Talk:Argentina and England football rivalry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

English football Portal

The article on Argentina and England football rivalry is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Argentine football.

This article is supported by the England task force.

[edit] Opening comments

Need quotes, references, external links and so on and so forth, but it's a start for a possible article on this subject. Angmering 22:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The piece is sadly lacking an image — I tried in vain to find a free image of one of the games or even separate ones of England and Argentina teams and / or notable players from these matches, but haven't had any luck. Anyone know of such images? Angmering 13:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Record

A list of the all the matches (friendlies, non-FIFA?, etc) would be good.

[edit] British origins of Argentine Football and more sports

A lot of the Argentine teams have some english in their names (Argentinos Juniors, Boca Juniors, River Plate, Racing Club, Quilmes Athletic Club, Newell's Old Boys, etc) and the even the first organized Argentine team was made of English expats (I think it was Alumni), see Football_in_Argentina. Even more, the first time Argentina beast England (At Wembley, I think) is still remebered and celebrated back home. Maybe we should even mention some instances of the Intercontinental Cup, one with Estudiantes de la Plata playing very rough (~~I think against Nottingham Forest~~ against Man Utd [1]) and another where Liverpool FC refused to play Boca Juniors (scheduling conflicts, was the official word).

Unfortunately we also imported the hooligan tradition, too. :(

It might be worth mentioning that England has influenced Argentine sports in a lot of ways: For example, Argentina has the only competitive Rugby, Field Hockey and Polo teams on the region. Also, is the South American country with the longest Tennis and Golf traditions. Needless to say, all British-originated sports.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've begun a section with some information on the British founding of football in Argentina. I'm not sure whether we should note the Intercontinental Cup games or not, as this article is supposed to be mainly about the national teams... But it could perhaps be noted somewhere. Angmering 21:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is a big part of the animosity... I shouldn't be left out... Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose so. Might be more in Argentina than in England though, as it's not something that gets talked about very much here, in my experience at least. But definitely add a section on it if you want to. :-) Angmering 21:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the pre-1966 stuff, definitely makes it a more comprehensive and interesting article. I can't really add anything on the new club level section, as I don't know anything about it unfortunately. Sorry. Could well add another dimension to the page (which is, after all, about the rivalry - if this extends down to club level then particularly notable matches/fixtures should be included). Sliggy 21:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I just did, let me know what you guys think. Thankfully, it was my team (Boca) involved so I can add a little more. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks good, and it's something I didn't know about so I feel educated! :-D Angmering 21:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both parts of the above :-), adds more depth and detail on the topic. Sliggy 22:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First Arg. win, happened in 1964, not 1953

I just went here and it seems that the 1953 match was abandoned due to torrential rain after about 20 minutes. The first victory for Argentina was in 1964, in Brazil. I've cross-referenced the information and as far as I can tell it is good. So I've updated the page and added the web site as a source. Sliggy 22:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Shouldn't the article's title be Argentina and England football rivalry ? No big deal, but I think its more standard to sort them alphabetically Mariano(t/c) 09:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me, as redirects will be able to guide those who want to put England first. Anyone object? Sliggy 01:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope, sounds sensible. It's my fault for not thinking properly when I created the page. I shall therefore do pennance by moving it and fixing all the links... ;-) Angmering 12:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, we're all humans. I too would've put Argentina first, but not even thinking about the alphabet. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Handbags

I'm going to preempt anyone complaining about the handbags image. I think it perfectly displays how people in England treat things like football rivalry, with humour. We consistently fail to beat our football rivals so we get back by taking the piss out of them. Jooler 11:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

But wasn't the version on The Daily Mirror the version where they're recoiling from a naked woman bending over in front of them, not the handbags one? Angmering 11:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

no. It was the handbags one. It won the What the Paper Say award. See http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/historicpage?MODEL_IN_THE_SESSION=2343 Jooler 12:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, shows how the memory cheats! :-) Angmering 12:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, we don't always lose, but yes the image adds to the article. Is there anything similar from the Argentine perspective? Sliggy 01:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Well there's the World Cup mascot shenanigans as mentioned in the article, but I don't know how we'd go about getting ahold of copies of those images. Angmering 12:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

If I may contribute a small suggestion:

I believe the handbag image is more insultingly offensive than exemplary of British humour. In my opinion, it is substracting impartiality to this laudably neutral article, as it is slighting every Argentinean who visits this page. It is my belief the image should be either deleted or taken out until an Argentinean equivalent is found. Please consider this suggestion as nothing but merely a means to improve this overall well accomplished article. Thank you. 200.55.88.166 20:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering there's no connection between the image and the article itself (I mean, written), and the source of the image is not sourced to be British, it might be a good idea. The picture is not even from the match against England... Mariano(t/c) 12:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The image was on the front page of a national daily British newspaper immediately before a prominent game between England and Argentina. It has everything to do with the England/Argentina football rivalry and how the game is viewed in England. The fact that someone thinks that "it is slighting every Argentinean who visits this page" and that there is not Argentinian equivalent - is exactly the point. It shows the different way that the game is viewed. We treat these things with humour. Please see my comment above. Jooler 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"The picture is a mock-up: that is, it is not factual. An encyclopedia is a collection of facts. It is not necessary to reproduce an example of ridicule to assert that ridicule takes place.)" - It's a fact that a few days before a sigificant match between England and Argentina that picture was emailed all around the world. I had it in my inbox. It is a fact that a couple of days before (I think) a significant match between Enbgland and Argentina that picture featured on the front page of a British national daily newspaper. It is certainly worth noting that in England humour is used to mock football rivals and indeed our own players. Carricature of heros and villans is a significant part of British culture. See http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=801851 for examples poking fun at Beckham. Jooler 08:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin McE - Please discuss here rather than simply reverting. Jooler 22:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your continual re-posting of the contested image suggests that you pay little heed to discussion here. The image in question was created with the intention of offending and ridiculing; the fact that it was published in a newspaper does not make in noteworthy; it does not serve the neutrality of the article; its inclusion appears gratuitous. You acknowledged at the time opf first posting it that it would be controversial, but you seem reluctant to pay attention to other opinions on the posting. I would challenge you to refer it for arbitration or to a vote.Kevin McE 23:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. Upon noticing the removal of the image I restored the image and I posted a comment above, to which no-one replied. You did not acknowledge my comment, but just removed the image without discussion. I then posted a second comment here after restoring the image, then you once again removed it. I posted a third comment on this page and only now do you come to discuss the issue. So thank you for finally acknowledging the existance of this page. Two things -firstly Voting is evil your "challenge" to take it to arbitration is confrontational, it's far to early in the process to head down that road, civil discussion is required at this stage. Secondly you are wrong to to say as you did in your edit comment "there is no other editor supporting it bar Jooler" - you will notice that at the time the image was added, a whole year ago bar a few days, and mere days after the creation of the article itself, User:Sliggy said "yes the image adds to the article" and Angmering who is a major contributor to this article did not complain. So for an entire year and virtually the entire lifetime of this article the image has been on the page without protest. Then an anonymous editor posts a complaint and someone else suggests removal - but not for the same reasons - and you remove it and do not respond to discussion until now. I think other opinions are required, until a decision is reached, please leave the page in the same state it has been in for the last year. Jooler 08:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did complain. I still believe the image has no place in the article. As I said before, there is (currently) no connection between the text of the article and the image (no reference from one to the other). Plus, comments such as a typical example of British humour are way off-topic, and there are no proves the image was created in the UK at all!! How do you know it is not just another example of Nigerian humor? Or even Brazilian? I'm quite sure the newspaper publication was posterior to the email boom.

In short, the 2002 WC match was a poor low-profile match that didn't add much to the rivalry other than a victory to England and a controversial penalty; the image itself does not add anything to it, and the text fails to give a context that would justify it. Mariano(t/c) 11:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the text on image's page - "The Image was created by Carl Baldwin in 2002. http://www.b3ta.com/interview/carlbaldwin/ says "Minutes before England played Argentina in the World Cup of 2002, Carl Baldwin sat down at his PC and photoshopped the image above. He e-mailed it round his office, and the rest is history. The picture was sent round the World, and eventually found its way onto the front cover of the Daily Mirror newspaper. More recently the image won News Photograph of the Year at the What the Papers Say Awards.Carl Baldwin has never claimed copyright for the image. Asked "Have you made any money either directly or indirectly from the Argie Handbag picture?" - he replied "I did get a free lunch at the Café Royal for the 'What the Papers Say' awards." - Okay - so we should add some of this to the article. Jooler 13:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my earlier comment, I think the picture adds a humorous touch to the article. It is obvious that it is a fake, and the caption makes plain that it is false. I can't see why its inclusion is any worse — or better — than the comments about World Cup Willie in pirate regalia or Gauchito with his foot on an English lion (in the section "1966 World Cup"). It records the contemporary media coverage. I agree with Mariano that there could be more context in the article itself, although this risks undue prominence for what is actually just humour. Finally, I note that a factual error (David Beckham "now" being captain) had been missed in all this fuss... Sliggy 14:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That's because there was nothing wrong with the text. He was the England captain at the 2002 World Cup game. Whether he is any longer or not isn't really relevant to that section. However, if it makes you any happier I'll put it back in a clearer manner.

Oh, and for what little it's worth I think the picture does have a place in the article. Angmering 18:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You (and Mariano) have sorted out the ambiguity. Thanks! Sliggy 22:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The image in question adds nothing to anybody's knowledge or understanding of the rivalry between two national football teams. It is posted as an illustration of a sense of humour: evidently a sense of humour that appeals to some editors here. I think that makes the image suited to a page they may wish to post on flickr.com or something similar, but not an encyclopedic entry. The fact that some people shared an image with others by e-mail does not make it relevant or noteworthy: the fact that a tabloid newspaper published it does not make it news. The intention of the picture was to ridicule and insult: its reproduction in this pages extends that ridicule and insult to a new audience, and that is not the purpose of wikipedia.Kevin McE 22:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"intention of the picture was to ridicule" - correct, just like [Media:Darwin_ape.jpg]. In this instance it is an example of the way the rivalry is viewed in England both popularly and in the media. BTW I have The DVD series The History of Football - One episode of which opens with Maradona openly mocking and ridiculing Peter Shilton. Jooler 23:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mocking of a long dead scientist for his opinions is very different from denigration of a group of living sportsmen for their nationality. I fail to see how Maradona's behaviour on a DVD has any bearing on the publication on Wikipedia of a photograph that does not depict him. Are you suggesting that it is acceptable to insult all Argentinians on the basis that one Argentinian insults one Englishman? Kevin McE 00:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beckham - Simeone

I think it's worth pointing out (because you rarely seem to see it mentioned elsewhere, and I don't want it to become watered down in this article), that Beckham's flick against Simeone, was not a retaliation for the foul that had just happned during the run of play, but was a retaliation for the way Simeone leaned on Beckham's back as he got up off the pitch. Beckham had been suffering from a back injury prior to the competition and was in genuine pain. Simeone, who appeared to have been shot by a sniper at the same momement that Beckham's heal landed on him said a year later "Obviously, I was being clever. By letting myself fall, I got the referee to pull out a red card immediately. ... In reality, it wasn't a violent blow, it was just a little kick back with no force behind it, and was probably instinctive." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sport/football/288889.stm Jooler 19:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think is that important and it is prejudicial towards Simeone. Beckham did kick him and the fact that he over-acted the pain doesn't take away from Beckham's bad judgment call. Both things are clearly stated in the article and emphasizing it more is not really necessary, IMHO. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting changing anything that the article currently says. I'm just trying to point out, here, on the talk page, that many places that cite this incident leave out the fact that Simeone pressed down on Beckham's back and that it was this and not the foul that sparked Beckham's "instinctive" (as Simeone himself described it) reaction. So I'm just saying that we should ensure that if someone comes along and changes the article to remove some of the details, or summarise this incident, that the information is retained. Jooler 22:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding you, then. I agree. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd always been under the impression it was Simeone ruffling his hair that really got to Beckham. Still a daft thing to have done, whatever the provocation, mind. Angmering 08:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1966 and all that

Perhaps another thing worth noting on this page. During the 1966 World Cup, there was a strong belief, held by some Ururguayan and Argentinian supporters that their teams were knocked out because of an Anglo-German conspiracy. The W. Germany vs. Uruguay match was refereed by an Englishman (or possibly Scots not sure on this) and the England vs. Argentina match was refereed by a German. There is some information on this here - http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/snapshots/snapshot28/snapshot28.htm Jooler 19:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting and it might well be worth a mention, but personally I think that any more detailed coverage would be more suited to the 1966 FIFA World Cup page. Angmering 20:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] English/British

In December User:86.130.179.16 changed all of the references from British to English for whatever reason. Watson Hutton was Scottish, and it's probably likely many of the other early influences may have been Welsh, Irish or Scots. Also there is no real sub-division of British humour caleld English humour. So i've change it back. Jooler 07:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the references from brit. to eng. because the article is called Argentina and England football rivalry. True, there is no subdivision of British humour called English humour, but if there was it would be a simple copy and paste job as all of the examples of 'British' humour referenced in that article are of English comedians or comedy shows

[edit] Brazil vs. Argentina

Another big rivalry.. Everybody knows the fact that Argentines calls Brazilians as "monkeys" (macaquitos)

There is already another article for this rivalry — Argentina and Brazil football rivalry. In fact it's linked to in the intro here as an example of another major rivalry. Even if I do say so myself, however, the article's not as good as this one. :-) Angmering 22:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "El que no salta es un inglés"

There should be a reference to that popular chant... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.82.64.247 (talk • contribs).

Google translator says "The one that does not jump is an English" - What? Jooler 18:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have asked one of the Argentinian users who has helped with this page in the past, User:Sebastiankessel, if he can help with this.Angmering 18:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to. The translation is correct. It is a very popular chant "The one who doesn't jump is an XXX". Basically the expected effect (and the resulting effect) is that everybody at the stadium jumps at the same time to "avoid being called an XXX". The chant started to be sung after the Falklands War of 1982 and it became a traditional chant in every Argentina match, regardless of who are they playing against. "El que no salta es de Brasil" (The one not jumping is a Brazilian).

Obviously, since most Argentine stadiums still have a lot of "standing room" bleachers, it's not that hard for people to just start jumping, although seating spectators almost always join the crowd.

It is quite a sight to see 60000 people jumping at the same time, I'll tell you that.

I'll see if I can compose a little paragraph to that effect.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sebastian! Angmering 22:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey no prob, that paragraph was surely missing! :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed part of that para because it is no more intended for English ears than the playground taunt (and apologies for quoting a homophobic example, but it is the most well known I can think of) "last one on the field is a queer" is intended as a way for homosexually oriented youth to reveal themselves. Any insulting adjective could have been substituted for "inglés" (as you illustrate yourself above): the point is that "inglés" is being used here as a perjorative. I'm afraid that your defence for reverting that it will be heard on TV seems to me to be a red herring: is there much Argentinian domestic football shown on UK television? Do the crowd at an Argentinian league fixture care whether it is being shown in the UK? (The other part that I deleted acknowledged itself to be no more than a rumour: now that it is substantiated, it can properly stay) Kevin McE 22:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV edits reverted by me

"for an obvious foul by Alan Shearer on the Argentine goalkeeper" - I remember watching the match and as far as I remember everybody was initially mystified , so I dunno about "obvious" - a lot of comment was made afterwards about how no such foul would have been given in the Premiership.
"Such criticism is common in England, whose fans and press are renowned for accusing teams who defeat them of cheating. " - such citicism is common everywhere AFAIK. Look above about how the Argentines believe that England and Germany conspired against them in 1966. Jooler 17:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's common knowledge in the football world that the English media and fans are insane with the way that they always say their opponents 'cheated' when the English lose. Often they blame the ref as well. In some cases, such as Barcelona-Chelsea in 04-05, the commentators spend the entire match complaining, which leads to disgruntled Englishmen sending death threats to the match officials. And in saying "no foul would have been given in the Premiership" - that isn't relevant, as the officiating in England is completely different from the actual rules of the game - completely different from the way the game is officiated in the rest of the world. Peoplesunionpro 03:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1998 World Cup

The part of the third paragraph of the 1998 World Cup section that refers to the Sol Campbell goal is from a completely different game; the England vs Portugal EURO 2004 Quarter Final. --82.34.235.89 18:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)KLC

Nope, it really has happened to Campbell twice, I'm afraid. Angmering 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'd forgotten about that. --82.34.235.89 23:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)KLC

[edit] Neutrality of the article

I believe this article is obviously biased against Argentina. This page should be changed to a more neutral point of view, not one unsubtely supporting the English.

Do feel free to make any changes you believe will help create a more neutral point of view in the article. Alternatively, you could say here which sections you feel need attention and other editors can try and change them if they agree with you. Angmering 13:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading the article, we must admit that unless you are English there are several sentences purely POV, e.g.:

the game was particularly noted for the sending-off of Argentina captain Antonio Rattín, which Argentinians considered to be unfair, . Came on, even the scottish see this as unfair. I know uruguayian, italians, spaniard, germans, etc who think the same .
Argentina fans did not observe the minute's silence in memory of Stanley Matthews I suggest remove the sentence unless is sourced. Also, how many argentine fans could be that day on the stadium ? , 50?
Commentators described the match, which began at twelve noon UK time, as the "longest lunch break in history" as millions in England and throughout the world stopped their jobs and activities to watch the game on TV. irrelevant and purely a english comment. Unless we add the same about Argentina, (all their games were seen by 30 millions fans on any hour) I suggest remove it
Although the Argentinian players and public criticised the awarding of the penalty kick — given for a controversial foul on Michael Owen, whom they felt had dived — the game was generally played in a good, if highly competitive, spirit, and there was none of the bitterness that had affected the 1966 and 1986 meetings.. Again just the Argentinian press saw the dive ? Seems to me that as England win this time, as the way the paragraph is written, the game was not 'stolen'.
The latest encounter featured punches on the terraces, songs about the Falkland Islands, jibes regarding players' sexuality and general churlishness that (sic), believe it or not, represents a significant thaw in diplomatic relations." fist, is talking from the English side (the songs and others) and I dont see the need of this yellow diary insulted comment. perhaps we should add some argentines tabloid 's comments too
- This isa quote from The Times Jooler 07:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Indeed, The Times quote is clearly referring to both sets of fans. That's why I included it in the first place. But anyhow, I've had enough of this article and all the bitterness and upset it seems to have caused people, and I'd like to apologise to everyone for creating the thing in the first place. It just doesn't seem to have worked very well. Angmering 08:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
where Estudiantes' supporters were highly vocal (???)

IMHO. Jor70 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the Rivalry - Opening Paragraph

The 1966 section is well sourced and reads:

“

The Argentinian press and public were outraged, and one Argentinian newspaper published a picture of the official World Cup mascot, World Cup Willie, dressed in pirate regalia to demonstrate their opinion of the England team ... England has since been the team they most want to beat.

”

prior of this event, nobody cares about England in Argentina, their matchs have a similar importance of those with any other country. I still remember the argentine TV talking about the 1966 game in the prior hours of the 1986 match. Jor70 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you object to in the opening paragraph as it stood before your last reversion? It correctly stated that the UK (not England) was a party in the Falklands war, it credits 1966 as pivotal in the instigation of the rivalry, and it avoids the metaphorical (and therefore unencyclopedic) use of "edge" In what regard was the December version so superior that it should be preserved? Kevin McE 22:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In the new version we finish making a list of all the WC matchs (Very poor) whilst december version remarks 3 importants facts that we deleted here :

1966 as the origin
mention the word clasico showing the importance of the match in Argentina
and highlight the event Mano de Dios over the others (per se british pov). I have no problem with the last one but would be important to notice that for Argentines is the the 1966 match. Jor70 10:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Angmering's version from which you reverted to the December version mentions only one footballing date, your preferred one of 1966. Clásico is Spanish, and to most readers of en.wikipedia will not communicate your intended interpretation; however, the reciprocity of the rivalry is explicit in the version you reverted from. I am unclear as to whether you want the 1986 match highlighted in the lead paragraph or not: I think that POV is best avoided by not giving any match the additional profile of inclusion in the lead para. Kevin McE 10:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

How about:

The Argentina and England football rivalry is a highly competitive sports rivalry that exists between the national football teams of the two countries, as well as their respective sets of fans. Games between the two teams, even those that are only friendly matches, are often marked by notable and sometimes controversial incidents.

The rivalry is unusual in that it is an intercontinental one; typically, footballing rivalries exist between countries that are close to one another, for example France–Italy or Argentina–Brazil. Argentina is regarded in England as one of the major rivals of the English football team, along with such countries as Scotland and Germany. The rivalry is also keenly felt in Argentina, where only matches against Brazil carry a greater significance in popular perception.

The rivalry emerged across several games during the latter half of the 20th century, even though as of February 2007 the teams have played on only 11 occasions. It was driven by various controversial incidents, such as those in the games played between the teams at the 1966 and 1986 FIFA World Cups. The rivalry was also exacerbated by a non-footballing event, the 1982 Falklands War fought between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Despite the intense rivalry between the national sides, numerous Argentinian players have played for English club sides with few problems.

Any good? Angmering 10:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Kevin McE 11:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite good!, but what a about this with a bit difference:

The rivalry is unusual in that it is an intercontinental one; typically, footballing rivalries exist between countries that are close to one another, for example France–Italy or Argentina–Brazil. Argentina is regarded in England as one of the major rivals of the English football team, along with such countries as Scotland and Germany. The rivalry is also keenly felt in Argentina (locally described as Clasico), where only matches against Brazil carry a greater significance in popular perception.

It was driven by various controversial incidents, such as those in the games played between the teams at the 1966 and 1986 FIFA World Cups. The rivalry was also somehow exacerbated by a non-footballing event, the 1982 Falklands War. Despite the intense mediatic and entertained rivalry between the national sides, numerous Argentinian players have played for English club sides with few problems.

Too much? Its describes rivalry, how is seen in each country, origin, and finally and very important (IMHO) tone down the conflict perhaps your better english can better style the last point Jor70 11:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think toning down the influence the war had on the rivalry would be nice, but innacurate and something of a whitewash. In the article we have cited quotes from Maradona about revenge, and the English fans chanting about the outcome of the war over twenty years later. The fact is, however distasteful we might find it now, the war was and probably still is a major factor in the feelings that emerge when the sides play, so I don't think the "somehow" is approproate there.

I must confess I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "mediatic and entertained" — do you mean to say, perhaps, that the rivalry is media-driven and on the whole entertaining? Angmering 11:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! that the idea . About the 1982 war (perhaps due obvious reasons) have more influence in England than Argentina , other than those Diego quotes , you will not see the argentine media or fans massive talking about the 1982 war prior the 2002 or 2005 matchs but they surely mention all prior controversial matchs Jor70 11:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's still true to say it was a factor in the increase in the rivalry though, even if as you suggest it's mostly on the English side — I wouldn't know, I've never been to Argentina :-). As for the latter point — "entertaining" would be POV, but we could have something like "Despite the intense rivalry between the national sides, and its high media and public profile, numerous Argentinian players have played for English club sides with few problems." Angmering 12:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

ok, then should be

The rivalry is unusual in that it is an intercontinental one; typically, footballing rivalries exist between countries that are close to one another, for example France–Italy or Argentina–Brazil. Argentina is regarded in England as one of the major rivals of the English football team, along with such countries as Scotland and Germany. The rivalry is also keenly felt in Argentina (locally described as Clasico), where only matches against Brazil carry a greater significance in popular perception.

It was driven by various controversial incidents, mainly those in the games played between the teams at the 1966 and 1986 FIFA World Cups. The rivalry was also exacerbated by a non-footballing event, the 1982 Falklands War. Despite the intense rivalry between the national sides, and its high media and public profile, numerous Argentinian players have played (and still play) for English club sides with few problems.

I replaced the talked about, and now I marked bold 2 others changes. But I still think the last sentence is highly an English POV, the rivalry in fact was exacerbated by the War and the Hand of God but in England , in Argentina really was and is the 1966 cup. This should be differentiate in some way. Jor70 12:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the lead in the main article, making some compromise changes as suggested here. I took out the brackets in the last bit as the clarification isn't really necessary, and brackets look ugly in lead sections anyway. Angmering 12:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I also reinstated the "several games" bit, which I didn't notice you'd removed, as it avoids pushing the POV of either country as to what the most important games of the rivalry have been. Angmering 12:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Apart from my dislike of brackets in opening sections, I think that the Clásico reference is inappropriate in en.wikipedia. It is, after all, a Spanish word that means a match between rivals, and so it adds nothing, but confuses the meaning for non-Spanish speakers. I think it is worth making the distinction between England and the UK in reference to the war, but I'm not too bothered so long as it does not say (as it did before) the war between the two nations. The qualification "and still play" is not necessary, as this can be taken as read in normal English usage: I would still hope that this line would be sufficient to allow for the deletion of the paragraph about individual players; it is not POV, and if there are English players in the Argentinian leagues, the sentence can be made reciprocal. Mainly is unverifiable: I would suggest including instead. So I would have:

The Argentina and England football rivalry is a highly competitive sports rivalry that exists between the national football teams of the two countries, as well as their respective sets of fans. Games between the two teams, even those that are only friendly matches, are often marked by notable and sometimes controversial incidents.

It was driven by various incidents, including controversies in matches played between the teams at the 1966 and 1986 FIFA World Cups and the 1982 Falklands War. Despite the intense rivalry between the national sides, and its high media and public profile, numerous Argentinian players have played for English club sides with few problems. Kevin McE 13:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The word clasico doesnt means just a match between rivals, is like a Inter-Milan, River-Boca, in fact what means is much MORE than a game and when I was talking about being media-driven I was refering to the rivalry not the players, in the new sentence we are talking about the player profiles and that not the issue. The rivalry is highly media-driven. Jor70 13:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But all of that (the notion that it has more significance than 90 minutes of action and maybe 3 league points) is already implicit in talking about a match between rivals: the point is not clarified for users of an English language source by a Spanish word that links (inappropriately) to local derbies. I do not see that I have linked the media interest to individual players. Kevin McE 13:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

About clasico, I still think that it is important to let know all users (english or not) that this match is locally known in Argentina as a derby , the current version is really ok. The line about games of the 20 century is really necessary ?? I dont think anyone played in 1800s and in that way we will forced to update the lead paragraph any time they play. I would start the 3rd paragraph just from It was driven by various controversial incidents, .... . Sorry If I do not understand you about the high profile term, Its seems to me that the current high profile line refers to the players be high profile and not the match ifself. Jor70 12:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The word clásico does not have the effect on English language speakers that you suggest, and the word derby is not appropriate in this case, as in UK usage that only refers to a rivalry between close neighbours, but I would leave in the remainder of that sentence, making clear that the rivalry is reciprocal. The key words in the opening sentence of the 3rd para are the latter half of the 20th century, to refer broadly to the period 1950-2000, not merely to exclude the 19th century. I would prefer to delete the month-specific dating in the sentence that you are concerned about in terms of frequent updating, but changing one word every few years is not an onerous editing task. As regards your last point, I fear that your understanding of English may have let you down: the it in its high media and public profile refers to the intense rivalry between the national sides in the opening part of the sentence, not to high profile players. Kevin McE 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then the current version stands ? thanks for explain me the profile issue. (keep an eye on those 11 matches, it would probably be another this year) Jor70 17:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So we're basically sorted then? :-) I have removed the month-specific reference, as Kevin suggested, as I think that's a good point. Angmering 18:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe some English language users (Angmering?) would like to comment on the value of clásico in this context. I maintain that it adds nothing to the meaning of a sentence that states that the rivalry is keenly felt in Argentina, and that it is falsely linked to local derby as it is clearly not about a rivalry between neighbours. Kevin McE 19:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tricky one... Personally I don't have any strong feelings as to whether it stays or goes, but it does help to convey some of the strength of the feeling possibly... But then again, the basic description does that anyway. Possibly we need to see if we can get some more than just the three of us debating this — ask for some opinions on the football wikiproject, maybe? Angmering 19:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argentine/Argentinian

I think we should settle the Argentine/Argentinian discussion for once and for all. We already discussed this in other articles quite some time ago and decided to use the adjective Argentine, while for the demonym we could either user Argentine or Argentinian. But please, in no case should Argentinian be used as an adjective! --Mariano(t/c) 16:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

By what lexical source do you claim that one cannot say, for example, "the Argentinian army"?

The only on-line UK English style guide listed at Style guide that is accessible and offers an opinion (The Guardian, as cited in my edit notes) gives Argentinian, but never Argentine. I believe "Argentine" as an adjective (as is the case for The Argentine as a name for the country) is at best dated, and almost obsolete: its use seems to me to be a mixture of an archaic style and a false assumption that it is a more authentic translation of argentino/a. If you can cite a modern authority that uses Argentine that would of course call for a re-think on my part. Perhaps you could direct me to the previous discussions on other articles.Kevin McE 17:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the proper discussion, I only found this one. I didn't mean it was gramatically wrong to use Argentinian as an adjective, just plain horrible. If you search (just to use your example) for "Argentinian Army", you'll get way less hits than with "Argentine Army", even if ignoring Wikipedia hits ([2]/[3]). What's more, Google will ask you Did you mean: Argentine Army when quering for "Argentinian Army".

OK, not really encyclopedic, but it does give you a good idea that the term Argentine is far from almost obsolete. What do you mean with modern authority? An updated Dictionary? A government institution? A hooligan's page?

--Mariano(t/c) 18:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I will revert the grammatical modifs after waiting for a week without any answer.--Mariano(t/c) 18:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"in no case should Argentinian be used as an adjective!": it is listed in every dictionary I can find as an adjective! Have you found any that do not describe it as one? I suspect that very old dictionaries, but only old ones, might not list it as such, that is why I asked for a modern lexical source. Whether it is horrible is your POV: it is not incorrect, and I maintain that it is a more modern use (but not merely a modalism). You acknowledge that it was a matter of debate elsewhere in Wikipedia, and yet you seem to be dogmatic in your right to apply your opinion. Kevin McE 10:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course my horrible comment was POV. That was the exclamation about. I stated my possition and backed it with certain sources/numbers; that's all. Argentine is also defined both as a noun and an adjective in all dictionaries. To me, both the adjective and the noun should be Argentine, but several people (and I'm sorry I can't find the discussion) provided certain support for the use of Argentinian as the demonym. And the fact that it's of modern use doesn't make it neither correct nor encyclopedic; after all "dude" is also in the dictionary. --Mariano(t/c) 20:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mocking Photo removed.

I removed that picture. I think some vandals added it to make fun of Argentine team. It was not fair and was a big offense.

Incorrect. See earlier discussion. Jooler 23:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous editor may, at least in your opinion, be incorrect to say that the picture was added by a vendal or in his/her supposition of the motivation, but you have no grounds to say that it is incorrect to say that it is mocking, offensive and unfair. Several people have now denounced it as such, and I would argue that all content of Wikipedia, images as well as text, should stand up to the standards of WP:MOS, and in so far as it is applicable, WP:TONE. Nobody has made any attempt to address the criticisms made by Mariano on 2 Nov, nor mine on 10th Nov last. I uphold the right of an editor, even an anonymous one, to not be affronted by images found on Wikipedia, and I remove it. Kevin McE 00:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"I think some vandals added it to make fun of Argentine team" - that statement is incorrect. The photo has been in the aritcle for about 18 months. The photo demonstrates an intrisinic part of the rivalry and the cultural impact of that rivalry in both popular perception (it was an Internet phenomenon) and the popular press (it was one the front page of several newspapers and won a What The Paper's Say award) in England. Perhaps it's also a demonstration of the cultural differences. This sort of image not uncommon in the rich tradition of cartooning in British newspapers going back to James_Gillray. The English/British are not beyond mocking themselves. See [4]. Some of these images also went around the Internet, but AFAIK none were put on the front page of a Newspaper and won an ward. Time for a vote. Jooler 07:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

According to USA Today (writing during the last World Cup) - "Four years ago in Japan, the two-time World Cup champions [Argentina] were eliminated in the first round and were ridiculed back home, where newspapers took a photo of the team's defensive wall and superimposed handbags draped on the players' arms. " - The paper is assuming the image was shown in the Argentinean press after their defeat. Was it? Jooler 07:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine: I asked for a vote months ago, and you replied that voting is evil, but I remain happy that this goes to one. This article is not about the nature of British humour, there is nothing in the text to support your contention that the rivlry between these teams is an internet phenomenon, and the fact that an image is deemed likely to help sales of a tabloid newspaper does not mean that it reaches the criteria and standards expected in WP:TONE. Kevin McE 10:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil but we have reached the point where there is no alternative. Er.. it WAS an internet phenomenon The photoshopped image was mailed around the world. What are you talking about "likely to help sales of a tabloid newspaper" - who says that? In any case this kind of picture is not just the kind of thing engaged in by "tabloid" newspapers - see [5] and pages linked at the bottom. Jooler 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Mirror is a tabloid newspaper, and if, as you state, it was on its front page, that was to attract people's attention in the hope that they would buy it. Why do you think any paper puts any picture on its front page? I do not understand your contention that the rivalry between these sides is an internet phenomenon: the three most controversial matches (1966, 1986 and 1998 were before the internet was in wide usage); if you are simply asserting that this image was an internet phenomenon, that is something which I do not contest, but nor do I see any justification in that for its posting here. Kevin McE 00:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth gives you the idea I was saying the rivalry was an Internet phenomenon? Of course I am talking about the distribution of the picture! It was emailed all over the world. Yes it WAS featured on the front page of the Daily Mirror and is shown [here as a "classic" cover. It won an award. For those three reasons the image is notable in its own right. The reason the photo exists in the first place is because of the football rivalry. 07:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I voted to remove it Jor70 11:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Jooler 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Jooler, undoing McE's edit as vandalism wasn't a happy choice. BTW, I don't recall the image being printed on papers here. I tryed to find any reference in the Argentine media to the image, specially in Diario Olé, but without any luck. I got remember getting it by mail though. --Mariano(t/c) 13:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"I got remember getting it by mail though" - the internet phenomenon again. Jooler 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't undo as vandalism. "rv" is revert. "rvv" is revert vandalism. What are you talking about? Jooler

I can see both sides of this discussion. However, this article is about a rivalry and in my opinion things like this photo are relevant in the context of the long tradition of British/English "cartoon" type humour. As has been said, it is something that goes on and absolutely 100% is not specific to mocking the Argentina football team. Former England manager, Graham Taylor was widely ridiculed and mocked in a very similar manner by adapting photos of him calling him a turnip (if I recall correctly) and showing him with a turnip head. And also more recently with the current England manager, Steve Maclaren. I don't know enough about the culture of Argentina to know if there is a similar type of humour or if there is even some similar image. But surely if there is, then that would also be just as appropriate to place in here?

My vote would be to keep the image whilst trying to ensure that there is also something similar from Argentina. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 14:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You recall correctly. Graham Taylor was pictured as a turnip on the front page of the Daily Mirror. But trying to find something that is an equivalence - when we are talking about a cultural difference doesn't make any sense. Jooler 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, at least we find someone dress in pirate regalia or something the image should be removed Jor70 16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Jooler

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a place to mocking people.
you are mocking one side on behalf to the other in a rivarly article, a fact than can be minimal stated as POV

Jor70 01:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you think the cartoons should be removed from Charles Darwin or Napoleon. Or that the article on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy should be removed? I am not mocking anything. The article is reporting the widespread distribution and publication of the image which was created as a consequence of the off-pitch aspects of the on-pitch rivalry that this article is about. Jooler 23:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The article makes no reference at all to this image. It is not true to say "The article is reporting the widespread distribution and publication of the image". Kevin McE 00:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. The caption it says "This "photoshopped" image mocking Argentine players, a typical example of British humour, was e-mailed all over the world during the 2002 World Cup and featured on the front-page of The Daily Mirror." Jooler 07:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the caption to the picture. It is not explaining any part of the article proper. Kevin McE 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You state that wikipedia is not a place to mock people, and yet just above you suggested that "we find someone dress in pirate regalia or something" so as to even up the pictures. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I was supporting yours idea of at least balancing the POV due he not wanted to remove it --Jor70 02:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tried my best to find "mocking" pictures (of anything!) originating from Argentine sources to no avail. Jooler 22:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand me. It has nothing to do with me or my suggestion. I will re-word it. You condemn "mocking pictures" and state that wikipedia is not a place to mock people. And yet, in response to my comment about trying to find something similar from Argentina, you have suggested finding a picture mocking the English dressed as pirates. That appears to be contradictory. It is not that you suggested a mocking "pirate image", it is that after suggesting it you then go on to state that wikipedia is not a place to mock people. To me it is just a "throwaway" picture that has no real deep meaning. And I would still think that if it had been done in Argentina with a group of English players. To be honest I really don't see what all the fuss is about a picture, it is only a light-hearted picture. And when I say fuss, I mean the fuss about keeping it and deleting it. Its a picture that some are, in my opinion, taking way too seriously. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is about rivalry between two football teams. The recurring justification of the inclusion of the picture (which nobody has tried to defend from the accusation that it is POV and has potential to offend) is that it is an illustration of British newspapers' comedic style. No link between these themes exists in the article, and such defence is, at best, very tenuous. One simple question is relevant: does the picture assist in the aim of an encyclopedia: to inform the reader about the subject of the article. Kevin McE 09:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You utterley misrepresent the issue. It's not about "an illustration of British newspapers' comedic style". My reference to the history of British cartooning was about the culture of England and not in itself a justification of the image being on this page. - Please re-read so I don't have to repeat myself. I would have no difficulty with the other images (linked to above) that relate to Beckham missing the penalty against Argentina being on this page, but I don't think that they had quite the same worldwide exposure as the handbag photo. Jooler 21:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though I believe that the picture does have some relevance and I stated that it should remain, I also think as I said last night that too much fuss is being made over it. If it is going to repeatedly cause this much fuss (as it surely will when someone else discovers it if the picture is there again) then perhaps it is best to keep it out of the article. Unless of course a pirate picture can be found....!!! (Just to clarify that is joking) ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 14:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I too find it utterly bewildering that people are truly "offended" by this in any real sense of the word. It's part and parcel of football. It's the kind of thing even the BBC indulge in. Akin to football chanting and if taking offence at this kind of thing is a cultural difference between England and Argentia then it deserves mention. Is there no caricature of political and sporting figures in Argentina? Jooler 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The BBC also included amongst numerous other lookalikes these pictures about that David Beckham penalty miss. Beckham and a childs sand box. We laugh at ourselves just as much ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Some key questions, primarily for Jooler:

1) Do you think that such a picture is in keeping with encyclopedic tone?
2) Do you accept that the image can be considered insulting or causing of offence?
3) Do you consider it to be NPOV?
4) Do you think it illustrates any explicit part of the text of the article?
5) Do you think it furthers the informative purpose of an article on this particular footballing rivalry?
6) Do you think that the article is more likely to receive GA or FA status with this image than without it? Kevin McE 00:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What you seem to fail to understand is that reporting NPOV is not NPOV in and of itself. Are the images on [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] Encyclopaedic. Are they NPOV? Can they be considered insulting or causing of offence? I'm going to bring in more bodies by posting on the Football WikiProject. Jooler 07:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The question is not so much NPOV (the article is not actually opining that Argentine players carry handbags) but of balance (representation of both sides' views). As it stands, I think the image has marginal reasons for inclusion - it is clearly photoshopped and not a hoax pretending to be real, it is by an English artist and printed in the (English-dominated) British media and so just (if only just) adds to the content of the article by illustrating popular opinion from the English side of the rivalry. As noted above, plenty of articles have satirical depictions of their subjects in them. However, rivalries have two sides and it is clearly unbalanced to just have an English graphic and not an Argentine one. So my recommendation would be either to include an Argentine equivalent alongside it. The alternative is to have neither. Qwghlm 08:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And I have, all along, suggested that a compromise could be reached by finding something similar from an Argentine perspective, if not a "photo shopped picture"/caricature then something. Just a thought, but if the image does remain would it not perhaps also be of value, especially in case of future debate about it, to add something about the image and its relevance in the article itself? ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This balance would only be possible, if such images originating from an Argentine perspective exist. Perhaps this is like trying to find caricatures of creationists drawn by Darwin? As I said earlier I have tried to Google up such images but I have found nothing. If they do not exist then this in istself is worth commenting on and is probably reflective of the different cultures and cultural perspectives on the rivalry. Perhaps (and this is almost certainly prejudicial on my part) one is more likely to find images of the Union Jack being burnt than cartoons. Jooler 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status: The licencing tag for the image states This parody is a derivative of a copyrighted, unlicenced work. It is believed that the use of this image for commentary on the parody in question or the original work, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. Given that the image in this context is neither a commentary on a Reuters photo nor on the an article on the work of Carl Baldwin, does it meet this fair use crieria? Kevin McE 10:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Who says it's not a commentary on the Reuters photo? The original photo is of the Argentine defensive wall. If the addition of handbags is not a commentary on the men in the wall what is it? (from our article on parody (In contemporary usage, a parody is a work that imitates another work in order to ridicule, ironically comment on, or poke some affectionate fun at the work itself, the subject of the work, the author or fictional voice of the parody, or another subject.)) - Carl Baldwin does not claim copyright over the image. Jooler 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about all that technical copyvio stuff, but I'd forgotten just how amazing this photo was... hahaha. aLii 13:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the photo is funny in my opinion, and would also be just as funny if it was made up of David Beckham, Frank Lampard, Wayne Rooney, Rio Ferdinand & Michael Owen (or any combination).♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 14:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

hmm.. as an England fan, I think I'd rather see that combination! Oh well, this one works too :) aLii 11:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And as an Argentine fan I can say the article is not only NPOV (or at least unbalanced) by this picture but also insulted. Jor70 12:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And as someone from England who also loves and watches Argentine football every week on Channel Five I still can't see why there should be all this fuss about a picture. The only people who could genuinely be insulted by it are the five people in the picture, as that is who it is parodying, no-one else. And I bet if you asked each of them they would probably take it as a joke, much the same way David Beckham does with all the vast amount of comments made about him, his voice, his intelligence and his wife. He laughs it off, he even tells David Beckham jokes himself, and sees it all for what it is, and for what this picture is - trivial..♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I cant imagine any of those players defending themself here ! The image is insulting due they are mocking the Argentine shirt not just the players Jor70 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor can I imagine any of the players commenting (not defending themselves) about the picture on here, but there again that wasn't what I said, nor implied. I was talking about the picture in general. Also the picture does not mock the Argentine shirt at all. I have just looked back in the history of this page at the picture again, and it really is reading way too much into the picture to state that it insults the Argentine shirt. But, having said all this, I really don't see what all the fuss is especially now, as the picture is not in the article. It has been removed.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think that if the article only contain a mocking picture of the english team it would remain published all this long ?! Jor70 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I thought the picture had been removed, I hadn't noticed it had been put back in again, until I noticed you had removed it again, so apologies for saying iot had been removed from the article. Partly because the last few times I've visited this page I have only looked at the Talk page! To be honest, if there was a picture mocking the England team I would simply laugh, and see it for what it is, humour. I wouldn't take offence or be insulted. I said before that if it was a picture of five English players with handbags I would think exactly the same. Graham Taylor, former England manager had to endure pictures of him wiht his head being made to look like a turnip when England lost to Sweden and the Sun newspaper had a headline of "Swedes 2 Turnips 0" (or whatever the score was) and by saying turnips it was also mocking the entire English team. I do accept that you are insulted by the picture, even though I don't think you should be, and on that basis, I would also agree with your latest edit to remove the picture again. I also believe that until such time as a consensus is agreed upon as to whther that picture should remain in the article, then perhaps it is best all round if it is not included at present.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. And you are right, IM insulted and Im not the only one, however I can do an effort to accept it IF there was a similar tone picture about the English team beside Jor70 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that the picture keeps getting added, and removed, which could end up being an edit war. Even though I do think that no-one should be insulted by it, some people clearly are insulted. And on that basis I do believe that until such time as a consensus is agreed upon that it would be best left out of the article. If there is a similar Argentine picture then by all means have both. If nothing exists then in my opinion, after having discussed this on here, and taken in both points of view, I think it would be best left out of this particular article.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jor. If the picture was of players from the English team we would not be insulted we would just see it in good humour. It's part of the British culture to do this kind of thing. This image was sent around the world and was on the front cover of a British newspaper. - see http://www.b3ta.com/interview/carlbaldwin/ it IS signficant! If there is no Argentine equivalent then that just exemplifies the differences in culture. Removing the image is tantamount to censorship. See above regarding Graham Taylor (http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/uploads/2296/Turnip-Taylor_thumb_24-11-9.jpg) and the link regarding Beckham [6] Jooler 00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The pic IS insulting and the only thing that add to this article is that every visitor of any part of the world who came here would laugh of the Argentine team and nothing else. And, this is not an article about the different types of humour. May i suggest instead put the image on the newspaper 's article to show foreigners what kind of media is Jor70 01:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The picture was created to make people laugh and what's wrong with that? Is anyone hurt by it? Has anyone died? No. It is called humour. The fact that you find it insulting is your opinion and your POV and does not justify its censorship. The The Sun (newspaper) article already has a picture from the front page that I imagine you would find even more insulting and with more justification, but it isn't censored. The Daily_Mirror page has a cover that Amnericans might feel is insulting, but it isn't censored. You earlier stated that you find the article itself is POV. Jooler 07:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My POV ? It seems to me that YOU are the only defending this image. Pls, let me remember you that the wrong fact is you are making people laugh about just one side in a rivalry article ! HOW could that not being POV ?!? and is insulting because as I told you already several times we not all have your type of humour. Jor70 10:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"we not all have your type of humour" - which is why any suggestion of trying to find a matching Argentine cartoon or parody is pointless. Believe me I have tried in vain to find something originating from Argentina that might match it. You seem to misunderstand what NPOV means. NPOV is not about balance. If that were the case then the article on the Nazi Party (did anyone say Godwin's Law?) would also point out that they made the trains run on time. It is an undeniable fact that that image was borne from the Argentina and England football rivalry and it became one of the most viewed images of the year. There are other supportes of the image being in this article, but as I'm the one who added it in the first place I am the person most in favour of keeping it. I still don't see any difference between this and the picture of Darwin as a Chimpanzee. The purpose of Wikipedia is to report. I'm sure people are offended by the content of the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition article, but that should not stop it being reported. Jooler 23:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fans behaviour

The article states that "English fans, on the other hand, frequently mock Argentinians with references to their nation's defeat in the 1982 Falklands War." This follows on from stating how fans at presumably domestic games in Argentina chant mocking English fans. Which would seem to imply then that Enlgish fans at domestic games frequently mock Argentinians about the Falklands War. I would dispute that, and would also ask where is the evidence of it happening frequently?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that my song sentence was relevant to this article in the sense that Argentine fans always use it no matter who are playing against, they do it in the WC06 , at home against Chile last month, the other days against Swiss and Argelia, etc , everytime. the chant is a classic in every Argentina's game. Jor70 21:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Considering putting this article forward for deletion

I'm considering putting this article (as well as some others on football rivalry) forward for an AfD debate. My reasoning is as follows:

In world class football, rivalries exist between many teams, to the point that most teams have some back-history and rivalry with each other. An article on the topic is therefore unessessary and makes a moot point. A simple summary paragraph of the nature of the rivalry with some examples could be summarised in the articles for each team. It doesn't need a reference to every single game the two sides have played since the inception of the rivalry.

This kind of article seems to be promoting a higher than normal amount of pro-nationalistic comments, weasle words and generally a lack of NPOV which hurts its credibility.

Certain single incidences could have their own article or an article to the game in which they occured. An example here would be 'hand of maradona' incident which is already has its own article called Hand of God goal, the Anglo-argentine football rivalry may better be explained there.

Rivalries this short are not generally given their own article... why therefore should a football game? What is so important about this particular football rivalry as to warrant an article on it? I also doubt someone will search wikipedia trying to find this article. If it were I who wanted to know more about it, I'd search the argentine and english football team articles. I wouldn't expect it to have its own article and therefore wouldn't search for it. Consequently I suspect this article has a low vistor count.

The content of the article on the whole is good, but putting all this in one place does not complement the information or make the topic more cohesive. Infact an article on Major football rivalries already exists. Interestingly this rivalry isn't on that article, which suggests to me a lack of co-ordination about where this football rivalry information is being distributed. Perhaps it is time that we have a think about how it will be co-ordinated.

The English football team also have rivalries with Germany, Wales, Republic of Ireland, Scotland and France in addition to argentina. Perhaps an article on English football rivlary could be made, but personally I dont think any of these rivalries including this one are worth their own article.

So as a result I am suggesting that this article be partially cut down and reinserted into more relevant pages such as the argentine football team, english football team pages as well as incident specific pages such as the hand of god article. I will leave this here for a week or so and guage opinion on the matter and then from the arguements put forward I will decide whether to nominate this for an AfD. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 14:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to say you don't have a point to start a vote on AfD, but there are a couple of things you are forgetting:

Having this article solves the problem on having the same information both in the Argentina national football team and the English counterpart.
If a single goal has an article, why wouldn't a rivalry?
Major football rivalries has only club-level rivalries, and a couple of references to nationals.
Argentina has other rivalries other than Brazil and England, but currently those are the most important ones. I guess something similar happens with England.
Breaking down the article would create a series of very short articles; wich doesn't sound like a better option.

just my 2 cents. --Mariano(t/c) 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree fully with Mariano. Even having read the reasons for this article possibly being put forward for deletion, I still see no reason why this article should not remain. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the solution may be to broaden the scope of this article into two seperate articles on English football rivalries and Argentine football rivalries, as both sides have rivalries with other nations to, which makes this article a bit 2 dimensional, because it suggests the rivlary with argentina is unique for england and vice versa, which we've established isn't the case for either side. If we consider another rivlary, the Oxbrdige Rivalry thats a unique rivalry between two universities, so the article is justified, but here the rivalries are not specifically unique or out of the ordinary. The interesting thing is, in the case of England, the rivlary with Germany, France, Wales and Scotland is often more prominent than the one with Argentina, yet here is the one with the article. I wonder if this is the same for Argentina, perhaps these days the rivalry with Chile is more obvious than that with England? So maybe expanding this into two seperate, broader articles? WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 07:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know from the English point of view; I can only tell you from the Argentine one: Brazil has been the greatest Argentine rivalry since somewere after the 50s/60s, and still is. England started frowing into one since the 1966 world cup (or perhaps a bit earlier).

Uruguay was an important rivalry, but Uruguay hasn't been doing pretty well for quite some time, and it can't be called a rivalry anymore; what's more, we actually helped them in the last two World Cup Qualifiers (and I can even source that).

Chile has never been a football rivalry inspite of the political conflicts we had in the past, probably because they never got to be that good neither in national teams nor clubs.

So, I think it is accurate to say that Argentina's main football rivalries are Brazil and England.

About splitting in Argentine rivalries and English rivalries, you will have duplicate information there. --Mariano(t/c) 12:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree again with Mariano. I would also say that the rivalry England have with Scotland and Germany is on a similar level to that with Argentina, but any rivalry between England and both France & Wales is not more prominent than the rivalry with Argentina.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hernan Crespo talking about a match between Argentina-England: Es un clásico (sic) internacional. Es lo más cerca que hay a un Argentina-Brasil y significa mucho (Is an international derby. Is the closest thing to an Argentina-Brazil and have a great significance)[7] Jor70 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Newly reference: Alfio Basile A 'classico' for Argentina is a game against Brazil in first place, England in second and then Uruguay," he said. telegraph.co.uk --Jor70 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1977

Why is the 1977 match not reported on here? Trvor Cherry and Daniel Bertoni were both sent off for fighting after and illegal tackle by Cherry prompted Bertoni to knock two of his teeth out. Surely that merits inclusion?--Jackyd101 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any references to that match? Newspaper article or similar? --Mariano(t/c) 18:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Jackyd101, if you wish to see the 1977 match on here then by all means add it if you have a verifiable source.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I got some sources, some of wich have other 'perls':[8][9][10][11][12][13] --Mariano(t/c) 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not verified tags

Just to explain why I added the various not verified tags. Whole sections of the article contained content that whilst it is no doubt correct, was added without any sources at all. That might be ok, but on top of that other edits were made adding to these, again without any sources. The tags aren't because I believe all the information to be incorrect, just that it would help the article if reliable sources could be found and added for those sections, which has now happened and this is (in my opinion) to the benefit of the article. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree with Kevin's deletion of the 1980 game fact. Its was a goal against England directly linked with the Goal of the Century Jor70 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Its only link with the "GotC" (which is not the subject of this article anyway) is that it was scored by the same player against the same team. Unless you can verify that every time Maradona had a chance to score, against any English goalkeeper, he attempted to bring the ball around him, it is totally irrelevant. It is a gross generalisation to say that just because a player was given advice on how to beat Ray Clemence that this is relevant to the best method of beating Peter Shilton: if such an assumption is made purely on the basis of their nationality, it is almost tantamount to racism. Kevin McE 07:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Kevin came on, had you seen the 1980 goal ? Is the same of 1986 just instead of dribbling the GK, Diego shoot in front of him and miss. Its was a key factor that he remember this during the Goal of the Century ! Jor70 11:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean the one that wasn't a goal ;@) There were some similarities, although it was by no means the only attempt on goal in history that went "turn, run insider a defender, shoot" in the history of the game: there were considerable differences as well. Can you really verify that out of all of the discussions about opportunities of scoring that Maradona had had in the intervening 6 years, this one was pressing on his consciousness as he made his way through the England defence? And even if it did, what bearing did it have on the rivalry between the teams. Kevin McE 12:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I already add two references, Diego always said that in that moment he remember what his brother told him Jor70 12:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

All very interesting I must say.

A couple of things: 1. Ramon Barrota (the Uruguayan referee) who took charge of the Arg-Eng game in 1977 at La Boca is the only man to have refereed in two World Cup Finals (1974 and 1978) - see my entry on wikipedia.

2. It is true that there was a comment that Maradona had made in relation to his miss against England in 1980 to his brother and whereas I understand that in the heat of battle he wouldn't have been thinking of his brother there is considerable evidence that that match in Mexico took on significance for him way beyond a football game. In anyevent you can see his move against England at Wembley in 1980 on you tube and I would encourage anyone to see it; it's magical. And a good point of comparison with what he does in 1986.

I think, in addition to this, that the purpose of the 'Rivalry' page should be to do, should it not, with the non-football significance of the rivalry. And just as a point of interest I would suggest the conversation that he had with his brother - having been a matter of record - should, at least be included as a tangent.

3. It is interesting what Tangerine is saying about racism; there's also a need here (perhaps) to address both sides of the coin and not just accept things from an English perspective. In 1966 it is a point of reference that England's manager decried the Argentinians but there's also record that England were a tough side in those days. Jackie Charlton's booking - of course - in that game lead DIRECTLY to the advent of the yellow and red cards [see my entry on Ken Aston on wikipedia]. So by putting in Onega's comment and that remark about Stiles against France I was trying to address both sides of the argument; of course Argentina disrupted with a series of fouls during the game but when you see the game you'll realise that England, like the Dutch in 1978, gave as good as they got.

4. On the point about the referees; the fall out from Ramsey's comment was pronounced but - and I struggle to lay my hands on the record of it - there was also doubts regarding the manner in which both remaining South American sides were eliminated that day having three men sent off in fiesty matches by German and English referees (see my entries to Jack Finney and Herr Kreitlein). Brazil had already been eliminated - bemoaning the inadequacies of George McCabe (see my entry). So there - as well as the comment of Ramsey - was the added doubts and suspicion regarding the way the tournament seemed to be conspired against the South Americans. Remember Rous was FIFA President, Aston in charge of the Referees at the time. That may have resulted in the manner in which the English were 'welcomed' in Mexico four years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve bloomer (talk • contribs) 21:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick response on the third point. It was Kevin McE and not me who mentioned racism. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And that very qualified suggestion was in response to the gross generalisation implicit in the idea that the way to beat Shilton must be the same as the way to beat Clemence, imply because they were both English. I in no way wish to level an accusation of racism at any editor here. Kevin McE 19:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify that I didn't take it as such, I just took it in the context within which you were saying it, andno-one appears to have taken it as any sort of accusation so no worries! I only mentioned it to clarify it wasn't me who said it. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Do I therefore need to clarify that I didn't take it that you didn't take it that I didn't.... Kevin McE 18:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I do believe so - you should indeed clarify that you didn't take it that I didn't take it that little did she know that I nkew that she knew...... Or something like that anyway.... ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] world cup 1962

inglaterra 3-argentina 1 no esta!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.226.129.196 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Home Nations

What is the relevance of this section? The article is about the rivalry between two teams, not a record of matches between them, and even less a record of matches between countries that happen to have a political affiliation to one or other of them. Are we going to list England's results against Bolivia, Chile and Uruguay too? Kevin McE (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fully agreed, the title is Argentina and England football rivalry not Argentina and England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales rivalry. I would strongly suggest that the section needs to be removed as irrelevant to this article. Adding the match results from Argentina vs England matches is, in my opinion, a good idea but the Home Nations section is a step too far.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 14-05-1953 - Buenos Aires - Argentina 3 - 1 England - Friendly

Add a Match missing in the list of meetings (RSSSF: See matches number 255)