This page 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.

I have noticed that the flags with Hungary's two second place finishes in both 1938 and 1954 are incorrect. The flag for 1938 should have the old coat of arms, and the flag for 1954 should have a red star. Please see Flag of Hungary to see what I mean. I am new at discussions and editing wiki in detail, so if someone else could handle it I would appreciate it. This is also the first time I am discussing something so I hope I did everything right. Cheers!

Under the awards section, no mention is made of the main award of the world cup trophy. Could have a seperate section on the various different trophies, with pictures etc? Should the article Football world cup trophy be combined with this one, or at least a more prominent mention/link to that article.

We have -

• Cricket World Cup
• Rugby League World Cup
• Rugby Union World Cup
• Alpine Skiing World Cup
• Volleyball World Cup
• American Football World Cup
• Cross-country skiing World Cup
• Golf World Cup
• World Cup of Hockey

(posted by User:Mintguy, 12 Jun 2004)

I disagree - those titles (some of which could possibly do with changing) should have no impact on what we call this page. It's not as if they're a series of World Cups, they're all completely separate things. FIFA World Cup is its official name, it's perfectly descriptive enough, and it saves confusion over what form of football we are talking about. I'd like to move it back, but since the title of 2004 European Football Championship is also being debated, I'll wait for that to be decided first. sjorford 13:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup is not as well known as Football World Cup (though in most parts of the world it's just known as 'The World Cup' - no qualification being necessary). DJ Clayworth 13:51, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"FIFA World Cup" is better. There are far more hits for "FIFA World Cup" than "football World Cup" - 700, 000 vs 50, 000, so it's not true it's not better known. Mandel 18:02, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

I get slightly different stats. But it's not a fair analysis anyway. As stated above, "World Cup" unqualified means the Football World Cup 99 times out of 100. Putting "world cup" +football -fifa in to Google gives me 1,460,000 hits. But I don't claim that searches on Google prove anything. Google searches are naturally biased towards US usage simply because there are more US web pages than there are for the rest of the world. Mintguy (T) 20:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your stats are erroneous. You should put them in inverted commas: "Football world cup" and "FIFA World Cup". Putting "world cup" +football -fifa simply means "world cup" is mentioned with football, not as a generic term. Neither is it true that "FIFA World Cup" is a US usage. I follow the European leagues but I have never heard people used the term "football world cup". Mandel 10:30, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that FIFA World Cup was US usage. I was merely pointing out that in the general case Google stats are not a good indicator. The point that you have singularly failed to grasp is that "World Cup" (unqualified) means the 'world cup of football' 99 times out of 100. Therefore specifically saying "football world cup" doesn't appear as often as you might expect. The fact that a search for the words "world cup" without any mention of FIFA but specifically linked to the word "football" gives such a huge hit rate is an indicator that the "World Cup" of football is mentioned much more often than any specific mention of the "FIFA World Cup". In fact just to ram home the point a search for "world cup" +fifa gives less hits than "world cup" +football -fifa. Mintguy (T) 10:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I misunderstand you. It's true "World Cup" almost always mean "World Cup of football" 99 times out of 100, but what I mean is the entire term "football World Cup", which is very seldom used.

As you said, "World Cup" almost always means the footballing World Cup, but it's very seldom the generic term "football World Cup" is used.

To check "world cup" +fifa gives less hits than "world cup" +football -fifa is not accurate. It simply states people mentioned "world cup" with "football" often, which is natural enough, but not that people used the generic term "football World Cup" often. Most are simply "World Cup" and "football" used separately in one article. Mandel 10:54, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Which precisely prooves the point. The words "World Cup" and "football" are associatied much more often than "FIFA" and "World Cup". But they arn't neccesarily used in a single phrase because no qualification is usually neccesary. But in Wikipedia we need to have qualification. What is best to use for qualification isn't whatever phrase happens to turn up more often in google, but whatever is going to give a clearer understanding of what the article is actually about. The fact that "FIFA World Cup" turns up more often than "football World Cup" doesn't mean anything, for one thing the results are skewed because the XBox and Playstation game is called "FIFA World Cup". "FIFA World Cup" doesn't tell us anthing about what the sport is unless you know what FIFA means, and as the search for "world cup" +football -fifa shows any specific mention of FIFA is less common than a specific mention of football, therefore using the word "football" is better than using the word "FIFA". Now we could call the article "World Cup (football)" or "World Cup of Football", but "Football World Cup" fits in with the previously established naming of articles. Mintguy (T) 12:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's far better to call it by its official name. Most people who knows football instantly knows what is the "FIFA World Cup", we don't need coined-up terms like "Motor-racing Formula 1". "Football World Cup" is a portmaneau term simply invented to fit in the scheme. I prefer "World Cup (football)", but I simply don't understand why, if a term is used more often and generally accepted around the world, it should be taken against it? Even ' "FIFA World Cup" -XBox -PlayStation ' turns up more results than 'football World Cup'.

Most people who knows football instantly knows what is the "FIFA World Cup" - This article isn't aimed at people who instantly know what FIFA means. Mintguy (T)

You seriously haven't given a good enough reason why if a name is used more often, it shouldn't be used. It's a self-contradiction. If "FIFA World Cup" has more hits, obviously people use it more, hence it is more likely to be better known than "football World Cup". As it is, "football World Cup" is just a coined-up term, and it really jars on the ear, like "tennis Davis Cup" or "golf Ryder's Cup". As you know, football means different things in different countries.

Are we going to end up with "football (soccer) World Cup" simply because it is more descriptive? According to this logic certainly this would make a better choice than simply "football World Cup"!

If a person seriously is so ignorant as to not know what is the "World Cup" is, then it is also likely that he or she may mistake football for some other sport. A simple way out: at the disambigation page simple state that FIFA World Cup is the World Cup for the sport of football or soccer. A person checking for World Cup will then know what it is. No one seriously will type "football World Cup" first time round because it is not often used. Mandel 10:33, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

The World Cup used to be called the "Jules Rimet Cup". So is it going to be that it will be called "football Cup" just because no one knows who Jules Rimet is? It sounds very strange! Mandel 10:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

No. The competition has always been called the "World Cup", or rather "La Coupe du Monde". The original trophy was renamed the Jules Rimet Trophy in 1946 and we have an article on it. The current trophy is the "FIFA World Cup ^TM". By coincidence, last night on Mastermind ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/entertainment/mastermind/) one of the contestant's specialist subject was The history of the Football World Cup 1930-2002 [1] Mintguy (T) 12:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Like I say, football means different things in different countries. You assume that a reader of the article knows nothing about football; so fair enough, you can't assume that he knows what's "football World Cup" either? There are many kinds of football too. Mandel 10:33, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

There is obviously not going to be an agreement on this, so I see no further point in continuing this discussion and re-stating the same facts over and over again. But I will make one final point. Before the new trophy was created in 1971, the competuition was known as the "World Cup" without any qualification it is only since the new trophy was made in 1971 that the competiton has been known as the "FIFA World Cup", so to refer to the 1930 FIFA World Cup etc.. through to 1970 is just plain wrong. Only from 1974 onwards should you refer to the FIFA World Cup. Mintguy (T) 11:22, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Allow me to interject in this lively discussion ;o)

"FIFA World Cup is not as well known as Football World Cup."

That is patently false. The term "Football World Cup" is not popular at all, and is nowhere near as ubiquitous and well known as the more popular title "FIFA World Cup," in America (including Latin America), Europe, and elsewhere.

"(though in most parts of the world it's just known as 'The World Cup' - no qualification being necessary)."

Correct, but if any adjective is ever used in the title it is "FIFA," not "Football."

'Which precisely prooves the point. The words "World Cup" and "football" are associatied much more often than "FIFA" and "World Cup"'.

Which precisely proves that you have totally missed the point.

FIRST:

The fact that the word "football" is associated with "World Cup" in a generic sense has absolutely nothing to do with whether these words are associated in a TITLE, a proper name. Using your logic, I could very easily argue that terms/names such as "Pele," "Maradona," "Goal," "Red Card," "Yellow Card," and any other number of terms are likewise closely associated with "World Cup," and therefore, one could argue that the title of the article should just as well be the "Maradona World Cup," or the "Goal World Cup."

But of course, that would be nonsensical, as these associated names/terms are most definitely not associated in the literal sense of forming an intergral part of the name/title of the tournament; they are merely associated conceptually, and as a result, they are also associated in the frequency with which they are mentioned in the same breath, as part of a phrase, but not as one single term.

People simply do not say "Football World Cup" as a proper name, in most parts of the World. Many people do say "The World Cup of Football," which is not a proper name by itself, but a name "World Cup," followed by an adjectival phrase "of football."

SECOND:

If you have in fact actually heard the term "Football World Cup" more often than not, then you must live in an area where that usage predominates, but you would be incorrect to assume that most people speak of it in that fashion. And, if you live in Europe, I can definitely assure you that most people in your continent do not say "Football World Cup" either.

It is easy for one to confuse a local usage with greater popular usage. For example, in the ceremony announcing the selection of South Africa as the hoast for 2010, I noticed a very high incidence of South African delegates using the term "Soccer World Cup." I cannot speak from presonal experience, but, hypothetically, if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the most commonly known name for the tournament in the Republic of South Africa is "Soccer World Cup," then it is easy to imagine how a South African football fan might come to believe that everyone else in the world thinks of it that way as well, much as an American might not be aware that the name "Soccer" is far less popular name than "football" for describing that sport.

I believe that your conception of the supposed popularity of "Football World Cup" vs. "FIFA World Cup" falls under a similar misconception.

"No one seriously will type "football World Cup" first time round because it is not often used"

Exactly.

"There is obviously not going to be an agreement on this"

No, but I believe that our friend here is in a very small minority, and we can safely say (particularly given the varied responses to this discussion) that people find his interpretation to be rather peculiar, and inconsistence with common usage.

--Supersexyspacemonkey 20:25, 29.03.2005

Although I agree that "FIFA World Cup" might make more sense, you cannot move this on a whim. As you say, "Major Edits, such as article title, especially if they are being debated in the discussion page, should NOT be made without announcement or a detailed explanation". Well, that is the case. The title of this page has been discussed ad nauseum. It was agreed that "Football World Cup" was the better title. Agree or not, that's what the conscensus is (and not a "very small minority" like you think). Just because you dissagree, doesn't give you the right to wipe out the history and move the page. If you want to re-open the discussion, fine. But yours is NOT the final decision. A lot of work has been put in by many people to create the "Football World Cup" structure on many pages of this site. Moving the page is easy, but its effects are a bit larger than you think. Perhaps a little higher understanding of Wikipedia is needed before you go on this crusade. -- Dryazan 03:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dryazan, thank you for your reponse. Allow me to address your observations:

Although I agree that "FIFA World Cup" might make more sense, you cannot move this on a whim. As you say, "Major Edits, such as article title, especially if they are being debated in the discussion page, should NOT be made without announcement or a detailed explanation".

And as this discussion proves, I did not move the article on a whim and without a detailed explanation, so, with all due respect, your comment makes absolutely no sense.

Well, that is the case. The title of this page has been discussed ad nauseum.

True, but irrelevant.

Neither A. the length of two verbose members' posts in this discussion (I being the third verbose debator :oP), nor B. the inability of certain persons to engage in polite discussion without resorting to name-calling, nor C. the stubborn refusal of certain persons to seriously consider opposing viewpoints with an open mind, and either concede these or otherwise retort said viepoints with sensible counter-argument as opposed to simple negation, nor D. the inability to convince one particularly vocal opponent to the majority (Btw, in none of these statements am I refering to you ;oP), outweighs the opinion of other members.

In this case, more than a few others have weighed in with small, one-line or one-paragraph posts, and they have indicated their agreement that "Football World Cup" is an unorthodox title for this article, and that "FIFA World Cup" is much better.

It was agreed that "Football World Cup" was the better title.

Agree or not, that's what the conscensus is (and not a "very small minority" like you think).

False, unless you happen refer to some indicator other than this discussion, in which case I apologize for my erroneous assumption.

It was asserted by exactly one member that "Football World Cup" was the better title, whilst the exact opposite has been argued by every other member in this talk page.

Just because you dissagree, doesn't give you the right to wipe out the history and move the page.

I did no such thing; I move the page whilst conserving the discussion history, by checking the appropriate box during the moving process.

If you want to re-open the discussion, fine. But yours is NOT the final decision.

I never assumed it was my final decision, as I am nowhere near that arrogant. I assumed, by the evidence in this talk page, that the final decision had been taken, and only one person was arguing to keep the "Football "" "" title (in a rather closed-minded and condescending fashion, by the way). I perceived that I was taking the appropriate measure, given the fact that, as you state, the title has been argued ad nauseum. Once again, if you speak of some other indicator apart from this discussion page, I apologize for my inaccurate assupmtion.

A lot of work has been put in by many people to create the "Football World Cup" structure on many pages of this site.

Yes, and I respect that.

Moving the page is easy, but its effects are a bit larger than you think.

Perhaps. ;O)

Perhaps a little higher understanding of Wikipedia is needed before you go on this crusade.

"Crusade?" LOL!

-- Supersexyspacemonkey 10:14PM, 31 Mar 2005 (USCT)

Well, it was not a decision to change the page name. The discussion last took place in August, and no change has been made since then. No consensus was reached, no matter what this talk page might say. Since August, further changes have been made to make this move more complex than it seems. Again, I also think "FIFA World Cup" might make more sense (but then, look at pages in other languages, most of them include "football" or its variety). It just doesn't make sense with the way other World Cup pages, categories, squad lists, etc are set up. This one change will cascade down a lot. But I do appretiate your earnestness and hope that you can contribute to the football (soccer) pages on Wikipedia. -- Dryazan 04:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for any grief I have unwittingly caused. This has been a learning experience. I did a little reading just now, and I see that there is a procedure in place for requesting and receiving community approval to move an article. Thank you for your patience, and I promise that I will continue to contribute to the football pages, albeit causing far less damage. ;OP

-- Supersexyspacemonkey 10:14PM, 31 Mar 2005 (USCT)

---

The old table was much better. We also appear to have lost the footnotes. Mintguy (T) 02:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I very much appreciate work put in on the "new new" table. The "old new" one that replaced the "old old" one was was all cocked up and I had it on my TODO list to fix it. So I like the "new new" table but... I think it should be ordered the other way up, having 3 blank rows at the top looks odd. Mintguy (T) 23:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For Germany in 1934 we display the Nazi Swastika.

According to http://www.nationalflaggen.de/flags-of-the-world/flags/de1933.html the Nazis re-instated the Red White and Black (the old Imperial flag) when they came to power in 1933. This flag flew jointly along with the Swastika (representing the ruling party) until 1935 when the Swastika became the flag of the German state. For accuracy sake should we be showing the Red Whit and Black flag? See also Flag_of_Germany. Jooler 09:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense... Although the swastika is as accurate. I will fix the WC 1934 page as well, but NOT WC 1938... -- Dryazan 13:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need a disambig message for the Women's WC? If this page was at "World Cup", sure, but this way I don't think it's really needed, as I don't see many people coming here looking for the Women's tournament, and if they are, there are links at the bottom. But I am not sold either way. -- Dryazan 12:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since no one cares, I'm removing the disambig. -- Dryazan 20:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello, would some kind football person take a look at my translation from German of The Miracle of Bern (on the 1954 World Cup game) and check that the football terms are correct? I'm a native speaker of English but not a football fan! Thanks... Saintswithin 19:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Regarding flags:

The fact there was no 3rd place match in 1930 is a poor argument to exclude the two losing semifinalists from the table, considering that for 1950 Brazil, Sweden, and Spain are traditionally respected and recognized for their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place general standings, despite the fact that NEITHER a Final NOR a 3rd Place match was played.

Even though some people might not appreciate seeing the USA flag sitting at the top of the table, for reasons not related to sporting statistics, it must be respected like any other nation, as should Yugoslavia.

2. Regarding the existance or absence of a "3rd" place in 1930:

A 3rd and 4th place in terms of final overall standing exists regardless of a specific match held between the losers to determine a position, and regardless of whether or not a trophy exists to reward the winner of such a contest.

There is no 5th or 6th place match, nor a 7th and 8th, nor a 30th and 32nd, and yet all of these standings exist. The absence of a specific 3rd place match is completely irrelevant. The objective and indesputable fact is that every single one of the 32 national teams is officially ranked from 1 to 32 in their overall World Cup performace.

As such, the USA and Yugoslavia, having tied in points, and having arrived at the furthest possible stage of the game other than the two Finalist positions, BOTH occupy the 3rd place in the final overall standings, after the 1st place Winner and the 2nd place Runner-up.

Please supply references for official rankings Bornintheguz 10:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There was no official status as 3rd, and 4th place. Additionally the results after the groups games were as follows

Team      Pts Pld  W  D  L  GF GA 
USA         4  2   2  0  0   6  0 
Yugoslavia  4  2   2  0  0   6  1 

Some may argue that with the better goal difference/ goal average the USA took the 3rd spot. But There is NO OFFICIAL status for 3rd and 4th place and so no claim about winning or sharing the 3rd place can be made. Jooler 10:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

1. False. Officially, ALL teams in the final, be they 32 or 28 or 16 or however many, have a ranking in final standings. You confuse a 3rd place Match with a de facto 3rd Place, which are both equally official, with a Match being the determiner only where it exists.

For example, in the 1998 Cup, the Official standing of team USA is 32nd place.

2. That is a superfluous double-standard. There is no "officlal" status for 1950 second, third, or fourth place either, going by your erroneous definition of "official," only a DE FACTO status accorded by the mathematical fact of their final standing in points and stage advancement.

Unless you are prepared to erase Brazil, Sweden, and Spain from the table, don't mess with USA and Yugoslavia.

3. I'm merely trying to be reasonable about it, given how a strictly mathematical computation of the final standings would naturally cause controversy in the absense of a 3rd Place Match (as we can see it has already generated controversy), but if you want to be strict about it, then your earlier observation is the correct one, USA occupies 3rd place, and Yugoslavia occupies 4th, and here is the reference you asked for, it's official, and it's from FIFA.com:

http://www.fifa.com/infoplus/IP-201_02E_WC-origin.pdf

Please observe the last table in the document, and see that I am right.

A table without explanation or context is completely meaningless. I fail to see how the ranking of the number of baths taken by each countries players has to do with this. You will have to do better than that. Bornintheguz 18:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

If you would like to correct the table in the article to show USA as the sole occupant of 3rd place, and Yugoslavia as the sole occupant of 4th, then go right ahead, or leave them tied, but kindly do not erase them from the table.

"A table without explanation or context is completely meaningless. I fail to see how the ranking of the number of baths taken by each countries players has to do with this. You will have to do better than that. Bornintheguz 18:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)"

Nonsense.

You are playing the fool. This data from the FIFA site is Crystal-clear, and is as Official a Finals Ranking as you're gonna get.

My source stands, and you will need to do much better than that to prove your case.

"I guess then that you cannot provide context. A table without context is meaningless. Bornintheguz 00:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)"

The context is provided in the table, your claim is pedantic and meaningless.

Context 1: the dates for all World Cups to date. These are obviously not the birth dates for the Microsoft board of directors. Context 2: the names of countries participating in said world cups, obviously not the names of countries that landed on the moon. Context 3: the numbering of said countries from 1 to 32 (or other quantity), where 1, 2, 3, and 4 just happend to coincide with the top winners. Context 4: that big bold heading over the table which just so happens to read "RANKINGS." I do not suppose they mean military rankings.

The table only has one single and unambiguous meaning, and it is from an official source.

I'm getting the feeling that it's a no then Bornintheguz 20:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

-- Supersexyspacemoney 13:30, 12 July 2005 (USCT)"

The bald fact is that in 1930 there was no decision about 3rd or 4th place. Did the USA and Yugoslavia share 3rd place because they had the same number of points, or did the USA get 3rd because they had the better goal average (goal difference is a more recent statistic AFAIK) or would they have made a decision based on the number of corners or free kicks or penalties or players sent off or what?!? The answer is that the question cannot be answered. Nobody got 3rd place because the competition did not have any rules for deciding how. Basically there was no 3rd place in 1930, it's as simple as that. The rankings you have shown are provided purely as additional statistical information, using criteria that didn't exist as far as the organisers of the 1930 tournament were concerned. Jooler 08:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The bald fact is that there WAS a decision about 3rd and 4th place, just no MATCH for 3rd or 4th place, because the bald fact you do not seem to comprehend, though it has already been explained to you once, is that every single nation that participates in a World Cup is ranked, EVERY single one, not just the top 4.

The bald fact is that you do not appear to read very well, and you fail miserably to refute several good arguments, ignoring them at your leisure.

The bald fact that utterly destroys your claim is that there was no final or third place match played in 1950 either, and their ranking is no more "official" (by your peculiar standard), yet you don't seem to mind including Brazil, Spain, and Sweden in the table.

-- Supersexyspacemoney 13:45, 12 July 2005 (USCT)"

Ask FIFA, they made the official determination, as you can plainly read, although it was probably goal difference, because that is what follows in the current official heirarchy of determining factors.

Don't be absurd, the criteria that might or might not have been used by the tournament organizers in 1930 is completely and utterly irrelevant, all that matters is that FIFA has obviously made a determination since then.

Of course there was, it's as simple as that. This has been backed-up by an official source, it's as simple as that. You are all wind, and no proof, it's as simple as that. ;o)

They are an offical statistic provided by FIFA using criteria that FIFA has determined, end of argument, live with it.

Don't just rant, back up your claims, simple as that.

-- Supersexyspacemoney 13:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)"

I say again, in 1930 there was no provision for determining who got 3rd place. Retrospective anaylsis using criteria that were not present in 1930 cannot be applied rationally. In 1950 the situration was different. The four team that won their groups played in a final grouping of four and finished the competition as follows:

Team     Pts Pld W  D  L  GF GA 
Uruguay  5   3   2  1  0   7  5 
Brazil   4   3   2  0  1  14  4 
Sweden   2   3   1  0  2   6 11 
Spain    1   3   0  1  2   4 11 

This was the final standings with Sweden finishing 3rd with 2 points and Spain finishing 4th with 1 point. Of this there is no argument. Jooler 09:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you have to do much better than that.

1. You fail to cite any official sources or provide any proof to back up your claim regarding what criteria did or did not exist in 1930.

2. Your personal philosophical interpretation of whether a "retrospective analisis" can or cannot be "applied rationally" is moot. Don't take your gripe here, take it up with FIFA, they have the final word on it, not you. If you like, you can add a section on disputes/controversies surrounding records, instead of misrepresenting an official record just because you don't argee with it based on principle.

3. You contradict yourself. In terms of points, USA and Yugoslavia are tied, of this there is no argument, even if one hypothetically excludes goal difference as a legitimate criterium, that still does not demote either team from 3rd place. If we use your above argument to recognize a points-based 3rd and 4th place ranking for 1950, then one is forced to also recognize 3rd and 4th place ranking for 1930, where the points dictate USA and Yugoslavia are tied at 3rd place.

4. You confuse points with standings/rankings. You're quite right, there is no dispute as to the allocation of points in 1950. But using your own criteria, there also was never any specific determination of 3rd place in 1950 based on said points, only the determination of overall winner. Based on your own logic (or lack thereof), points are irrelevent for determining 3rd Place in 1950 because 3rd Place "simply did not exist," as you put it. You can rank points, but using your own arguments, that is just an arbitrary statistic, like ranking the height of players. Therefore, any declaration of overall placements beyond first place winner, based on points earned in final group play, is just as much a "Retrospective anaylsis using criteria that were not present in 1930."

But, on the other hand, if one accepts the current official FIFA position that ranking is not an arbitrary statistic, but that ALL participants must be ranked in final game standing, from 1st to last place, then BOTH 1950 AND 1930 had a mathematical 3rd place, even if it was not specifically awarded. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Either way, this is all hypothetical. FIFA has made its own determination, using its own criteria, and it stands:

http://www.fifa.com/infoplus/IP-201_02E_WC-origin.pdf

4. Your are ignoring official sources, failing to back yourself up, and imposing your own subjective opinions and theories as if they were "facts."

-- 201.135.7.127 02:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not use the word moot in discussions. It's has a different meaning in British English to American English. Put simply again - Criteria for determining 3rd and 4th did not exist in 1930, retrospective analysis is irrelevant. The burden of proof is for you to find "official sources or provide any proof to back up your claim regarding what criteria did" exist in 1930. Jooler 06:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense, you pedantically circumvent the arguments and the evidence. You fail to make a case.

Put simply, your point is irrelevant: FIFA's official position stands; your philosophical argument fails. The burden of proof lies with you to substantiate your claim by supplying official sources in the face of the documentation I have already provided.

Put simply, even if said criteria did not exist in 1930, hypothetically speaking, then USA and Yugoslavia shared 3rd place on tied points.

Put simply, it now appears to me that said criteria did exist in 1930. Here is further evidence adding to the mountain of proof that obliterates your "argument": the USA was actually awarded the 3rd place medal in 1930 on the basis of goal differential over Yugoslavia, according to the U.S. National Soccer Hall of Fame. Please read caption within second picture (small but legible).

http://www.soccerhall.org/VirtualTour/WorldCup_1930.htm

Please learn to speak proper English before you clumsily attempt to level a criticism. The standard British English definition of "moot" is exactly the same as the American English definition, according to the Oxford and American Herritage dictionaries [2] [3]. Dictionaries aside, I also know from my B.A in English Literature that the overwhelming literary precedent in both Britain and America demonstrates said fact.

That is, of course, unless you know of a rude regional/slang/street definition of "moot." At any rate, I will continue to employ this word according to its proper, academic usage.

-- 201.135.7.127 04:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see List of words having different meanings in British and American English re moot. - Presumably you meant irrelevant, the common US meaning, to which I would disagree - rather than debatable, the common British meaning, to which I would agree. Jooler 06:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Goal difference is quite a modern invention. It used to be goal average. Goal average was not applied in the World Cup until 1962 (in both the preliminaries and the final tournament). http://www.fifa.com/infoplus/IP-201_14A_PrelHistory.pdf The link you provide is clearly in error. Jooler 07:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

A moot point is simultaneously debatable and irrelevant; it is open to debate, yet has no bearing on the discussion at hand; synonym of "academic" when used in that sense, as in the sentence "Until humans colonize Mars, questions of Earth-Martian politics are purely academic."

Likewise, your pedantic obsession with the date of establishment of goal difference/average as a standard is open to debate, yet has no bearing in this case, because FIFA ranks USA in 3rd place, and also because you nonchalantly ignore other rational arguments and their contexts, which happen to defeat that particular point before it is even made.

Your asserion that my source is "clearly in error" is clearly dubious.

Be it standard practice or not, in 1930, that method, or some method, was selected to settle the unforseen outcome.

-- 201.135.7.127 04:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Going back to the term "moot," since I have an honest academic interest in language issues, suffice it to say that this matter is irrelevant, and "moot," as I would use the term. Supposing you are correct, there is no polite reason to ask one to refrain from using a term properly applied in the dialect being spoken, if and when the listener and speaker of a different dialect is well aware of and understands the alternate meaning. Oxford recognizes non-British standards of usage throughout the Anglophony as being equally legitimate and proper linguistic varieties, since living language is organic and non-static. British English itself has an astounding variety of dialect variance, even within England alone, a level of sub-regional divergence surpassing that of other English-speaking nations. That is not to mention England's incredibly swift and dramatic linguistic evolution over the past two centuries, in some instances the standard so-called "BBC English" and "Received Pronunciation" being farther from polite English speech circa 1700 than that currently spoken in America. But of course, we both know your original observation had far more to do with arrogance, insult, and dialectical games, than it had to do with any honest, intellectual discussion of English diction.

-- 201.135.7.127 04:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Goal difference is a modern invention. Formely a scheme of goal average was used in such matters. For example if two teams have the same points; suppose team A scored a total of 3 goals and conceded 1 goal, whilst team B scored 6 goals and conceded 3 - their positions position under one scheme would be the reverse of the other thus

Goal average scheme
T   F    A   GA
A:  3    1    3
B:  6    3    2

Goal difference scheme
T   F    A    GD
B:  6    3     3
A:  3    1     2

In 1930 nobody used goal difference. Goal average was used. Therefore the link you provided which states "due to their superior goal differental" is in error in this respect. But it is in error in another respect too. For the World Cup, goal average was not introduced into the scheme of calculating the relative positions of teams until 1962. There are numerous references to this. See for example [4] which clearly states "... FIFA decided that goal average would count, a first-ever" in the 1962 competition. For the Nth time - the list of rankings that you have provided is a retrospective ranking using criteria that did not exist in 1930 (or indeed in the later competitions up until 1962). In 1930 the was no decision about 3rd place. They were not interested in 3rd place. If they had been interested then the honours would have been shared because "goal average" had not yet been introduced. But the truth is that the was no decision. Jooler 19:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is painfully circular: "My fact is correct, ergo your fact must be in error." I'm afraid that is rather pitiful.

For the Nth time:

1. The ranking I supplied is a fact of FIFA determination; your philosphical view on applying reptrospective criteria is irrelevant.

2. Assuming everything you say is correct, then minimally the standings MUST reflect USA and Yuglsoavia tied in third place; there is no rational argument to say 3rd place does "not exist." Whether or not they were "interested" in 3rd place, and whether or not it was awarded, is irrelevant; all standings from 1st place through 13th place are statistical facts, irrespective of any official determination.

3. Your citations merely indicate when goal average and differential were employed as a standard, i.e., as part of the Rule of the Game. The determination of 3rd place in 1930 could easily have been made on the spot to remedy an unanticipated situation, regardless of whether the method was standard at that time. Indeed, some material I have read from non-official sources seem to point to an impromptu arbitration that was held shortly after the Cup, or after the game, for the purpose of determining 3rd place.

I have no official sources to prove that theory, but it seems the most likely scenario to explain why the official documentation shows USA ranked in 3rd place, and why the Hall of Fame claims that 3rd place was awarded.

And furthermore, a factual error in statement is one thing, but we are talking about the physical display of 3rd place medals which you claim were never awarded, and to dismiss this as an "obvious error" is highly suspect reasoning.

--but of course, all of this is beside the point, since the current official determination trumps whatever personal arguments one might have regarding what the statistics should or should not reflect.

And finally, you show frustration/indignation towards me? LOL, ironic ;o). From the very onset of this discussion you have demonstrated nothing but arrogance and a glaring unwillingness to back up your claims until long after you have pontificated with a narrow scope and have repeat narrow, end-all catch-phrases with overt condescension.

Give it up, your are not arguing rationally, but pedantically.

I would invite you to come back when you have dispensed with the intellectual lethargy, but I know that will not happen, so I merely inform you that this debate is pointless. I will continue to provide additional data if and when I find it, to help settle this matter and erase ambiguities. But based on your lack of serious interest in discussing all viewpoints, I am no longer going to bother with this little rhetorical game.

P.S.

The next time you feel obligated to revert the article to reflect your personal beliefs, I would greatly appreciate it if you would have the courtesty to conserve, in some fashion, the numerous links I have supplied. Certainly their legitimacy as research material, to aid people in making up their own minds, cannot be disputed.

-- 201.135.7.127 12:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

bogus medals

• Why are ther six or seven medals in that cabinet, each with a different design?
• 1. http://www.worldcup.isn.pl/en/cups/1930.htm "There were no medals - participating teams received souvenir plaquettes" Jooler 22:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• 2. Yes FIFA did not issue any medals. However several commemorative medals were made by various parties, and you can pick some of them up on Ebay -
  • http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5226709485
  • http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5226774925
  • http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5226065108
  • http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5223874067
  • http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8323423440
  • This one http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5227561210 - is very interesting' - it was presented to a member of the Argentina squad - but if you read the details you will see that the medal were paid for by a certain Dr. Buero (NOT FIFA) and given to the players of the Argentina. Dr. Buera turns out to be Enrique Buera, a Uruguayan diplomat. He was the Uruguayan ambassador to Belgium when he was approached by Jules Rimet with the idea of hosting the torunament in Uruguay. Jooler 23:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• 3. There is nothing to indicate the the medals in the cabinet are anything more than commemorative medals, other than a label that has already been shown to be in error.
• 4. "I have no official sources to prove that theory" of course not - come back if you find one. Jooler 22:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Yawn ... this could go on forever.

A simple analogy. In the Wimbledon Championships in each category - we have a winner and a runner-up. We do not have a match to discover who is to be placed third. We do not find that the losing semi-finalists are orderd into 3rd and 4th place. We only have their positions listed as losing semi-finalists. This was the case for the World Cup in 1930. Subsequent ranking schemes based upon criteria that didn't exist in 1930 are irrelevant. I am becoming very bored with continually having to revert the rantings and ravings of an anon user who has not provided us with any firm evidence to support his claim that USA were awarded 3rd place. If such FIRM evidence is provided I will be the first to acknowlede it. Jooler 22:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Bogus Medals, and also Bogus Argument. Lose the Attitude

There was never any argument here, there was never any pretense of superiority; there was merely a presentation of available evidence.

So now, FINALLY, after what feels like centuries of tolerating an exaggerated, utterly groundless hostility and infantilism, I now see before me very reasonable counter-evidence, proving I was wrong, WHICH IS ALL I WANTED TO SEE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Please, get off the pedestal Jooler, the aim of posting here is not to make empty claims, or to exploit the data to insult dissenters or make them feel like idiots; the point is to politely PRESENT the data and make one's case; it is about objective exchange of information.

You have finally realized that you are not above having to back up your claims, and by sharing this data there ceases to be a controversy, because my aim was never to force one desired outcome, just to analyse.

I came here to get to the bottom of things, not to point my finger and make snide, sarcastic remarks to make others out to be fools simply because they disagree, much as you have done and continue to do. It might give you intense pleasure to rub the "truth" in my face, but fortunately for me the truth is all I wanted to see. God knows, it certainly never gave me any pleasure to "prove Jooler wrong with my data," I don't even know you; you are just another screenname on a public internet site, so this massive undercurrent of indignation you have towards me is rather... dumb.

>>gives Jooler authentic replica gold-colored plastic medal in honour and recognition of winning an inconsequential debate in an inconsequential discussion board with a perfect stranger<<

-- Supersexyspacemonkey 01:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am only a Wiki rookie. I don't know how to make a flag icon of Image:Italy_flag_1861.png, because this is the flag of Italy during the 1930's when it played two World Cup finals (1934 and 1938). I have already updated the 1934 and 1938 world cup files, but I cannot change this file because all flags are represented by flagicons and it has to be consistent of course.

I have a similar request, Bulagria qualified for the first time for the 1962 Wolrd Cup, and it's not added but I don't know how to handle these templates, so I can't add it.

Having seen the request for assistance on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football about this dispute, I've found this discussion very hard to read, indeed it's hard to know who's saying what - and that's before the issue gets sidetracked over word meanings etc. So, here's my summary of the facts stated:

• The table of results includes two columns, one for the result of the final, one for the third and fourth place match.
• The controversy is over whether or not to include the USA and Yugoslavia flags in the "third and fourth place playoff" column, even though there was no third-fourth place playoff in that tournament.
• The two teams did not contest a match in the World Cup, nor did they play any matches against common opponents.
• However, the United States' group record was better than Yugoslavia's by +6 goal difference to +5, and on goal average by ∞ to 6.
• Neither goal difference nor goal average were used as a tiebreaker until at least 1962 (the existence of playoff matches to decide group winners, e.g. in 1950, is a firm inidcator).
• FIFA have since retrospectively applied a ranking within the 1930 World Cup which ranked the United States 3rd and Yugoslavia 4th. [5]. These rankings list every team from 1st to Nth (where N = no. of teams competing) based upon their group match records.

By comparison...

• The 1950 World Cup did not have a designated playoff, or indeed a final, but we include all four final group contenders in their group order within these columns, with a suitable footnote.
• However, in the final group of the 1950 WC, all teams played each other, so in that case, the 3rd/4th distinction is an official one decided at that time.

My conclusions:

• In the absence of a playoff, it would not be right to declare one team as third over the other outright, as there is no fair method of comparison between the two sides' performances in 1930, whereas there was in 1950.
• FIFA's retrospective ranking to the 1930 tournament is of academic interest only; as the teams at the time were unaware of it, it is unfair to suggest they actively competed for this honour.
• At the same time, it would be wrong to exclude them from table altogether. They came top of their groups and reached the tournament semi-finals, fair and square. By the rules of the tournament at that time, by which they played, they were in the top four teams. It would be unfair to exclude them from the table, when the top four of every other tournament are included.
• Therefore, they should be included in the table, but the honour considered shared. This should be explained in a footnote.
• There is still the matter of the order in which they should be positioned in the table. I don't think this matters too much, as long as the footnote stresses that the honour of 3rd place is shared between the two. But I can see that even this might be disputed. So...
• One option would be to use alphabetical order, but this I feel is too contestable (Should it be Jugoslavia, Yugoslavia or Kingdom of Yugoslavia? United States of America or simply America?)
• My alternative suggestion would be to defer to seniority. The United States played their first FIFA-sanctioned match in 1916, Yugoslavia 1920. Thus the US, as the elder, goes first in the left-hand side, and Yugoslavia on the right.

Of course, as an ordinary WP user I have no power whatsoever, so feel free to totally ignore this and carry on arguing. But I think this is a reasonable way of closing the discussion. Feel free to add your own suggestions; I will probably not contribute any further to this discussion, though. Qwghlm 23:33, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

My reply. - I mostly agree with you. But the title of the 3rd and 4th column is "Third Place Match" - I suggest replacing this with "Losing semi-finalists" and after 1930 make a subheading for these columns labelled "Third Place Match" Jooler - 1950 should also have suitable headings. 23:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been messing around the table, and came up with this (warning: it might need some tweaking, I'm no expert when it comes to tables):

Year	Host		Final				Third Place Match
			Winner	Score	Runner-up		3rd Place	Score	4th Place
1930 Details	Uruguay		Uruguay	4 - 2	Argentina		Losing semi-finalists:( 1)		USA Yugoslavia

Any comments ?(and before you ask, the US are on top due to alphabetical order) ^wS; ✉ 00:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. -- DR31 _{( talk)} 02:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thumbs up from me, if no one is up to it I guess I'll install the table next week if there are no objections, because the table simply remaining blank is a no-no. I personally think they should be on the table because they both deserve recognition and not simply a footnote :) -- Hurricane Angel 08:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

When I originally brought this topic up for debate, I proposed multiple alternative solutions, several of which are now being echoed in this discussion, including:

• Depict USA and Yuglsoavia sharing 3rd place
• Depict USA and Yugoslavia as not ranked, but display their flags nontheless, since they were semifinalists, and insert an explanatory note (as opposed to the note by itself).

The reason why Jooler took a rather belligerent attitude towards me and condescendingly ignored all of my diverse arguments is something I cannot fathom, though he seems to lack the intellectual acumen to retort my specific points or to provide any evidence to back himself up, and I must confess to experiencing mild amusement at seeing Jooler clumsily "agree" with several of my arguments when they are simply restated by other people. ;o)

I am glad there are now more participants and that the matter is officially under arbitration, so Jooler will no longer thwart my attempts to candidly present and discuss all of the available evidence like civilized persons.

I what strikes me most is the following point in Qwghlm's conclusion:

*At the same time, it would be wrong to exclude them from table altogether. They came top of their groups and reached the tournament semi-finals, fair and square. By the rules of the tournament at that time, by which they played, they were in the top four teams. It would be unfair to exclude them from the table, when the top four of every other tournament are included.

I could not agree more. That has been my central thesis from the very beginning, and I am glad someone else has finally backed me up and vindicated the intellectual worth of this proposition. All of my other previous arguments have been supplementary to that point. That is the core expressed in my title heading "Leave USA and Yugoslavia flags alone," and is clearly expressed in the opening posts.

I also agree with Qwghlm's other conclusion, in principle, that in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, USA and Yugoslavia should share the 3rd place column:

* Therefore, they should be included in the table, but the honour considered shared. This should be explained in a footnote. *There is still the matter of the order in which they should be positioned in the table. I don't think this matters too much, as long as the footnote stresses that the honour of 3rd place is shared between the two. But I can see that even this might be disputed.

As for the order, I think it is a very simple matter, FIFA has determined the order for us, period.

wS;✉, I respect your very reasonable proposal for a temporary fix, and since you have indicated it need not be exactly in the form currently presented, please allow me to make a suggestion: it appears you place USA and Yugoslavia sharing 4th place, which is awkward and makes little sense under the arguments being made here; instead, you should merge the two cells together into a broad one, containing everything, as opposed to putting the explanatory note under "1st" and the two flags under "4th."

I believe that, irrespective of what ultimate consensus is achieved, the first paragraph of my explanatory note "1" should be in the final version, as it is a very balanced assessment taking into account all of the evidence, both official and unofficial, that has been discovered. Jooler, unfortunately, likes to edit it out and describes it as a "rant unsupported by evidence," which could not be a more infantile and vacuous assessment. It is divided into two parts:

Here is part one, as I originally wrote it, which consolidates the data I uncovered, and truthfully represents its varying degrees of officialty and controversiality: