazilian professional footballer who plays as a forward for Spanish club FC Barcelona and the Brazil national team.

All these contain the word "professional" in front of footballer. Please someone add that word. I wish I could do it but I am new to Misplaced Pages and don't have the authority to do so.

Thanks!!!Vilypetkov (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Better picture?

Has anyone got a better picture for the article (best would surely be 2017, in a Real Madrid home kit)? The current one has odd dimensions (landscape) and isn't great quality. Formulaonewiki (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

'Greatest' claim

The sentence 'Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as the greatest of all time' should be changed, as the citations used to back up the latter part of this claim are weak. The quote from Mourinho (Ronaldo's manager at the time and also Portuguese) from 2013 is invalid, as in 2016 Mourinho chose Pele, Maradona and Messi as the three greatest footballers of all time.

http://www.givemesport.com/828915-jose-mourinho-names-his-three-best-footballers-of-all-time

Two further quotes are from Nuno, a Portuguese coach, and Ancelloti who was manager of Real Madrid at the time. Along with these three quotes, there is a link to an article which does not claim Ronaldo is the greatest of all time (from 2014) and an article written by a random American journalist. All in all, I think the 'regarded by many' claim can not be taken seriously.

I would request that the sentence be changed from 'Often considered the best player in the world and regarded by many as the greatest of all time' to 'Often considered the best player in the world and one of the greatest of all time' O'Flannery (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. As I stated previously here: "The threshold for inclusion for a WP:BLP is high. 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. If writers, managers and players indeed widely consider a player the greatest of all time (whatever that means), then there will be sources that make that observation. If not, then you cannot add it to the article." Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Btw, such a source did not exist for C.Ronaldo when I worked extensively on this article last year. If there is one it will have been more recent, which is not unlikely given this year's CL campaign. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems Shady59 has not read what has been written here and has changed it back again. O'Flannery (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked the statement to "regarded by some as the greatest", which is supported by a few citations. Fringe/minority views shouldn't typically be placed in the lead, but excluding it altogether is probably an uphill battle. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

On Messi's page, the term used is "many". I would argue that the same be applied here. Anakimi 00:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombstone5650 (talk • contribs)

As mentioned above, the citations for Ronaldo can not justify the 'many' claim. A quick search regarding Messi confirms that many do regard him as the greatest of all time, the same can not be said for Ronaldo. O'Flannery (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

In Messi's page, there are only 2 citations from Guardiola & Zanetti supporting the claim(which you can find in the sub section, coz citations are discouraged in lead) and another from Simeone that says he's better than Maradona. The rest all are articles by editors discussing whether he is the best player ever. And in one such article provided as citation, 5 out of 6 correspondents say that he isn't. And I don't know what O'Flannery meant by saying that a quick search regarding Messi confirms that many do regard him as the greatest of all time, coz apart from claims from a handful of guys like Pep, rest all are just discussions & articles by editors. Shady59 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

A quick search confirms that he is often mentioned alongside Pele and Maradona, this is not the case for Ronaldo. The quote from Mourinho, from 2013, is invalid, as in 2016 Mourinho chose Pele, Maradona and Messi as the three greatest footballers of all time. Arsene Wenger, Graham Souness, Wayne Rooney, Gary Lineker, Roy Keane etc. all were quoted as saying Messi is the greatest ever, along with many journalists. It seems that this is a Barca v Real, Ronaldo fanboy thing now, as Messi was mentioned not long after the changes were made to the Ronaldo sentence, which is all a little bit sad. O'Flannery (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"then extrapolate a supposed majority opinion from that" 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. @O'Flannery: Let me first attempt to get out of your derision (unlikely, judging from how quickly you chose to disrespect an observation) – I am not a Ronaldo fanboy. Personally I think Messi is the greatest of all time (that being said, I am a Real Madrid fan from much before Messi/Cristiano have been in the picture). But this is about being accurate, and I think you are either pushing an agenda, or turning a blind eye to other things that Wenger/Rooney/Lineker have said, "invalidating" what they may have said about Messi, by saying "Ronaldo has overtaken Messi/is the best alongside Messi" (I can provide references at your request if you are unable to find these quotes). Is your point that it is not true that a lot of people do think Ronaldo is the best player? Then you might be a bit deluded. If not, you are just pushing an agenda. 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. Anakimi (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

My comment was not intended to be antagonistic. I made the comment as someone almost immediately brought Lionel Messi into the conversation. Again, one of the citations used for Ronaldo is not accurate (the Mourinho quote) as he has made a statement which contradicts this in 2016. If people are happy with a claim being backed up by an article written by a random journalist from LA, Ancelotti (a former Real coach) and a Portuguese coach (Nuno) then there is no point arguing my point any more. I do not see how this can be termed 'many' O'Flannery (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point, but maybe this can be resolved by adjudicating some sort of quantitative threshold for "many"? Otherwise it is simply subject to the interpretation of different people, and ends up turning into an edit/revert war. Anakimi (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Well I think it is probably futile to hope for anything close to impartiality here, sadly. O'Flannery (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@O'Flannery: Messi is mentioned alongside Maradona because they are from the same country. If Ronaldo was from Argentina or Maradona was from Portugal, then Ronaldo & Maradona would've been mentioned together. And subsequently alongside Pele, since Maradona was compared to Pele. But you won't see Messi being compared to Pele, without being mentioning the name of Maradona. So just because Messi is compared to Maradona, since they are from the same country, doesn't automatically qualify for the former being tabbed as the greatest. And as I told earlier you'll find only a handful of people who say that outright, rest all are discussions, which you can find dozens of regarding Ronaldo too. So as far as reliable sources available are concerned, the tab of the "greatest ever" applies equally for both Messi & Ronaldo Shady59 (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Your comment, 'Messi is mentioned alongside Maradona because they are from the same country. If Ronaldo was from Argentina or Maradona was from Portugal, then Ronaldo & Maradona would've been mentioned together' is nonsense and suggests that your understanding of the subject might be limited (and that perhaps you are not the best person to be making edits here). The Messi/Maradona comparison is due to their style of play, dribbling ability, both being predominantly left footed, stature, and, most importantly, ability. Until Messi, the general consensus was that Pele and Maradona were the greatest footballers of all time, which is why the comparisons now generally involve the three of them. O'Flannery (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, the sentence you're talking about is complete nonsense. Especially the last part: regarded by many as the greatest of all time is simply not true (t's only stated by amateur/commercial media). But also the first part of the sentence is dubious (not in the least because it's very temporal). I regularly read articles on footballers and it surprises me that so many footballers are considered the greatest of all time. Wouldn't it be an idea to add to all of those articles the adjective 'one of the', to avoid the never ending discussion? Apart from that, in the case of C. Ronaldo there are no serious sources that state that C. Ronaldo is the greatest footballer of all time (even 'one of the' would be a matter of debate). Pelé, Cruyff, Maradona and now Messi are usually the footballers who are considered the greatest, and even Cruyff's article isn't calling him the greatest footballer of all time. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@O'Flannery: This is not a place to discuss how Messi fans & Ronaldo fans think about the respective players. All that matters are the credible sources in both the articles & as I mentioned earlier the tab applies equally for both Messi & Ronaldo coz you can only find so many sources stating the same, apart from mere discussions. If you check the articles of Pele & Maradona, you can find around 20 different sources/players that call them the greatest, but you can't even find one-third of those in the case of Messi or Ronaldo. So it's really important to keep both the articles unbiased. Opinion of users don't matter, only credible sources matter. Shady59 (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Shady59 it has been explained, very clearly, by a number of people, why the claim 'regarded by many as the greatest of all time' is simply not true. Why are you unwilling to discuss the actual points raised? You mentioned 'credible sources'. Well if you are genuinely concerned by this, then you should be aware that a number of the citations used do not actually support the claim. The Mourinho quote, as I have mentioned previously, certainly should not be used, as in 2016 Mourinho named Pele, Maradona and Messi as the three greatest footballers of all time. Can this citation be removed from Ronaldo's page? And the fact that the opinion of a random journalist for the LA times is used to back up the claim just goes to show how tenuous the claim is. It appears that you lack the necessary objectivity to make corrections to this page. Also, your recent comment regarding comparisons between Messi and Maradona demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the subject. O'Flannery (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Shady59: so you're a Messi 'fanboy' if you put a few critical notes at a page about C.Ronaldo? Apart from that, I have to say that even now the statement - regarded by some as the greatest of all time - is dubious. Because what exactly are the sources? And shouldn't we be more critical of them? For example, is asking the question 'Is Cristiano Ronaldo the greatest footballer of all time?' (dixit Metro.co.uk) really stating that he's regarded as the greatest of all time? Or is this opinion (http://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/la-sp-ronaldo-messi-baxter-20170506-story.html) really a representative and/or credible source? For instance: there are some people who call Cruyff the greatest footballer of all time (amongst others Michel Platini: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/sport/football-cruyff-the-best-player-of-all-time-platini-tells-afp-8138932), is this, however, really enough to make a statement like that in an encyclopedia? The vast majority of pundits wouldn't call C.Ronaldo 'the greatest of all time', so who exactly are these 'some'? Are they credible enough to be included in an encyclopedia? And how many sources are enough to say 'by some regarded...' or 'by many regarded...'? Max Eisenhardt (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@O'Flannery: You claiming Mourinho statement shouldn't be used is the same as saying not to use claims made by people Pele, Maradona or Wenger who've said Messi is the best earlier & then changed their opinion later or vice versa. And @Max Eisenhardt:, you tried to even edit the article as "one of the best players". So it's clear what your intention is. And you stating those discussions was just what I was talking about all this time. These are exactly the same type of citations which you can find in the Messi article. If you check the citations provided in that page, apart from 3 statements, rest all are similar discussions. But the page still says "regarded by many", which is what is mentioned in this article also. So either both should be stated as "regarded by some" or both should be stated as "regarded by many". Only then will it be unbiased. Shady59 (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Shady59 Why not use Mourinho's most up to date quote if any are to be used? It seems nonsensical to quote him when his opinion has clearly changed (and by including it, it simply emphasises the tenuousness of the claim it is intended to support.) Regarding Max Eisenhardt, you said 'it's clear what your intention is'. What is their intention? It appears to me that they are attempting to correctly edit the page, despite the best efforts of a determined Ronaldo fan who lacks objectivity. I have a question for you Shady59, if more citations were added to support the claim that Messi is regarded by many, would you be happy to leave it at that, with Ronaldo's page saying regarded by some? This is a concession, as I do not believe there are enough credible sources to back up the claim regarded by some, but it seems a compromise is needed here. O'Flannery (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not leave this out of the article in its entirety? After all the man is still active as a footballer. Hence there's not really a majority claim for him as either 'one of the greatest' or 'the greatest'. And indeed, I don't think he can be considered as 'the greatest', because it's clearly not the majority view. You can find a 'source' for pretty much every claim. Like I pointed out: the majority doesn't view Cruyff as 'the greatest of all time' but as 'one of the greatest'. However, Platini stated that Cruyff was the greatest of all time. Can we now use that claim as a general statement on his Misplaced Pages page? I disagree with that, because it's clearly not the majority view. The same goes for C. Ronaldo. My question thus: is it possible to use any source when making statements like this? If so, then perhaps we can also argue that Bob Ross is the greatest painter of all time (I'm pretty sure we can find someone to argue in favour of Bob being the greatest in the history of the universe). Max Eisenhardt (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding "Male" prefix to one of/the greatest footballers of all time, yay or nay

Hi I would just like to know the consensus regarding the addition of the word "male" as a prefix, in regards to one' great achievements if it is in line with one of the best players/or the best player of all time. The context is that or tennis, the male prefix is an ongoing debate for the greatest player of all time on the tennis player, Roger Federer, whether to add the male prefix or not. While they are both different codes of sport, what does the football contributors think if male was applied in Ronaldo or say Messi? Is it appropriate to have it as for example, "Ronaldo is one of the greatest male footballers of all time" or "Ronaldo is one of the greatest footballers of all time" ?

Male is not needed. Kante4 (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Personal Life - Rape Allegations

Why are the recent allegations documented thoroughly in Der Spiegel not noted, when these are more detailed and credible than those raised in the Sun (which are mentioned)?

It seems remiss not to mention these, given an out of court settlement has been evidenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CBC:7400:9C1E:3CA2:6150:E5B2 (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2014/05/06/is-cristiano-ronaldo-the-greatest-footballer-of-all-time-4718859/#ixzz4ky8QdP8I

1. http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/rape-allegations-against-real-madrid-star-ronaldo-it-has-to-be-less-a-1144878.html

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.

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) Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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: 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; Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ' 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 20 July 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

You can add not only is the average goal for a match, but also how many minutes a goal is scored, how many shots it will need to score to hit the opponent. For last season for all competitions CR7 stats: 15 assists 6 hattricks Scored goal every 88 minutes He need to make 7.44 shots to score Avg shored 5.43 shots per game

You can add a paragraph with such statistics. These stats i get from https://www.fctables.com/spain/liga-bbva/real-madrid/cristiano_ronaldo-222119/ This website has also infographics: https://www.fctables.com/uploads/infographics/profil/222119/cristiano_ronaldo.jpg PatrickSmith45 (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is just me, considering I don't think such a paragraph is necessary. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It says that "Ronaldo is regarded by many as one of the greatest of all time". However I think this should be corrected to "regarded by some" because there are acctually not many people who genuinely means that he is the greatest of all time. Erik0609 (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

We had a discussion about this above. You can give your opinion over there, but I do think it's fair to say that many view him as one of the greatest of all time. However, I agree with you that not many people view him as 'the greatest of all time', but that's not what the sentence says. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Mdann52 (talk) 17:57, 30 July 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

1. • "Cristiano Ronaldo is the best player in history, claims Valencia manager Nuno ahead of Real Madrid clash". Daily Mail. 4 Jan 2015. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
   • "Ancelotti tabs Real Madrid striker as greatest ever". Yahoo! Sports. Retrieved 19 March 2016
   • "Mourinho hails 'best ever' Ronaldo". ESPN. Retrieved 5 March 2013
   • "Cristiano Ronaldo: Real Madrid star 'worth at least £300m'". BBC. Retrieved 3 Feb 2015
   • "Record-breaking Cristiano Ronaldo leads Real Madrid to their second successive Champions League title". National Stadium of Wales: Independent. 3 June 2017. Retrieved 7 June 2017.
   • "Championships give Cristiano Ronaldo the edge over Lionel Messi as the greatest of all time". Los Angeles Times. 6 May 2017. Retrieved 7 June 2017.

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages other than changing this statement. Every single edit he has made on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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, Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lionel_Messi&diff=680046086&oldid=680045782

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

1. "Neymar Jr signs with Paris Saint-Germain!". PSG. 3 August 2017. Retrieved 7 August 2017.

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)

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

I think this sentence should be removed from Misplaced Pages because it is simply wrong and not correct. You cannot say that Ronaldo is "widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time". It is just not correct. I can agree that Ronaldo is an extremely good player, but it is basically only Manchester United fans and Real Madrid fans who say that he "is the best of all time" just because they feel obligated to say it and if you look at the sources used to justify that this sentence is here, it is basically just Madrid coaches and a very subjective article from the US who "hails him as the greatest ever". Real Madrid coaches HAVE to say that is the best, otherwise they will almost be sacked immediately. I am not a Ronaldo hater, nor a Barcelona fan, I am just a neutral football fan who thinks it is so so wrong to call Ronaldo "one of the greatest of all times and "often considered the best player in the world". I therefore, genuinely think that this sentence should be removed from Misplaced Pages because it is wrong and not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik0609 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion it shouldn't be removed from the introduction. Ronaldo has received four Ballon d'Ors so far, a feat only matched by Lionel Messi. Hurrygane (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Erik0609 Believe it or not, that sentence used to read 'regarded by many as the greatest of all time'. The sentence as it is now is a compromise and I agree that it is still problematic. O'Flannery (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Love him or hate him, he is one of the best ever. Kante4 (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Plus we have sources to back that up. – PeeJay 13:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Kante4, I agree with that, he is one of the greatest ever. PeeJay, I noticed that one of the sources has a broken link (the Ancelotti article for note 1) and I couldn't find a link to replace it, maybe you can? O'Flannery (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is still a bit over the top, but like Flannery said: it's a compromise. 'One of the greatest' can be justified if you interpret the sentence as a reference to let say 20 people or so, you can read similar statements in the articles of Franz Beckenbauer, Johan Cruyff, Eusebio, George Best, Alfredo di Stefano, Michel Platini etc. Please note that the sentence states that he's one of the greatest, not the greatest (as you said in your comment). Max Eisenhardt (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• High-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class football articles
• High-importance football articles
• B-Class football in England articles
• High-importance football in England articles
• Football in England task force articles
• B-Class Manchester United F.C. articles
• High-importance Manchester United F.C. articles
• Manchester United F.C. task force articles
• WikiProject Football articles
• B-Class Portugal articles
• Mid-importance Portugal articles
• WikiProject Portugal articles
• B-Class Olympics articles
• Low-importance Olympics articles
• WikiProject Olympics articles
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Old requests for peer review