Talk:GOAT (sports culture)

Suitable for inclusion on list

I obviously welcome other editors' thoughts on this, but I believe I will be outlining reasonable inclusion or exclusion criteria.

Scenarios in which it is definitely okay to include an athlete in the list of those considered the greatest:

  • Most obvious: A reliable source in sports media/journalism unambiguously refers to the individual as the greatest/best in their, or any, sport.
    • Example: ESPN's Kevin Van Valkenburg on Tom Brady: Brady might not have any interest in the argument, but before we put the 2016 NFL season behind us, allow us to make one on his behalf: He's the greatest of all time. Period. Full stop. Not just the greatest quarterback, but the greatest player in NFL history. (source)

Scenarios in which I believe it should be okay to include in the list:

  • A retired athlete/coach/related personnel in their sport's hall of fame refers to another individual in that sport as the greatest ever, again unambiguously
    • Example: Pat Riley calling Kareem Abdul-Jabbar the GOAT player
    • Possible objections: I can see an argument against this specific situation (Riley/Kareem) on two counts, as (1) Pat Riley of course coached Kareem, causing a conflict of interest here; and (2), Riley has offered a conflicting opinion, calling LeBron James the "BOAT" (source). While Riley called Kareem the greatest in 1985 and 2023, both before and after calling LeBron the "best of all time" in 2012, there still is an element of both conflict of interest and ambiguity in Riley's opinion. However, the scenario in theory should be okay given there is no conflict of interest or ambiguity. I can also see an objection on the basis that the list should only include opinions sourced to media members/journalist/spectators. I would disagree with that notion for multiple reasons, perhaps the most glaring because of course, some players/coaches/etc go on to become media members themselves.
  • Similarly, an active player/coach/retired personnel calling another person in their sport as the greatest.
    • Example: LeBron James calling Gregg Popovich the GOAT coach
    • Possible objections: I can see there being some editors perhaps suggesting a cut-off here. As in, I don't think there is any real objecting to a player of LeBron's caliber calling Pop the GOAT coach, or Serena Williams calling Federer the GOAT in men's tennis (source). However, perhaps this should be a case-by-case basis type of thing. Are there (and/or should there be) cases where this would not be suitable to include? Like in the event of a non-obvious future Hall of Famer (like LeBron) or non-All-Star-caliber player calling someone else the greatest(?) Consider, for example, Brandon Miller calling Paul George his GOAT (source). And if LeBron calling Pop the GOAT coach is okay, but Miller calling Paul George the GOAT player is not okay, then what is the cut-off here? Here is what I consider to be somewhere in between those two examples on this spectrum: NFL head coach Bruce Arians calling the late Don Shula the GOAT coach (source). I would say this one is okay for inclusion, but welcome others to share their takes on this.
  • A third-party reliable source that cites an individual is considered by others as the greatest, or cites who is included in a particular GOAT conversation.
    • Example: The Athletic analyzing and discussing the GOAT debate between Bill Belichick and Don Shula. On the former: Those who consider Belichick the greatest can point to his six Super Bowl victories and rest their case and on the latter: There's still a great case for Shula as the NFL's gold standard — a conversation to be had, for sure. This source does not call explicitly offer an opinion on whether Belichick or Shula (or some secret third option) is the GOAT head coach in pro American football. However, the source does explicitly state that there are some who consider Belichick the singular greatest, and also states that Shula has a credible case for the gold standard, which would be a singular greatest as well, as opposed to one of the greatest (source).
  • A fan vote that was officially conducted by an authoritative organization in the field:
    • Example: The WNBA conducting a fan poll on the league's GOAT (source)

Scenarios in which it is definitely NOT okay to include an athlete in the list of those considered the greatest:

  • Sources with ambiguous opinions, or ones that stop short of calling the athlete the singular greatest (i.e. calling them "one of" the greatest)
    • Example 1: Marc Rosset on Roger Federer: It all depends on what being the best means. If we look at Grand Slam numbers, then Nadal and Djokovic are better. If we consider the player with the greatest influence in the sport, for me, it's Roger. (source). Rosett here does not definitively call Federer the GOAT of tennis, only saying he has the "greatest influence" and furthermore prefaces his thoughts with an all-time softening "it all depends". I think this maybe would be a good source on the "Legacy" section of the Federer article but opinions like this should be excluded from being the list.
    • Example 2: Britannica on Wilt Chamberlain: In 1959 Philadelphia added local product Wilt Chamberlain, who would go on to become one of the greatest players in NBA history. This is clearly positive for Wilt, but stops short of calling the greatest.
    • Example 3: From ESPN's "top 25 Olympians of the 21st century list": Vezzali is the most prolific fencer of all time. Here, they list Valentina Vezzali as the most prolific fencer of all time. Definitely a prestigious title to place on someone, and an unambiguous one too, but not a statement on whether she is the greatest fencer or not.
    • Example 4:
  • Single source offers conflicting or ambiguous opinions:
    • Example: Stephen A. Smith has called both Magic Johnson and Stephen Curry the greatest point guard of all-time. This isn't a simple change or evolution of opinion either, which would be okay. It would be alright to simply elevate one player to the GOAT status, dethroning the player previously holding that spot. However, Stephen A. Smith has gone back and forth on the issue (calling Steph the GOAT point guard in 2018 and 2023, but Magic the GOAT point guard in between this, in 2021). He has created further ambiguity to his opinion, because he credits Magic as being the greatest at the position in regards to its traditional definition (i.e. a "facilitator"), but calls Steph the greatest for his "impact" at the position and regarding this, Smith has also stated: And that is why I would sit up there and say, of course, old school cats are gonna disagree with me. Dammit, I'm not even sure I'm right, because Magic is so great, so phenomenal. (source) All of this makes it not okay to include him as a source to cite Magic or Curry as the GOAT point guard.

I will be adding scenarios to this talk page as I seem them progressively pop up, but also would want other editors to perhaps chime in on the scenarios that could have objections to them to gather more of a consensus. Soulbust (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other considerations

  • Qualifiers may make a source suitable for the "by position" section, but definitely not for the general section.
    • Example 1: Bill Barnwell calling Aaron Donald the greatest defensive tackle (DT) of all-time (source) is a definitive, explicit, unambiguous position. So therefore it can be included to list Donald as the greatest DT, but not the greatest pro American football player.
    • Example 2: Steph Curry is often called the "greatest shooter" of all-time in basketball. I think this listing can be expanded perhaps, to included specializations. I kinda already included this by listing Usain Bolt as the greatest sprinter, a sub-sport of track and field, which is itself a sub-sport of the athletics. These sub-sports, to me, though seem like they have good arguments as distinct sports themselves, as opposed to shooting in basketball which is obviously a skill within the sport of basketball. This is also unlike the previous positional distinction example with Aaron Donald. I think maybe a list of the greatest in certain specializations or skills can be spun out. In this example of Curry being considered the greatest shooter though, this is not a position in basketball, so it should not be included in either the general or positional sections.
    • Example 3: Likewise, Cristiano Ronaldo was called the greatest international goalscorer by The Athletic (source). So, this is not suitable for inclusion as it places too many qualifiers.
    • Example 4: I included the 20th century and 21st century qualifiers in the general section, as they are extremely broad, but I was careful to specify these qualifiers, and would advise against qualifiers that become far too specific like "Greatest Celtic of all-time" or "Greatest Italian Olympian of all-time". At least for now, and I also figure those sorts of things would need to be spun out into separate articles to keep this one focused and general. Soulbust (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best in the world should not be included, as it only implies an opinion about the athlete's placement among active or current competitors
  • Purely stats-based rankings: Obviously some writers will include stats in their assessment of the GOAT of a sport, or sometimes will even base most of or their entire argument for a player around stats. This can be okay for inclusion, if the source uses the stats to opine on an explicit choice for a sport's GOAT. However, this is not suitable for inclusion in the case where the source will only list/rank players based on their statistics, and not give an explicit opinion.
    • Suitable for inclusion example: This source that uses statistical analysis to rank Hamilton as #1 on their F1 GOAT rankings. While the sources does preface this with why Lewis Hamilton could be the GOAT (that could is concerning), it seems to be for a reading/narrative effect, because the source later continues: Hamilton surpasses all others when considering many factors that facilitate cross-era comparisons within modern Formula 1.; Furthermore, when thrust into a thrilling rivalry with the emerging star Max Verstappen, Lewis Hamilton's brilliance radiates even more brightly.; However, when examining their respective performance records, it becomes evident that Hamilton surpasses the esteemed Schumacher. and ultimately does show Hamilton on the last slide's graphic presenting him as the GOAT F1 driver.
    • Not suitable for inclusion example: This source that lists Hamilton as the best F1 driver In terms of career wins and total career points. This means this is the source just listing a wins stat, and not making its own decisive assertion on the sport's GOAT, which is what the list of driver records is for, not what this GOAT list is for. Soulbust (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Panels

Panels should obviously be okay to include, in cases such as this comprehensive ranking of the top 74 NBA players of all-time, where the publication presents its ranked list based on the panel opinions. I also think they are okay in more unranked situations where there's a few panelists from a reliable/authoritative source giving their take on the topic (i.e. this 5-person ESPN panel on the NBA GOAT debate, or this 3-person MLB Network panel on the MLB discussion). However, I was wondering what others think on how to approach the 50-voter panel assessing the GOAT at every American football position. Obviously listing the top vote-getter would be okay. Theoretically, if the piece was designed in the same way as the Top 74 NBA players of all-time list, it would just list the one positional GOAT. However, it shows all players receiving votes. This means there is a credible sports media writer/analyst calling Don Hutson the GOAT wide receiver, for example. Now this is just one of 50 votes. But the opinion here is unambiguous, thereby following the suitable measure for inclusion I listed originally (right at the top with the Brady example). For this reason, I lean toward this being okay to list, but was wondering if anyone had an objection to this and why? Soulbust (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only believe that A reliable source in sports media/journalism unambiguously refers to the individual as the greatest/best in their, or any, sport is the only acceptable criteria. It is too easy to find sources of a currently player saying that a contemporary/colleague/teammate is the best of all time. We should leave the distinction to opinion writers and possibly through the official polling of fans. - Enos733 (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Enos733: You mention current players saying a contemporary/teammate is the best of all-time should be excluded. I think I agree with that, and with that in place, it would remove potential glaringly weird outliers (i.e. Miller calling Paul George the GOAT of basketball).
However, what would be the issue with citing a retired player, given they did not go into sports media/journalism? And what is the cut-off for being considered "sports media/journalism"? Because Gilbert Arenas and Kevin Garnett are hosts of their own sports podcasts but I suspect this wouldn't necessarily be viewed the same as Tom Brady going into NFL broadcasting. Given that Garnett is in the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame (can see arguments against players like Arenas, who are not), could it not be argued that his opinion, especially as a retired player, that LeBron James is the GOAT (James, it should be noted, was in fact a contemporary of Garnett's for over a decade)... could it not be argued that Garnett's opinion therefore is okay as per WP:NEWSOPED ("The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint")? My take is that Garnett being in the HOF has to qualify him as a specialist and recognized expert. One might argue that opinions he gives on his podcast should not be considered as per WP:RSSELF ("Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.") BUT these athlete-hosted podcasts are typically not technically self-published, as they often are produced by podcast or large media networks (i.e. The Volume, or it appears in the case of Garnett's podcast, by Showtime Basketball). Does this then qualify it as okay for inclusion?
I think sports media/journalism opinions are obviously good for inclusion, and would want to include fan sentiment in sourcing only via official polling like you brought up. But there should be some room to mention and source how players themselves feel about the topic, in my opinion. I do think that perhaps current players should not be cited for other players, especially fellow current ones. And then there's the scenarios in which players opine on non-players; like what do you think about LeBron James being used as a source to cite a coach as the greatest (as he did with Gregg Popovich)? Soulbust (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think our concepts are more fuzzy than black and white. My sense is to err towards consensus among journalists/authors than one-off suggestions - Enos733 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soulbust @Enos733: FYI, I've started Talk:List of sports figures considered the greatest § Widesread views on the list page. It seemed more appropriate there, after the list was split off.—Bagumba (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too US-focused

I see that the article focuses entirely on US sports like basketball and American football while soccer, which is the world's largest sport, is not mentioned at all - FMSky (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After having a second look I don't think there is a single sentence anywhere that isn't about US sports. Content from articles like Messi–Ronaldo rivalry should definitely be included. It might make sense to move the article to "GOAT (American sports culture)" for now. --FMSky (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky: There is definitely mentions of non-American sports here. The prose doesn't need to go into every single GOAT debate, I just included examples of things mentioned (like LeBron as an example of one player calling themselves the GOAT, or Federer as an example of a player calling the topic silly). Lewis Hamilton is a non-American athlete that has declined to call himself the GOAT, and I was thinking of bringing that into the article. Soulbust (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also mention American football being included in the article, but it isn't really mentioned in the prose all that much more than tennis is... the only spot it goes into real detail is the position-based list. I will get to soccer, it just has taken some time finding and incorporating sources, but soccer was the next sport I was planning to get into in terms of listing GOATs by position. Soulbust (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle talk 19:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A goat, but not the GOAT
A goat, but not the GOAT
  • ... that before it was good to be the GOAT, it was actually bad to be a goat (pictured)?
  • Source: (1, 2)
Moved to mainspace by Soulbust (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 42 past nominations.

Soulbust (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment. I added the article's top photo to the nomination, since it adds a bit of levity to the hook. Well, maybe too much levity. It's up to the reviewer and promoter. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • New enough (March 22), long enough (14 KB), no copyvio detected (Earwig says 34.2%, but only direct quotes). Article is in good shape; I don't think the list is necessary (as it's essentially an abridged version of List of sports figures considered the greatest), but I don't think it's an issue for DYK eligibility. Otherwise, no issues. ALT0 verified in sources and is definitely interesting; this hook would be a GOAT of DYK. I'll also approve ALT3 as a backup; ALT3 interesting and verified in source. I don't think this should run with the image; as funny as it would be, the photo is only indirectly relevant. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • That abridged version is intentional since I spun out the list you linked just a few days ago, because I believe contextualizing positional and other considerations is possible and there are so many sports out there that it can get too long to include in the GOAT article. I still think a table is necessary in the GOAT article just to provide that sort of initial contact for readers, as well as the Main article link to the larger list. That larger list is definitely still a work in progress for sure. Soulbust (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To Prep 4

Athletes with Disabilities (AWD)/paralympic athletes?

@Soulbust - This interesting and "comprehensive" article is missing any mention of athletes with disabilities. You do reference the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Museum, which does have Paralympians in their Hall of Fame. Hope you can address this omission. (See Parasports, List of multiple Paralympic gold medalists, Greatest Paralympians, Trischa Zorn)

— ERcheck (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely have been thinking of making this article for a while and it's got a lot to add to become truly comprehensive, I think. Probably have only scratched the surface of sports that would maybe considered "not sports" by some (i.e. chess, competitive eating, esports). Definitely want to expand with Paralympic athletes and AWD so I'll be looking for sourcing on that, thank you for the suggestion. Soulbust (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soulbust - An important nuance to consider — this not a case of covering a "not sports" activity. Paralympians are, by any measure, true athletes. AWD athletes compete in mainstream events, for example, the Boston Marathon, or Nick Ackerman in wrestling. There is enough low-hanging fruit to add some AWD information to the article at this time. See "Who are the greatest Paralympians of all time?" — ERcheck (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you added Sarah Storey. Your reference is from 2021, the above link for Trischa Zorn, shows she had 41 Paralympic gold medals, more than Sarah. Consider adding Zorn to the swimming section. — ERcheck (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you expand with AWD information, an athlete to consider - Amy Palmiero-Winters, BKA, ultra-marathoner. — ERcheck (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find sourcing for those, but I wouldn't use that Conversation source you linked as a source for Zorn. It's saying she is the greatest "by this measure" of gold medal tally, which differs from making a definitive claim/opinion of her. It's kinda like the Marc Rosset source I included earlier in the talk page where he writes "If we look at Grand Slam numbers, then Nadal and Djokovic are better". I don't think this listing should be of athletes by their trophy count, as that sort of thing already exists. All of the sources I've used for any of the athletes currently in the list were based on more than just a competitor's trophies or medals. That being said, I'm sure Zorn has sportswriters opining that she is the greatest, and they would undoubtedly incorporate her medal count into their opinion. So I'll be looking for those sources. Thank you for mentioning Palmiero-Winters to consider as well. Soulbust (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GOAT female tennis player

margaret court shouldn't be in that list in GOAT female tennis player category. Steffi Graf & Navratilova should be instead. 2409:4060:2E9E:D644:0:0:AFC8:AD10 (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 2409:4060:2E9E:D644:0:0:AFC8:AD10 (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP, we cover what reputable sources say, and not random netizens' opinions. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 17:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to many articles & debates it's mainly between Serena, Steffi & Navratilova who are talked about in GOAT debate. Nobody mentioned Margaret Court. She is just mentioned as the player with most grand slam. Even Wikipedia page of tennis mentioned Serena Steffi & Navratilova as the three undisputed GOAT. Check those articles & debate. 2409:4060:2E42:3940:0:0:AF88:D005 (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association football

Putting Messi and Ronaldo but ignoring Pele and Maradona is a classic example of recency bias. 119.74.153.203 (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could just add them yourself if you find a reliable source citing them as the singular greatest in their sport, and additionally not view the list as a definitive finalized referendum on who is or isn't the greatest. Nobody is being "ignored". Just going off of sources, which luckily I found some for Pelé. Soulbust (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove list

As the list was split off to List of sports figures considered the greatest, I propose removing the list portion from this page and avoid WP:EXAMPLEFARM. This page should concentrate on the general concepts of GOATs, and minimize merely rattling off examples. —Bagumba (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick mention because I'll be busy offline today, but I think I'd probably advocate for keeping at least the General table that lists Biles, Gretzky, Jordan, Phelps, etc. I'm thinking of something like how NBA team articles have a brief season-by-season overview that links readers to the more comprehensive season lists. Would possibly think about also keeping maybe the most popular sports (like association football, American football, baseball, Australian football, basketball, ice hockey, F1, and cricket) just as like baseline examples that once again would be there to provide a quick overview that directs readers to the more comprehensive list. I picked those as examples based on List of professional sports leagues by revenue and List of sports attendance figures, though I'm sure that once discussion gets rolling on this, we can find maybe a better way to approach that sort of thing. Soulbust (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this discussion starting, but I would support removing the lists, and keeping, at most, the general table. Further, I would support turning that table into prose--it's slightly odd to reference certain people in the body but not have them in the table, or vice versa. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soulbust, I'm going to remove the non-general lists (and eventually turning the general list into a prose section of its own). They're just going to generate discussions like the two below, and we need to keep those centralized to the article that is actually called List of GOATs. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will you or someone move this content to the article you mentioned? As far as my experience in Wikipedia goes, most of the time someone says something does not belong in an article and should be moved to another one, this person just deletes that information and no one moves it into the other article Haddad Maia fan (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Haddad Maia fan All of the content is already at List of sports figures considered the greatest. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. As I suspected no one moved the information from here to there, a lot of names are missing and I can't remember them all, but I remember some of them to know that Haddad Maia fan (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we move the information from here to there? There is less information on this page. These articles are basically brand new and have very few edits on them, so it's very easy to see that no list entries have been cut from this page since the article split. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You literally said that the list does not belong here and that the information from said list should be on the page you mentioned, when I asked if someone would get the information from that list and move to the other page you said that this would happen, I said that I had doughnuts about that judging from my personal experience in Wikipedia, than you said that the information was already on the other page, I went to check it and it was not Haddad Maia fan (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not specify what information is missing, then I cannot help you. You have not told me what information from this page is not already on this page.
I did not say the information should be on the other page, I said it already is. If you disagree then you need to point out what information is missing. I cannot read your mind, so please do not say "I checked and it was not". I don't know what you're talking about. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said "I'm going to remove the non-general lists (and eventually turning the general list into a prose section of its own)", then I replied "Will you or someone move this content to the article you mentioned? As far as my experience in Wikipedia goes, most of the time someone says something does not belong in an article and should be moved to another one, this person just deletes that information and no one moves it into the other article " and then you said "All of the content is already at List of sports figures considered the greatest" and then I went to check if the content you said was going to be removed by yourself was already on the other page and it was not, as I suspected it would, then I told you that and you replied as if you didn't mentioned any specific content from this page and that I was somehow being nonspecific Haddad Maia fan (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...then I went to check if the content you said was going to be removed by yourself was already on the other page and it was not, as I suspected it would... For the absolute last time, what content? You are still being nonspecific. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "content" = the list you literally said doesn't belong here and should go to the other page and that it is still incomplete because you or someone else did not move the parts that were here and not there, as I said many times that was very likely going to happen, because that is how it is on Wikipedia, people say something belongs on another page but just deletes it and doesn't move to the other page Haddad Maia fan (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong here. I removed the list and all the listed athletes there do in fact get listed over at List of sports figures considered the greatest. I mean I literally copy+pasted it when originally splitting it off. Maybe you're confused because it looks different as a result of me further breaking down the list by type of sport (i.e. ball sports, combat sports, etc.). I did that to make it more digestible from a reading (and at least to me, editing) perspective. Soulbust (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not, because I wrote some names on the deleted list and they are not included on the page you mentioned, so it is fair to assume that other names are not there as well Haddad Maia fan (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would have been helpful if you answered @Alyo: and mentioned which specific content you were talking about, but I went through your edits on this page and saw you added Nadal, Falcão, and Schumacher for tennis, futsal, and F1, respectively. I had already removed Nadal and provided the reason in my edit summary here.
I can perhaps restore Schumacher partially, though one of the 2 sources you provided I ended up having to remove because it doesn't seem to reliable (edit summary here). The other source only says "F1 GOAT Michael Schumacher" in its title and doesn't provide any real substantial analysis as to why but even if we added that as a reference, I think he would ultimately be removed from the list given the idea of only including players/athletes who are considered the greatest by ample sourcing, so that one BI Netherlands source if it ends up being the only one we can find wouldn't be enough.
I can go ahead and restore Falcão, with 2 of the 3 sources you provided, though the one source calling him the Pelé of futsal is probably just short of the type of source we're looking for. This one is marginal and I'm possibly being too careful or selective in regards to type of sourcing we should be using here, but that source doesn't go ahead and make any statement (either its own or attributed) on Falcão being the greatest or best (of all-time) at futsal. Only making him analogous to Pelé, but the two being Brazilian legends of their sport is a plausible explanation for this, and if the source isn't explicitly calling Pelé the GOAT of soccer then I can't really assess it as an explicit sourcing for Falcão either. Open to this one being discussed though with other editors giving their take (preferably over at the List's talk page. Soulbust (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alyo: Yeah that's fair. Honestly, I'll just go ahead and remove the non-general lists myself now, which is somewhat unfortunate because I do feel like it would make sense to at least provide examples of at least the major sports. Though I suppose, that could potentially be remedied by prose in the future. Soulbust (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

F1 GOAT

Nobody mentioned Jim Clark in F1 GOAT debate. The four name mostly mentioned are Schumacher, Hamilton, Senna & Fangio. I am surprised wiki page doesn't mentioned Senna as F1 GOAT. He transcended the sports more than anyone before or may after. Fangio was considered by many to be the best F1 driver of 20th century. 2409:4060:EBA:2D54:0:0:AFC8:B112 (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a collaborative wiki, so you can feel free to add any names you like if you have reliable sources that back up them Haddad Maia fan (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources where it is mentioned as Jim Clark as the GOAT of F1 ?? In every list of GOAT F1 drivers Senna & Fangio or even Alain Prost ranked higher than Clark. Similarly 99% in women's tennis GOAT list ranked Graf & Navratilova higher than Margaret Court but here Court ranked as the WTA GOAT. I don't remember any expert & fans ranked Court as the GOAT. 2409:4060:EB7:A7AF:0:0:AF48:600D (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis GOAT

Margaret Court as a GOAT?? I never heard that. No tennis pundits & fans argue her as GOAT. Yeah they mention her name as the most successful grand slam champion & also criticise her by winning those cheap Australian open titles in 60's. BTW it's Serena vs Graf vs Navratilova as the three way GOAT debate universally. In every GOAT list you will find those three players in any order of top 3. In fact many ranked Chris Evert higher than Margaret Court in WTA GOAT list. Towards the ends of 20th century it's Graf vs Navratilova in GOAT debate then Serena comes along. Margaret Court was never in the pole position or mentioned in GOAT debate. 2409:4060:301:5A23:0:0:1137:20B0 (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GOAT_(sports_culture)