Talk:Pelé/Archive - Statistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Pele's Goal-scoring Record (Amalgamation)

In relation to Pele's record, an unidentified user has claimed that over half of his 1200+ goals were scored in non-official or friendly matches! This is highly unlikely, therefore I have removed that claim until it is substantiated, which the contributor knows he/she has the opportunity to do bigpad 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It´s not that unlikely. It´s a well known fact here in Brazil that players of that time (and before) used to count goals of non-official matches. Perhaps claiming that half the goals are from such matchs is a much too bold statement, but there´s some truth in that. It´s only a matter to find a reliable source to backup the fact. Loudenvier 19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
A litle research indicates that in fact roughly 85 goals are contested. Those estimates count a 1199 goal score for Pelé. Loudenvier 19:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a lie that his goals or scorer in amauter games. The brazilian league was the best in the world. Every starter of the 58, 62 and 70 wc champions played in Brasil. You can see the record of every Pele goal in this site from Argentina : http://www.superfutbol.com.ar/Foro-PELE-Maradona/PELE-1000Goles.htm The man was so great he scored 4 against Internazionale in Italy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.47.36 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 July 2006

I think you just inadvertantly proved the point that a lot of his goals were scored in friendly matches. What were Santos doing playing in Italy?! aLii 14:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The matches/goals statistics seem to be uncorrect. The official Santos website claims Pelé scored 1091 goals for the team.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.18.43.3 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 11 January 2006

i can score 1000 goals too ..depending on opposition...Brazilian league was weak at the time...
i think this is why Pele was so loyal to Santos..he was scoring so much it would be silly to go to Europe...think about it...he also had the title of worlds best and he wouldnt want to lose that by being a flop at Juventus (who offerd him a contract which he turned down)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu badali (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 April 2006
You cant blaim Pele for never going to europe, he was blocked from a transfer by the government. The only opposition he was allowed at club level was the other brazilian teams.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Philc 0780 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 4 April 2006
That complaint seems a bit petty, lots of other players played in Brazil and did not score anywhere near as many goals. Either produce other Brazilian league players who scored more to show that Pele was nothing exceptional or it just sounds like baseless prejudice. Furthermore, if European football was so much stronger, then Pele and the other Brazilians who played domestic football would have been embarassed when they played European opposition, instead they won three world cups. Doc Meroe 23:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is probably going to irritate a few people, but I've just changed Pele's goalscoring statistics. For a source, see

http://soccer-europe.com/Biographies/Pele.html

They claim that:

The claims made by many sources that Pele scored 1000+ career goals include hundreds of goals scored in friendly matches, combined state championship teams and even games played while on military service. For a comprehensive list detailing the 1282 goals Pele scored in 1366 games download the statistics from Pele, Ole! http://rivelino.caltech.edu/~pelesl/pele I would also like to take this opportunity to criticise every major soccer publication and every soccer resource for being so damn bone idle and never taking the time to prepare detailed career statistics for the player considered to be the best in the history of this sport. To re-iterate, no part of this profile may be published by any commercial source in any format on any platform.

So, it looks like Pele scored 635 goals in 648 games for Santos and 37 in 64 for Cosmos, and 77 in 92 for Brasil.

If anyone has any objections to this I don't mind it being changed back, but could you please include your source?? --15:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your information is but from one source. Is this the actual truth? All the others are plain wrong? If you read the Talk page before changing this controversial matter (which should be talked first, since it´s controversial after all) you would see that probably the account of Pelé goals are at most wrong on 100 goals. I will revert to the old, uncontroversial goal score. Perhaps you could link to soccer-europe or cite them (if they are reliable enough, and not only biased against Pelé) and make a statement that the goal scoring is somewhat disputed. By the way, all old-timers scored their goals without much discipline. Keep in mind that Pelé was a world champion in the 1958 when he was only 17, so 1000 goals aro not that much. Loudenvier 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Granted. but the full stats for Pele's career are available at http://rivelino.caltech.edu/~pelesl/pele. Just a quick browse shows that the totals on the WP article for while he was at Santos include not only games where Pele is playing for the state team, but also for Army teams during his national service, and also on international tours whilst with Santos. Surely we aren't supposed to count goals he scored in non-competitive matches? The stats for the Cosmos are absurd, too; the WP article is including goals Pele scored against Lazio, as well as teams in Japan, China and India.
I would start going through the list myself to see which of Pele's goals are actually from competitive fixtures, but I'm not entirely sure (and haven't been able to find out) when the Brazilian season started or finished in any given year - therefore I can't tell which matches are competitive and which aren't. So if someone with a little more knowledge would like help correct what is clearly a massive factual error, please do so!

Jim (Talk) 20:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Will you count only competitive goals? This is wrong. Many games he played with the brazilian team was not competitive, but the goals should count. It will be original research if you compile the goals yourself. Even if you are right, Wikipedia is no place for that. You will have to find a place (reliable) that states what you´re trying to prove, and then you´ll not be allowed to simply change the goal score as it stands now, because it would be POV (why one source is more precise than other? Just because you and I think it is?). The article must be careful with such sensible matters. All points of view should be expressed, and it must be noted that the official score from santos and almost everywhere is the most acceptd (which is above 1000 goals). If you take any other footballer and start escrutinizing their goal scores as we are doing with Pelé´s then all of them would end up in a similar situation. Loudenvier 17:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
In answer to your question: (1) I would not count only goals scored in competitive matches. I would count goals scored in all full internationals, including friendly matches, since this is the implicit convention which is adopted for almost all other players. (2) The only "original research" or "POV" I can see being involved here is what goals should be counted, and what shouldn't. Once this has been established, it is just a matter of going through each of Pele's goals to see whether or not it is valid, as per the agreed convention. (3) I have found what I think is a reliable source. It is now just a matter of deciding what categories of goals are permissible, and which aren't, and then working out on that basis how many goals Pele scored. (4) It is POV whether to list Pele as scoring 1,000 goals, 500 goals or 100,000 goals (including goals he scored while playing football in the street as a kid, for example) but, as I have argued, there is an implicit convention involved here which is used for every other footballer on Wikipedia. It is even stated explicitly in the player infobox. (5) As to whether all points of view should be expressed regarding how many goals Pele scored: I think I have established that the POV only exists in the counting-convention. In my opinon, both statistics should be listed, as most of the world accepts that Pele scored "over 1000 goals". However, I also think that there should be a section of the article which outlines why he is credited with goals that would not be credited for other players.(6) If you start scrutinizing the record of Brazilian players of Pele's era then I think that yes, you might end up with a similar situation. This may be a cultural difference; if so, this cultural difference should be noted in the Pele article. If it is actually more to do with marketing (which I suspect it is), then this should be noted too. As Allii has shown below, you are quite right that other players would end up in a similar situation if you started listing their goals as per the convention (i.e., POV) implicitly employed in the Pele article. The fact is, these other players, along with the rest of the players on WP (I am sure there are some exceptions to this, but that isn't really the point) only have goals scored in competitive club football games and full international games. Jim (Talk) 21:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect Loudenvier, it is quite important for comparison reasons to quote the amount of goals scored by Pele in competitive games. Sure his total number of goals should be noted, as he is famous for it, but it should definitely be noted how they were scored, otherwise it would be disingenuous.
I'll give you three examples off the top of my head:
  1. Craig Bellamy has recently played three friendly games for Liverpool, and he's scored two goals. These goals are not credited in his career statistics. He isn't even considered to have made a proper debut for the team.
  2. Billy Liddell, one of Liverpool's all time top scorer's. His record is always quoted as 534 games, 229 goals. However he played a further 150 games, scoring 83 goals during World War II in non-competitive matches.
  3. Gerd Müller scored 735 goals in his career, but if one takes into account his multitude friendly games this goes up to 1455(!). The higher number is never quoted.
Pele's number is only quoted because Pele is Pele and the Brazilians made it some kind of legend. Scoring 500 or so goals in friendly games is pretty non-notable in my eyes, other than being able to claim (incorrectly) that Pele is the top goal scorer of all time. aLii 21:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Pele's goalscoring record is somwehat controversial. It is widely asserted that he scored over 1000 first-class goals; even official sources such as FIFA quote this number. However, I've got hold of the stats and it appears that a lot of these goals were scored in friendlies, exhibition matches, and even matches Pele played for army teams during his national service.

In an attempt to rectify this, I have started to copy tables which give the result for every game Pele played in to sub-pages of my talk page. The list of tables can be seen at:

User:James Kemp/Pelé

What I have in mind is that each game should be noted as either valid or not, with a source, and that every game that is checked off has the appropriate username appended to it.

I would really appreciate someone with some knowledge of Brazilian soccer to help me out with this, to let me know what the Brazilian conventions are for counting goals.

I will add more details as to how this project might run as soon as I get the time... Jim (Talk) 12:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

While is fascinating research, and well worth doing, I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the right place for it. It would probably fall under the heading of original research, in that you're trying to decide which goals to count. As an encyclopedia, we should only cover information that already exists elsewhere, and has been reviewed by the general community. A simple list of Pele's matches is one thing (although this too might be considered to be unsuitable for WP), but any new analysis of that list is something else. — sjorford++ 13:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I take your point. Obviously this is a decision for the entire community, but in my opinion this does not count as original research. It seems to me that the problem is that while most players' stats include only goals scored in competitive games, Pele's stats include every single non-competitive game he played in. I intend this work to be not original research, but kind of a really complicated reference: all people will in effect be doing is providing a reference for each goal. The table itself will be a kind of aggregate of all these references and will therefore, IMO, be a reference itself. I only said that I wanted to know about the Brazilian conventions for counting goals to preempt criticism; in my opinion, if Thierry Henry's stats do not include goals scored in friendly matches, then neither should Pele's. The only reason for doing it like this is to keep everything transparent, as it is a very controversial subject. Jim (Talk) 13:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
His article should note, if it can be proven, that his famed record of 1000+ goals includes many scored during friendly games and while playing for the army/coast guard teams while on national service. Obviously such goals should not be included in his statistics as a professional player. aLii 13:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I should add that wikipedia should not be quoted as a source in a wikipedia article. We need outside sources for his record. For all I know you could have made that list up (I'm sure you didn't, but you see my point?) aLii 13:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I completely take your point - it's a very valid one. I originally took the list from http://rivelino.caltech.edu/~pelesl/pele/english/pele_statistics.html. They were apparantley compiled from a book called Pelé: O Supercampeão by Orlando Duarte. I have not checked every single result against other sources, but the 30 or so that I have checked were accurate. Jim (Talk) 13:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Obviously the main problem with the stats on his wikipedia page is that they definitely weren't all league games, like the info box states... I mean 1265/18 = 70.3 games per season! I know that Brazilian teams now play two different leagues, but they didn't back in Pelé's day (from what I can tell from wikipedia). aLii 13:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
From what I can gather Brazilian teams did play in more than one league back then, but Pele certainly didn't play 70 games a season for Santos (competitive or otherwise). Some of the games included under the Santos statistic are for combined state teams, some for the Army, some for other teams based in Brazil. Jim (Talk) 13:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

rsssf.com says he scored 537 league goals [1], still pretty impressive. Now all we need is his appearances record! aLii 13:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

One useful source is http://soccer-europe.com/Biographies/Pele.html, but the problem with this is that even though it's based on the list I'm gradually adding to my User Page, it only gives final totals and doesn't precisely reference its sources. Jim (Talk) 13:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I just checked the rsssf.com source and it's pretty good, although it doesn't seem to include goals which maybe should be included!! God this is complicated... Jim (Talk) 13:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is another source to look at: The World's most successful Top Division Goal Scorers of all time, by the IFFHS - ChaChaFut 01:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


As per this source I am going to increase Pele's goal statistic for his time at Santos. I am happy that the Cosmos figure we are showing is correct, but the Santos figure does not tally with that from IFFHS. I think this is because IFFHS are including Brazilian competitions that other sources have not included, but that are still perfectly valid - Santos would have played in various league competitions, as I mentioned above. Just to keep everything clear, the way I worked this out was: IFFHS gives Pele 560 appearances combined for Santos/Cosmos. Subtract the 64 Cosmos appearances that we list and you get a difference of 84 appearances; so I have upped the appearances from 412 to 496. Similarly, goals have been increased from 470 to 504. Jim (Talk) 10:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Out of interest can you specify which league competitions that Santos will have been involved in through the 50s, 60s and early 70s? aLii 14:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit rushed at the moment but can confirm, from http://soccer-europe.com/Biographies/Pele.html, that Pele played in the following competitions for Santos:
  • Sao Paulo State Championship: played in this from 1957-1974, 412(470)= games(goals)
  • Rio-Sao Paulo Championship: 1957-1965 53(49)
  • "The Championship": 1971-1974 84(34)
  • Taca de Prata: 1967-70 (see below) 57(37)
  • Brazilian Cup: I am assuming this is not a league, so doesn't matter
  • Copa Libertadores: Not a league? - pretty sure it's not
  • Intercontinental Cup: Not a league? - pretty sure it's not

Taken from the above source:

The Taca de Prata tournament, which ran between 1967-1970, is the predecessor to the first national Brazilian Championship (1971 - present). The CBF (Brazilian FA) are considering whether to classify these four tournaments as official championships. The State championships are still run as separate tournaments to the Brazilian League Championship but don't hold the same level of importance following the switch to a traditional league format (with promotion and relegation) of the Brazilian Championships in 2003.

So perhaps the Taca de Prata was actually a league championship too - but does that mean we should include it in the stats? The CBF don't seem too sure... I hope, at least, that the statistic I put on the article this morning tallies with the above data! If only those damned marketing men hadn't fiddled Pele's record! Jim (Talk) 15:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

aLii 16:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Great work Ali! A few comments: (1) "The Championship" was, I think, slightly different from the current two-tiered Brazilian league; they are not one and the same thing. (2) I have double-checked the "Brazilian Cup", and even FIFA [2] claim that it exists/existed. Might be some more information available on rsssf.com. They easiest way to check is to see which competition Santos won in 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1968; then we'll know we've got the right one. Jim (Talk) 18:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The "Brazilian Cup" listed above would therefore be the Taça Brasil. In 1968 it was replaced by the Taça de Prata (and won by Santos), thus I guess making that competition also a cup if FIFA refer to them jointly as the "Brazilan Cup". Also in reply to (1) they are one and the same thing, click the wikilink and read for yourself. aLii 00:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Apologies Ali, you are quite right about the Brazilian Championship. My mistake. As for the "Brazilian Cup", it does indeed appear that this is, for FIFA's purposes, both the Taca Brasil and the Taca de Prata. The only slightly confusing thing is the fact that the Taca de Prata ran from 1967-70; it was offically known as the Torneio Roberto Gomes Pedrosa, and known as the Taca de Prata from 1968-70; it was won by Santos in 1968, so this must be what FIFA are referring to as Pele's 1968 Brazilian Cup win [3]. The Taca Brasil ran from 1959-68, so both competitions ran in 67 and 68 I think [4].
It seems that the two "Tacas" and the Brazilian Championship were both qualifying competitions for the Copa Libertadores. From 1960 to 1965 Brazil entered one team in this competition; from 1966 onwards they entered two teams. The following teams were entered by Brazil in the years in question:
1960 - EC Bahia [5]
1961 - Palmeiras [6]
1962 - Santos [7], who win it and therefore enter in 1963 too;
1963 - Botafogo [8], Santos win again, and therefore enter in 1964;
1964 - EC Bahia [9], Santos go out to Independiente
1965 - Santos [10], Santos go out to Penarol
1966 - ??? [11] Santos and Vasco both qualify but pull out
1967 - Cruzeiro, ??? [12] Santos qualified through the TB but pulled out.
1968 - Palmeiras, Nautico [13], neither Brazilian entrant wins
1969 - ??? [14]
1970 - ??? [15], Palmeiras, Cruizero [16]
1971 - Palmeiras, Fluminese [17], neither won
1972 - Sao Paulo, Atletico Mineiro [http://www.rsssf.com/sacups/copa72.html, neither won
1973 - Botafogo, Palmeiras [18], neither won
1974 - Sao Paulo, Palmeiras [19], neither won
The ??? are where I can't find data at www.rsssf.com. Maybe Brazil didn't enter that year? Either way, the point of doing this is to see which competitions enabled entry into the Copa Libetadores. I am guessing that, from 1972 onwards, Brazil's entries in the Copa Lib were the top two teams in the Championship of the previous year. The entrants for 1971 were decided by the top two teams in the 1970 TdP [20]. 1970 entrants were decided by the top two teams in the 1969 TdP [21]. No sure about 1969 entrants. 1968 entrants are a bit complicated. It certainly isn't the top two teams of the 1967 TdP [22]. There seem to be two options: either it was the two finalists of the Taca Brasil [23] or it was supposed to be the winners of both the TdP and the TB. But, since Palmeiras won both of these competitions the runners-up in the TB were allowed in too. 1967 entrants were the two finalists of the TB in 1966 [24], Santos pulling out. 1966 entrants were the two finalists of the TB again [25], but both pulled out.
So it seems to work like this: 1960-64, the winner of the TB goes into the next year's CL. 65-66, the two finalists of the TB go into the next year's CL. 1967, either the winners of both the TB and the TdP are supposed to go in to the next year's CL (this would make sense, as the TdP had just started that year), or the two finalists of the TB were meant to go in to the next year's CL. 1969, the top two in the TdP go in to the next year's CL. 1970, top two in the TdP go into the next year's CL. From 71 onwards in looks like the top two in the Championship go into the next year's CL. Simple!!
Not sure if this adds too much to the Pele article but I think it is worthwhile work for other pages on WP, perhaps. One question it does raise: since it is not massively clear the extent to which the TB and TdP were league competitions, and since both competitions were prestigious enough to gain entry to the CL, should Pele's goals in these competitions be counted in the Pele article? Jim (Talk) 15:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The following is copied from the Thierry Henry article and slightly modified. Perhaps it could be used to provide some sort of data in the Pele article? I think we would need two, one for Santos and one for Cosmos, as there are so many Brazilian competitions and no championship as such equivalent to the NASL. Jim (Talk) 01:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ammendment: I have now gone through the table and changed Henry's stats to "??", so that we know which of Pele's stats have actually been entered. This can be done from the Soccer Europe link which is further up on this talk page. Jim (Talk) 11:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

2nd Ammendment: I've added data and started referencing but am having problems with the footnotes (Cite error 4; Invalid call; no input specified). This might just be a problem in "preview" mode, but if it is showing up on the talk page could someone fix it? I've tried... Jim (Talk) 13:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Fixed it, my bad...Jim (Talk) 15:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


Original research

It´s funny how Wikipedia is one of the few places where Pelé's goal scoring is less than 1000. It´s obviously original research. You had commited the gravest sin in wikipedia: you made a research, took what you think was right and wrote it down on wikipedia. You could have done it on your blog or homepage, but not here. The correct way to introduce the truth you unveilled was to have a section on the "goal-scoring controversy". The goal-score on the info-box should reflect the well accepted score of over 1000 goals. Event if it´s not truth or if it´s simply a score counted loosely it´s the most accepted one. I will call the attention of a few administrators. Regards Loudenvier 12:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Rivelino.calltech.edu also states this: But mentioning some numbers is inevitable. How do you classify an athlete that is 11 times top goal scorer of the São Paulo Championship, 8 of these being consecutive seasons? A "golden boot" winner is extatic to hit the 500-goal mark - Pelé hit it when he was just 22.. So this is controversial stuff, how come a research made by wikipedia editors (which shouldn´t be making research in the first place) is the final answer to this? Loudenvier 12:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see the point of this quote, it doesn't further this argument one way or another. aLii 14:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Official sources states that Pelé scored over 1000 goals, including FIFA. It's enough reason to revert the current edits. Loudenvier 12:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No it isn't. This page also (still) claims that he scored over 1000 goals. I don't see your point. aLii 14:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No original research: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position. Loudenvier 13:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • This article doesn't go agaisnt any of that, and what you find controversal is fully sourced.aLii 14:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The intro it is often quoted - somewhat misleadingly - that he scored 1,281 goals during his career is clearly a POV statement, it enforces the notion that Pelé's goal scoring of 1281 is misleading. This interpretation has to be left for the reader. It's not the editor's role to make it

explicit. It also completely ignores the fact that FIFA and Santos and almost all specialized press counts 1280 or so as Pelé's actual goal score. Loudenvier 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

    • I'm not sure that the use of the word "misleadingly" is the best phrasing. I did not add it. I do personally believe that a figure quoting all friendly goals is misleading though. aLii 14:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The reference section was changed to be POV towards the "new" goal scoring statistics. It diminishes the importance of official sources for Pelé's 1280 or so goals (FIFA - which should be the most respected and the main source, Santos, etc.) Loudenvier 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There is nothing "new" about the statistics on this page. They are clearer perhaps. They also give a better picture of the games Pelé played in. Could you substantiate that claim by providing a FIFA or Santos source giving a full breakdown of Pele's league goals? Otherwise your point is rather POV. aLii 14:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My rebuttal: Just to note that this article does also list the "normal" total of Pelé's goals (1280), in the lead no less. It also gives a breakdown of the goals he scored in major competitive games. I believe this is in the interests of anyone wishing to know about Pelé's career and exploits.

I would argue that it is not original research, but merely a collating of various sources of information - much like the writing of any article. I agree that better sources would be preferable, but up to now they have not been found.

Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position. You did a synthesis and new analysis and posted it on the article. It´s original research. Loudenvier 14:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You should also note that the football-player infobox deems only league games and goals to be important. For this reason I undertook a search for sources of this information. They were found, and the numbers updated as per policy. aLii 14:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1. If we create the article List of official goals scored by Edson Arantes do Nascimento, and add a reference for each of the goals in the Article, is that original research? (if yes, please remove all existing lists from the Wikipedia)
Lists in wikipedia are mostly POV and Original Research simply because it's an original synthesis. Yes, those many lists should be removed (the majority). For examploe, the List of Virtuosi Players was deleted. The List of Rock Operas is also a problem, because it's hard to define what is a Rock Opera. The same goes for Pelé's goals: which should be counted? The Info Box has to show the normal accepted score. People will get to wikipedia, read the downgraded score and say: "well, wikipedia is always wrong, I told you!". We should avoid wordings that sound POV: Pelé's goal score is misleading, etc is all POV, and must be changed. It should read: Official sources give Pelé's a score of 1280 goals in his carreer. Other sources give a different score, some of which are very different... or something like that (I'm not the best wikipedian to provide a good wording for this... I'm not a native english speaker...) Loudenvier 14:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2. If we have such list, do we ignore its content anywhere else in the Wikipedia creating inconsistencies? For instance, I took the information of Boca Juniors's Libertadores achievements from Copa Libertadores de América, a consolidated article, with references. Is that invalid? The list of goals can't be an original research if the definition of an official goal is clear. Besides, this resume of goals is based on very specific references from sources used all over the football-related articles such as the RSSSF, while you support the vage information of FIFA, which doesn't state how many of those goals are official. On the working you might be right, but I strongly support the clarification of the goals issue, specially if to be kept in the info-box. Mariano(t/c) 14:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
We should not have this list in the first place. We could have an article for Pelé's controversial goal scoring in which you should cite the many sources that gave different scores, and you should list the tables compiled on reliable sources, not one you or any other wikipedian compiled. Loudenvier 14:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • My reply to Loudevinir: Oh Jesus, here we go again. As I have mentioned before a remarkable number of times on this Talk page - each time, I should point out, my remarks going unanswered - your argument is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways. I will now go through it again, to make sure I have covered anything new you have brought up, and so you don't have to go to the effort of reading replies I have made earlier.

Comment

It´s funny how Wikipedia is one of the few places where Pelé's goal scoring is less than 1000. It´s obviously original research. You had commited the gravest sin in wikipedia: you made a research, took what you think was right and wrote it down on wikipedia. You could have done it on your blog or homepage, but not here. The correct way to introduce the truth you unveilled was to have a section on the "goal-scoring controversy". The goal-score on the info-box should reflect the well accepted score of over 1000 goals. Event if it´s not truth or if it´s simply a score counted loosely it´s the most accepted one. I will call the attention of a few administrators. Regards Loudenvier 12:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

I always get suspicious when people say things are obvious. You need to justify precisely why you are calling this original research. As I have stated before, I do not count this as research at all, as we (myself and Ali) merely referred to extant sources which we referenced thoroughly. There was, semantically speaking, "research" involved; i.e., hours spent going through Pele's goalscoring record to cross-reference as many of his goals as we thought necessary. Doubtless we made some mistakes, but WP (like any encyclopedia) is littered with mistakes. The benefit of WP is that if you see a mistake, you can correct it - as long as you provide a reference. I am also always suspicious when the word "sin" gets mooted, as it often implies a dogmatic closure of debate. That is what I think you are trying to do here.

When you say we "made a research, took what you think was right and wrote it down on wikipedia", I have done the same thing in countless articles, by referring to books such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Bibliography for the Christopher Caudwell article. You may be trying to say that our source is not valid, which is in principle a fair criticism - however, as far as I can tell rsssf.com, where most of our sources came from, is pretty much accepted as being legitimate. They, of course, will make mistakes - a few of which we found - but that is unavoidable in any human undertaking.

When you say "You could have done it on your blog or homepage, but not here" I am assuming that you are referring to all of the statistics Ali and I collected and referenced on the talk page of the Pele article. Why? The talk page is precisely the place, in my view, where debates like this should be settled so they don't clutter the main article.

When you say "The correct way to introduce the truth you unveilled was to have a section on the "goal-scoring controversy"", that is what I have attempted to build, starting with this morning. But I assume you mean that we should not have corrected the infobox. As far as I am concerned, the infobox can include as many goals as anyone wants it to. Include goals Pele scored in the past year playing football in the garden with his grandchildren, if you must. However, the infobox states that only goals scored in domestic league competitions should be included. This is the standard that has been imposed, and we are all bound to stick to it or challenge it - but that is something that should be done elsewhere on WP. I accept that it is unclear, because of the complicated nature of Brazilian club football in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, to define precisely what counts as a laegue game, but that is something we are working on. Our current guess is, I think, reasonably good. If you would like to help work out which competitions should be counted as leagues and which shouldn't, that would really be appreciated.

Comment

  • Rivelino.calltech.edu also states this: But mentioning some numbers is inevitable. How do you classify an athlete that is 11 times top goal scorer of the São Paulo Championship, 8 of these being consecutive seasons? A "golden boot" winner is extatic to hit the 500-goal mark - Pelé hit it when he was just 22.. So this is controversial stuff, how come a research made by wikipedia editors (which shouldn´t be making research in the first place) is the final answer to this? Loudenvier 12:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

As I said above, I do not believe we are providing a final answer. Since WP articles can always be edited, I have always assumed that any statement on WP is not a final statement. This is why I like it so much, because it implicitly avoids dogma.

However, if you want to compare our results with those of the website you quote, I think you will need to specify precisely what each statement means. In what competitions did Pele play to get these 500 goals? Were they friendly matches, matches for military teams? Again, this is not research - it's a very complicated reference that took a long time to sort out. If you note the infobox on Thierry Henry's page, and go into the code view, you will see that some of his goals have been "double checked" this is, by your definition, original research.

Comment

  • Official sources states that Pelé scored over 1000 goals, including FIFA. It's enough reason to revert the current edits. Loudenvier 12:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You are playing with word. FIFA sais he scored more than 1000. We are trying to give a number on official goals, is that so bad? Mariano(t/c) 15:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

When you say "official", what precisely do you mean? I'm not sure it's FIFA who counted the goals. It seems to me that by official you actually mean dogmatic. Just because FIFA are the official governing body, it doesn't mean we should trust what they say. They probably have reasons for saying what they do, reasons they don't make clear.

Comment

  • No original research: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position. Loudenvier 13:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

Step by step:

  • The argument is not previously unpublished. See the Soccer Europe page.
  • There is no new concept here. The concept is supplied by whoever decided only domestic league goals should count in an infobox.
  • There is no new data here. It is all extant in various sources that we cite thoroughly.
  • There are no new statements here. The statement that Pele's goal record is dubious is perhaps new to WP, but it is not new to the world at large - it just isn't very well known.
  • There are no new theories here, apart from, perhaps, trying to work out what counts as a league and what doesn't. When trying to work this out we are referring to as many prescedents as possible.
  • We are providing a new synthesis of data. But does it serve to advance a position? I would argue that it serves to defeat an incorrect position, and bring the Pele statistics in line with the position which is advanced on every other footballer's page: that is, that only league goals should be counted.

Comment

  • The intro it is often quoted - somewhat misleadingly - that he scored 1,281 goals during his career is clearly a POV statement, it enforces the notion that Pelé's goal scoring of 1281 is misleading. This interpretation has to be left for the reader. It's not the editor's role to make it explicit. It also completely ignores the fact that FIFA and Santos and almost all specialized press counts 1280 or so as Pelé's actual goal score.

Response

Why is it "clearly" (again, a somewhat dogmatic term) POV? Word by word: "it is often quoted". Seems fine, Pele's 1000+ goalscoring record is often quoted. "Somewhat misleadingly": it is "somewhat misleading" because, under the norm in which people read encyclopedia articles, they expect that 1000 goals refers to 1000 goals in games of a certain calibre. It is not "misleading", as Pele did indeed score 1000+ goals, which is why I haven't said that - I qualified it with the word "somewhat". This introduces a sufficient degree of caution into the statement.

This supposedly POV statement does not in my opinion "enforce" any point of view. As I have argued, it allows for some doubt by the introduction of the qualifying term "somewhat". Surely stating that "Pele scored 1280 goals in his career" enforces a POV, the POV being that goals he scored in certain matches should be counted. They should certainly be mentioned in the article, which is why I included the total in the introduction.

When you refer to the fact that FIFA, Santos and "almost all specialized press" peddle, you are again returning to your dogmatic position. I have covered this above, but I would like to repeat that it is in the interests of FIFA and Santos to say that Pele scored over 1000 goals, as it makes him out to be some sort of God, which he wasn't. He was only an incredibly gifted footballer who was perhaps the greatest player who has ever lived.

I'm not going to revert any of your edits; I'll leave it a couple of days and see what comes up. I look forward to your response. Jim (Talk) 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Loudenvier responds

Hi James, you just ruined my answer to your friend by editing it right before myself! ... I think your answers do confirm my original research argument. You are infering that FIFA and Santos, which are reliable sources, have an interest in Pelé's goal scoring. You may be correct, but you should provide sources for it on the article itself. I think it's wrong to change the infobox and not reflecting the 1000+ goal score. It tries to enforce in the reader this point of view, which is what the POV claim is all about. There are better ways to bring this goal scoring controversity to light without incurring in original research or using POV terms. Wikipedia policies explictly suggests that you do not use words like misleading, arguably, and the like. FIFA, Santos, the brazillian famous Placar magazine and many other reliable sources should be cited along with the other sources that claimed the < 1000 goal scoring. The way the article reads now it seems that the correct, and final truth, is ~500 goals, and that the 1000+ is a hoax. That's why I proposed the review of the article by administrators and also on the soccer portal. And you should not revert my edits, because I did them the way I did exactly to prevent a revert-war. I did not changed a thing you did introduced in the article. I just let it there for a future peer review to be made. Loudenvier 14:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The infobox states, and I quote, Professional club appearances and (goals) counted for the domestic league only. This would mean that quoting any total number of goals given by Santos or FIFA (or anyone else for that matter), without giving a breakdown of how many were league goals, is not just misleading, but plain incorrect. aLii 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
p.s. I didn't revert any of your edits, except for your signature, which shouldn't be on an article main page. aLii 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
What is meant by domestic league only? It doesn't count goals for the national team? Determining what counts or not in brazilian leagues should not be done by us, wikipedians, only by other notable/reliable sources. Loudenvier 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Although you still don't seem to get the point of most of my comments (see the thing on POV below), this seems reasonably new, so I'll answer it: although the answer seems to me to be pretty obvious. Goals for the national team do count, but under the "Brazil" part of the infobox. You raise a good point: what are we going to count as "domestic leagues" (infobox terminology) in Brazilian football? Maybe we should contact the guys at rsssf.com. This seems, to me, one thing that could be classified POV. Personally I don't like the distinction POV/NPOV - everything has some sort of POV associated with it. I prefer to look at it like a sliding scale. Looked at that way, I don't see how the way the Pelé article is now is anything but less POV than the nonsense peddled by FIFA etc.Jim (Talk) 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Firstly, if an edit conflict comes up you are able to resolve it by working out precisely what the conflict is, and copying over the text you want from one box to the other. This is rather complicated, I know, but it is better than having your edit completely lost.
It was meant as a joke... Perhaps I should have provided a :-) smile. Loudenvier 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 :-) Jim (Talk) 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Now I'll go through your reponse. I think your answers do confirm my original research argument. You are infering that FIFA and Santos, which are reliable sources, have an interest in Pelé's goal scoring. You may be correct, but you should provide sources for it on the article itself. Firstly, I am not inferring anything. You could argue that I am implying that FIFA and Santos have a vested interest in this matter. But I actually stated it explicitly. However, I did so on the talk page, not in the article. If I get the time I will see if anyone has written anything on this; if they have, I will put it on the article and reference it. Until then, I won't. When you say FIFA and Santos are "reliable sources", you seem to be introducing POV. They are reliable because their POV counts. This is nonsense. See above. In my opinion the 1000+ record is something of a hoax, perpetrated by various people who are set to gain from it (this might weaken my overall position, but it's better to be honest); however, even though this might have motivated my work on the article I have not included these remarks as they are POV. I will not, as I said before, revert your edits.
The problem is that the POV which counts is the POV which should be into wikipedia articles. Perhaps your other POV sources (< 1000 goals) do count too, so cite them. It's your or mine POV that counts nothing :-( Also we aren´t supposed to be doing original synthesis. Loudenvier 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you means here. Your POV seems to be: "include all the goals Pele scored in the infobox". Mine is "include only league goals in the infobox". The POV of the infobox (if this is what you meant) agrees with me. If you want to challenge it then feel free, but I think that is what you would need to do rather than counting appearances and goals which you seem to think you should. I see you have changed your position from "original research" to "original synthesis". We are allowed to do original synthesis, as long as it doesn't advance a position. I would like some examples of precisely what this means. Perhaps it is intended for articles to do with the Jewish Holocaust and similar. What we are doing in the Pele article is providing an original synthesis which brings Pele's goal record in line with the vast majority of other WP articles on footballers. If we are "advancing a position", then it is the position of WP itself. We should, perhaps, include an "Other appearances" column in the statistics table (as long as it is specified that this includes non-competitive club games; we would also need another table for games Pele played for teams other than Santos and Cosmos), but the infobox appearances and goals should be pretty much as they are - as soon as we've sorted out what counts as a league and what doesn't. Jim (Talk) 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have included thorough references to all of my sources which disagree with FIFA. When you say that Wikipedia policies explictly suggests that you do not use words like misleading, arguably, you may have a point. However, as I have argued above I think the language used in the first paragraph of the article is the correct language. I note that Ali disagrees with me, which is fine because of the grounds of his disagreement which he makes very clear.
The rest of what you say seems to be repeating what you have said before. I won't reply to anything else for the next few days, as I don't really feel that it is adding very much to the debate. Most of the time I just repeat what I have said before in answer to what you have said before, ad infinitum. Jim (Talk) 15:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
That's why I'll also refrain from changing anything on the article. I will wait for others, perhaps with more knoledge than me, to make amends where necessary, or to prove me wrong (I have no problem with that). By the way it's very good to discuss articles with intelligent and reasonable people (if you ever happen to read the talk on Heavy metal music article you would be surprised with the amount of single-mindedness that happens to exist in wikipedia). Loudenvier 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. This should be easier to settle than the stuff on Heavy metal music, since it is in many sense objective - we only need a few norms laid down, to add to the norms that are already implicit in WP (as they are in any human practice)Jim (Talk) 17:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. Administrator Ryan was very helpfull and insightfull. Let's wait further to see if people comes with even better ways to improve the article and you two, please, do not stop working. With my now new insight over original research, perhaps you did none of it (and so, commited no sin :-). I still thinks the article somewhate hiddens the "official"/"normal" goal scoring in favor of your compilation (properly cited though). Regards. Loudenvier 01:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)