This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Uruguay High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Uruguay, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to sport in Uruguay. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.UruguayWikipedia:WikiProject UruguayTemplate:WikiProject UruguayUruguay articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Football High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	1930 FIFA World Cup is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 11, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 20, 2007 Peer review Reviewed June 14, 2007 Good article nominee Listed June 21, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept August 31, 2009 Peer review Reviewed December 12, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted October 22, 2022 Featured article review Demoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on July 30, 2005, July 30, 2006, July 30, 2007, July 30, 2008, July 30, 2009, July 30, 2011, July 30, 2013, July 30, 2014, July 30, 2017, July 30, 2018, July 30, 2020, July 30, 2021, July 30, 2022, and July 30, 2023. Current status: Former featured article

Strictly speaking, this wasn't the first World Cup. It was the first FIFA World Cup. Sir Thomas Lipton organised an international tournament, in the early 1900's which was also dubbed the The Sir Thomas Lipton Trophy or "The Lipton Crown of Italy World Cup" (websites differ on the name), so I'm not sure whether the words "World Cup" were used contemporaneously.

See:

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/congress/9/worldcup.htm

http://www.west-auckland.wear-valley-web.co.uk/history/WorldCup.htm

http://www.rsssf.com/tablesl/lipton-trophy.html

Mintguy 21:52 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thomas Lipton Cup couldn't be First World Cup in modern terms as it was club competition.

AlexCzech 11:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Strictly speaking that was very euro-centric...The Lipton Trophy was played between club on 1909, the Torneo Internazionale Stampa Sportiva was played on 1908 also by clubs...but the Copa Lipton (yes, the same name) was played on South America from 1905 to 1992 between Argentina and Uruguay, so, national teams! They also play the Newton Cup from 1906...and to clubs, the first international competition was the Tie Cup, played from 1900 with clubs from both sides of the Río de la Plata... 181.29.116.218 ( talk) 19:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Football World Cup 1930 → 1930 FIFA World Cup – following the consensus of naming the World Cup articles as FIFA World Cup in Wikipedia, and consistency of naming the major international football tournaments.

Discuss here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Competitions#Requested move of Football World Cup articles. -- Pkchan 10:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Moved per requested move. -- Pkchan 12:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

What is the point of this section? It was a knockout tournament! I'll remove unless anyone has a good reason to keep it. Guinnog 07:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Removing, also for 1934. Guinnog 06:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Removing again. Please justify why this should be here, rather than reverting it again Guinnog 17:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The rankings were used by FIFA to determine seeds in recent years. The tables from 1978 to present are valid and for consistency we can include the ones from 1930-1974 as well. For that matter FIFA has ranked the early tournaments anyway and a document with those rankings can be found here http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/releases/en/fwc_origin_en.pdf Libro0 17:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The best reason I can think of is the fact that they are now official. It would be a good addition to the articles. In fact I am not sure why they aren't included. Libro0 ( talk) 02:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Strange, the Spanish wikipedia claims that the third-place match was planned but that Yugoslavia refused to play in protest against partial refereeing in their semifinal. Can anyone confirm or disprove this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.244.139.218 ( talk • contribs) 08:03, June 23, 2006.

I did this search and I can't find any evidence of such a claim. Perhaps we could ask over there what the evidence is for the assertion? If true, this is an interesting fact. -- Deville ( Talk) 22:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I asked on the talk page of the Spanish article to see if anyone had a source for this. If anyone answers me over there, we can add it here. -- Deville ( Talk) 23:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply

On the Spanish wikipedia they cite an article in Spanish saying that there was no third place game but, the US earned third by goal diffential -- Coasttocoast 23:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC) reply

The Yugoslav national news article claiming a medal in their possesion indicates third-place is actually a first place (1er) medal. How would that be refuted in a Wikipedia article? Also, are the metallurgic composition of the medals from this event known?

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politika.rs%2Frubrike%2FSport%2Fsportske-price%2FMedalja-iz-doma-Hadzijevih-svedochi-da-smo-bili-treci-na-Mundijalu.sr.html&sl=auto&tl=en -- Fixblor 9:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the proof - a 3rd place cup in their hands: http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Reportaza/172669/Kada-su-fudbaleri-primili-prve-plate Also, form reliable resources, the 2nd goal for Urugai (when result was 1:1) in semifinal was scored after policeman returned the ball into the game from goal-out :)! Same source sais there was NO 3rd place match - Yugoslavia (Serbian players only) was 3rd by agreement because Uruguay took the 1st place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.112.62 ( talk) 20:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC) reply

For the Chile-Mexico game on 16 July, FIFA says the first two goals were scored by Subiabre for Chile. RSSSF says they were scored by Vidal and an own goal by Rosas of Mexico. Which is it? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I would always go with FIFA; it's their tournament. -- Guinnog 00:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Likewise in the Argentina-Chile game of 22 July, FIFA says the Chile goal was scored by Subiabre, while RSSSF says Arellano. There appear to be a LOT of these inconsistencies in the Wikipedia data; it makes sorting out who's who and what's what very difficult if not impossible. RSSSF is considered by some to be authoritative. What's Wikipolicy here? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

And again: Romania-Peru, 14 July: FIFA says the first goal was scored by Desu, RSSSF says Stanciu. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

That would be WP:V, and I'd find it hard to trump FIFA as the policy says: "...refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers", and they are surely reputable publishers and fact-checkers of their own tournament. Interesting discrepancy though, as you say. -- Guinnog 00:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I understand that, but RSSSF isn't just some dude with a website; it's pretty serious. And these are dramatic differences. Whether or not FIFA is a reliable fact-checker of 1930 events is open to SOME question. I'd like someone with knowledge of this situation to weigh in before just changing it all wholesale.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Another one: was the second USA goal on 17 July an own goal by González of Paraguay (RSSSF) or a regular goal by Tom Florie (FIFA), or a goal by Bert Patenaude (widely believed but disproven)? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, I found this, from FIFA World Cup goalscorers: "In earlier tournaments, FIFA match reports are known to be inaccurate, so Cris Freddi's book Complete Book of the World Cup 2006 is used as the most authentic known publication." Hmm.\ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

That's very interesting and surprising. Hmmm indeed. -- Guinnog 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, I'm not going to make any changes until I read Freddi's book. I assume that the figures for RSSSF, Freddi, and Wikipedia are in agreement, though with the number of errors I'm finding, I wonder. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh dear. That page ( FIFA World Cup goalscorers) and presumably that book credits Bert Patenaude with 4 goals, presumably counting the hat trick whereas FIFA and RSSSF don't. So yet more discrepencies. Jooler 12:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh, I hadn't noticed that. I AM noticing that WHOEVER is right, the Wiki pages are LOADED with internal inconsistencies -- even knowing very little in the way of verifiable concrete facts about the 1930 Cup, I know that what we have here is a stinky stew, with multiple pages disagreeing with each other.

The more I read about RSSSF, the more I'm inclined to just take them for it, as they HAVE done the research. However, their authoritativeness is undermined by some egregious misspellings of players' names, which is another area where Wikipedia is in a dire condition. RSSSF's official statistics report for 1930, at www.rsssf.com/tables/30full.html, lists "Prequinho", "Scopello" and "Sousa" in the Scorer's List, despite spelling them correctly (Preguinho, Scopelli, Souza or Souza-Ferriera) in the game summaries.

Names are a big issue with me -- it is VERY DIFFICULT to tell players apart when they are customarily referred to in four or five different ways, as is common with Brazilian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Mexican players especially. The non-Latin-character-set players can be problematic as well. There are also players with similar but different names who in some places are receiving credit for each other's goals and stuff. I've also noticed that MANY redlinked players actually DO have pages, just under another version of their name. Man, this needs some serious effort to clean up.

I can't believe that the most popular game in the world has its most basic facts in doubt -- in baseball, by contrast, the most mundane statistical details of players from the 1870s are minutely recorded. Well, I guess you could call it an opportunity.... \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 18:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, here's what I did: I changed ALL the goals to the FIFA officially-reported goals. This is in accordance with WP:V, which states among other things that the goal is not truth but verifiability. To seriously do the research to figure out what the truth is would be original research and thus not allowed here. FIFA is the official source even if they are wrong. As verification I have inserted a Report link to EACH match, which is the official FIFA report for that match -- not trivia, not some journalist's article, not an unverified web page, but the real deal according to the people who run the game.

However, to cover the bases, I have added ref tags, with notes below indicating exactly which goals are disputed, and to whom RSSSF credits them. I did this for goals where RSSSF reports a different time as well. The RSSSF report is linked in the External Links section, so these corrections, whether true or otherwise, can be verified.

I then corrected the Scorers Table to reflect the FIFA results. The entire page now reflects BOTH the FIFA official reports AND the RSSSF disagreements. Wikipedia is not the place to hash out the truth; it is an encyclopedia, and thus gives the references. I might be more amenable to using the RSSSF figures instead IF I could find anywhere a detailed description and justification for why they think the FIFA reports are wrong. For Wikipedia to say, as it does in the goalscorers article, that "everyone knows the official reports are wrong" requires at a minimum a serious citation for why this is so. None is presented here or there. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 00:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Groups in the 1930 and subsequent world cups were not called "A", "B", "C", "D"; they were called by ordinal or roman numbers, as in "Groups 1-4" or "I-IV", or "First-Fourth", as far as I know. Letters were used for the first time in 1974, when the first round groups were called "1-4" and the second round groups "A" and "B". According to Oceano's "Enciclopedia Mundial del Futbol", Vol. 1, "El Libro del Mundial" by Eduardo Arias ( ISBN  958-02-0853-0), and the fifaworldcup.com site's " Previous world cups" section (under "Results"), this is how the gropus were called in the world cups:

This is an often ignored detail and it might be very trivial, but I think it would be worth it to make the change to help achieve greater accuracy. - ChaChaFut 00:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Has anyone got any information on the World Cup referees for the first tournament? Am looking to fill in some biographical details and enter some category. Please check my Jean Langenus entry for ideas. One of the people I am most interested in finding out about is Thomas Balway. Further information on him would be most appreciated.

I reverted an edit that pit an "Awards" subheading as I think it is excessive to create an extra subheading just for a box with a flag in it. Oldelpaso 17:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Please address the one issue below and let me know...

1. Fair use rationale needs to be added to Image:1930 Football World Cup poster.jpg

Jazznutuva 08:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Laurent's memories are fuzzy when he affirms that it was snowing in the match France v Mexico. It never snows in Montevideo. I added a phrase that pointed this out, but it was removed. I think it should be stated that, even though Laurent did say that, it wasn't like that. I'm not sure which is the best way to point this out, though. Opinions? Ipsumesse ( talk) 12:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It can snow in Montevideo, albeit rarely. Laurent is the only source we have. Perhaps it was hail not snow or something, but the quote is clearly attributed to Laurent. The only way to get further verifiable information would be to look in archives of contemporary Uruguayan newspapers. At a pinch, a footnote could be used. Oldelpaso ( talk) 08:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I also guess that it might have been just some kind of hail. I just think we should point out that Laurent's statement is not probable, maybe as you suggest, in a footnote indicating this inconsistency. I'll see if I can check out if there was any snowing in Montevideo in the '30s. In the while, what do we do? A footnote? Ipsumesse ( talk) 13:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply

"The US team, which contained one ex-professional of British origin,[14] and some international migrants along with mostly natural-born players, were reputedly dubbed "the shot-putters" by an unnamed source in the French contingent"

Can we delete those sentences? The make up of no other team is discussed, and it seems rather silly to comment on the US team as if it was anything special. I don't think this is the proper article for that. Farkeld ( talk) 10:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:James Bond/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am reassessing this articles GA status as part of the WP:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps process. Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria. Proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • This article is reasonably well written. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   b ( MoS):

   • The article complies sufficiently with the MoS. Jezhotwells ( talk) 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • There are a number of dead links, shown at { http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=1930_FIFA_World_Cup}; others such as premium Tv and sky ports have moved and redirect to the front page of the web site. I have reformatted several cites which were bare html links. There are others which need converting using citation templates. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)  Done Jezhotwells ( talk) 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • { http://www.v-brazil.com/} is not a reliable source. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)  Done Jezhotwells ( talk) 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   c ( OR):

   • No evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • The article is broad in scope Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   b (focused):

   • and focussed. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • NPOV Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • The article is stable Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • tagged and licensed Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Captions OK Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • I am placing the article on hold for seven days whilst the references are fixed, otherwise OK. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   • OK looks to be all fixed now, GA status confirmed. Jezhotwells ( talk) 17:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I concur with this. if you look at the pages for the individual players, 10 were born in the US, 5 in Scotland, and 1 in the UK. Of the foreign-born players only 3 played overseas--and one of those did so after starting his career in the US. Also, almost all of the foreign born players came over to the US as youth. Glanville is not known for his neutrality. At the least, replacing "migrants" with "immigrants" would be preferable and more neutral. Kgilbert78 ( talk) 16:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

A few years ago, FIFA seem to have decided that the USA finished third and Yugoslavia fourth. Does anyone have the details of when and why this was done? first remember it in this press release for the 2006 World Cup giving full rankings for all previous World Cups. Was it just somebody updating the website who decided to fit a square peg into a round hole, or was there an official announcement, as there have been when, say, goals are reassigned or squad players awarded medals? It's not good enough for this and other articles simply to cite FIFA saying that USA were third and Yugoslavia fourth; an explanation for the discrepancy is required. jnestorius^{( talk)} 10:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

To part-answer my own question, the technical committee's reports have included full rankings since 1986: Mexico report, part 6 PDF p.230, shows Yugoslavia in 4th place. So the 2005 press release was not an innovation. But I'm still not happy:

1. I doubt that the 1930 rankings were assigned in 1930 or any time soon after. The first technical report was for the 1966 World Cup, and none up to 1982include retrospective rankings.
2. As late as 2002, the Yugoslavia result was still given as "semi final" rather than "4th place" in FIFA's website.
   • USA: Semi-final 1930 FIFA World Cup Uruguay cf
   • CRO: 3rd, 1998 FIFA World Cup France
   • BEL: 4th 1986 FIFA World Cup Mexico
3. The 3-4 distinction in 1930 seems to be qualitatively the same as ranking losing quarter-finalists 5-6-7-8. Unless we are to give, say, Ireland's best result as "8th" rather than "Quarter-Final", it seems inconsistent to give Yugoslavia 4th rather than Semi-Final.

There is no point in speculating about how much thought went into FIFA's decision to escalate this one factoid from a statistical footnote to the general website. Since it has their imprimatur, Wikipedia must abide. However, there is nothing to prevent us putting a footnote against references to this 3rd-4th statistic at the relevant mentions on Wikipedia, to explain the anomaly. jnestorius^{( talk)} 12:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Oldelpaso, I thought it better to leave some comments here rather than clutter up the main FAC. Hope they help:

• I would prefer "1930 FIFA World Cup was the first FIFA World Cup" be reworded so we don't repeat FIFA World Cup if possible, or if we do, separate it a little further, e.g. "1930 FIFA World Cup was the inaugural edition of the world championship ... – the FIFA World Cup." or similar.
• I would also expand and use association football in the first instance, so we don't terribly confuse the rest of our "footballing" buddies. Thereafter football is fine on its own.
• "chose Uruguay" - perhaps "selected Uruguay as the host nation"?
• "who beat Mexico" - would prefer "defeated", but that's personal.
• You have "3 confederations" in the infobox but this isn't expanded upon in the article. I think they should be identified.

I have removed this from the infobox since it is a misnomer. Neither CONCACAF nor its predecessors existed in 1930.

• ": 1920–1928" - why not just prose it : "from 1920 to 1928".
• Don't we normally capitalised The for The Football Association?
• No need to relink FA in the participants section.
• "the sea trip" "the trip by sea"?
• "This is the same vessel ..." which vessel? You haven't mentioned one, just that they embarked at Barcelona... OH, I get it. Same ship picked them up... perhaps not clear enough?

Restated "Conte Verde" to avoid confusion.

• "This is the same vessel which carried..." You could just say "The same vessel carried..."?
• "plus Thomas Balway" "along with Thomas..."?
• Is Balway's wife's death strictly relevant here?
• Perhaps Summary should be "Tournament summary"?
• "on July 13" previously, your date format was DD MM YYYY, this appears to be reversed?
• Be consistent with relinking the teams. You relinked the USA and Mexico but not France and Belgium...
• Laurent's quote here has a hyphen where it should be a spaced en dash or unspaced em dash (i think!)
• "The US team" - can we stick with USA as this appears (so far) to be the only time you drop the A.
• Can you check our MOS for how to space ellipses? The caption for the ball images has two of them, I'm not sure if they need a space before/after them...
• Two single-sentence paras in the Final section isn't great for me.
• July 30 - date consistency again?
• "disagreement ... disagreed" - repetitive prose, maybe you could "failed to agree" the second time round?
• I think the links to the main articles need en-dashes as well, even if this does mean creating some redirects.
• What sources the attendances in the results section? Mainly concerned over that 300 vs 2,500odd one.
• Why do the scorelines have spaces between the goals and the en-dash? Isn't that contrary to MOS?
• Second semi final has attendance of 93,000 while final has 80,000 - this conflicts with the prose?
• MOSFLAG for using flags without country names in the scorers list.

This is one of those where I never know what the correct approach is. Isn't there a clause about sports statistics being an exception? I've tried changing the flagicon templates to flag templates.

• Note 1 has spare .
• Don't mix date formats in the references. All human-readable or all ISO.
• Ref 10 - we have an archiveurl field in the cite web for this kind of thing, as you used in ref 11?
• Ref 15 could use a space after the language parameter.
• Ref 33 and Ref 35 use RSSSF differently.
• Ref 36 the page number isn't p. x (it's px) unlike other page refs here.
• Ref 48 could use an en-dash.
• Ext links - first one needs an endash, second one is odd (that note about different goals) - does it make it a good source to link to really? Third one could use a spaced en-dash.

On reflection, the latter two might as well be removed.

Hope these help. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. This is just a flying visit – I'm about to be rendered offline until Sunday. Hopefully I'll be able to work on it then. Oldelpaso ( talk) 17:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Done apart from the attendances. which I'll have to think about. The attendances in the results list are from the FIFA page linked in each one. However, in the prose the attendance for the final also uses a FIFA source, so FIFA aren't consistent themselves. Most books use 93,000 for the final. Oldelpaso ( talk) 15:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

That's fine but your summary of the final says 80,000 but 93,000 in the prose, while the semi-final says 93,000 in the summary.... am I getting something wrong here?! The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Standard practice in football competition articles when using the footballbox template is to use spaces between the en dashes, as is shown in the template's documentation. cassius1213 19:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, why is Chile ranked above Brazil? Chile had more points from the group stage, but also played one extra game. Is this from some official FIFA source? Grover cleveland ( talk) 17:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Perhaps mentioning that Yugoslavia squad consisted only of Serbian players could be a useful addition to the Participants section. Prior to the World Cup Yugoslav national championships between 1926 and 1930 were all won by clubs from Croatia ( Građanski Zagreb, Hajduk Split and Concordia Zagreb) and players from those clubs were regularly included in Yugoslavia squads for the 1924 and 1928 Olympics as well as various international friendlies. However, due to political circumstances at the time of the January 6th Dictatorship (which lasted between 1929 and 1934), the Football Association of Yugoslavia moved its headquarters from Zagreb (where it had been originally founded in 1919) in Croatia to Yugoslavia's capital Belgrade in Serbia in May 1930, two months before the 1930 World Cup. In protest, Croatian clubs decided to boycott the national team and in response the Belgrade-based football federation sent a team which consisted of players from Serbian clubs (mostly based in or near Belgrade) plus three Serbian players who played in France. Therefore their win against Brazil was seen as a remarkable achievement at home as many players who had made the World Cup squad were seen as second string players. On the other hand, despite the fact that Croatian clubs had dominated Yugoslav football in the late 1920s, not a single Croat had appeared in the 1930 World Cup (and neither did the Slovenian Maksimilijan Mihelčić who was at the time the Yugoslav national team's first choice goalkeeper). If others agree with including something about this in the article, I could look up references to back this up. Timbouctou ( talk) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Am I right to think the tournament was not officially called the "World Cup" at the time, but rather the "World Championship"? It's common to use the name of a trophy as a metonym for the competition, but I think the official naming history is something like this:

The posters and logos of tournaments are as follows:

Of course I'm not suggesting the article should be moved to "1930 World football championship" or the like, but if the former official name was something other than "World Cup" then it ought to be given in the lede. jnestorius^{( talk)} 16:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Nop jnestorius, you can see the medals "Coupe du Monde" https://media.elobservador.com.uy/adjuntos/181/imagenes/007/478/0007478052.jpg Also in all argentine newspapers of that time are called Copa del Mundo or Mundial 181.29.116.218 ( talk) 21:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC) reply

WOuld it make sense to state in the attribute what country Laurent is from? I don't know who he is and had to look him up to see why he would be quoted there. COuld something like this be added "member of the French team" or was he the by chance the Captain and we could say, "Captain of French team"? Rhodesisland ( talk) 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Alaska didn't become a state until 1959. Grover cleveland ( talk) 06:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC) reply

True, but it was indeed part of the USA, just it was a territory. Alaskans were citizens, and would have been eligible for the national team, if there were any good enough. But I doubt there were many soccer players in Alaska then. Wschart ( talk) 16:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.fourfourtwo.premiumtv.co.uk/page/BigRead/0,,11442~1034860,00.html
  • In Football at the 1924 Summer Olympics on 2011-03-19 09:19:42, 404 Not Found
  • In 1930 FIFA World Cup on 2011-05-25 03:01:09, 404 Not Found
  • In 1930 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-02 03:48:35, 404 Not Found

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 03:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/developing/refereeing/news/newsid=71490.html
  • In 1930 FIFA World Cup on 2011-05-25 03:00:56, 404 Not Found
  • In 1930 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-02 03:48:44, 404 Not Found

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://home.skysports.com/worldcup/historyarticle.aspx?hlid=373666
  • In 1930 FIFA World Cup on 2011-05-25 03:00:57, 403 Forbidden
  • In 1930 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-02 03:48:56, 403 Forbidden

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC) reply

in which place did the first worldcup played? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.162.163 ( talk) 13:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply

There have been a few edits recently about the third/fourth place issue, putting Yugoslavia third. This is a murky area, but all the points of view are explained and attributed in the Third and fourth place section. If changes are to occur anywhere, it should be in that section that it is done. In terms of the actual third and fourth positions in the infobox etc, if we are to separate the USA and Yugoslavia, it is FIFA's tournament, so it is their ranking that we use.

There is also a slow burning edit was as to the exact flag and name used for Yugoslavia. I suggest the editors involved discuss it here instead of just switching it back and forth. Oldelpaso ( talk) 20:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Bronze Medal from Montevideo proves that Yugoslavia was 3rd. Its real since sing on medal is written in Spanish and year is 1930. There isn't better evidence than this is real medal. ^{Snake bgd} 20:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Here is translation form the text form Newspaper: "Bronze Medal, unique in-house, is the legacy of Dr. Kosta and it testifies to the success of most of our football. This is proof that we were third, although most states for decades that we have completed the distribution of the seats, and Fifa's website today says: 3 place the United States, 4th Yugoslavia. So it was after all - 3rd Yugoslavia, 4th United States - and one of the explanations for such an order is that we lost in the semifinals of the World Cup and that is why we have the advantage over the Americans." ^{Snake bgd} 20:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

(edit conflict) I am aware of the existence of that medal, and that Serbian sources have published articles about it (it is already included in the Third and fourth place section). In the article, we can say that those sources claim 3rd place for Yugoslavia on the basis of the medal. But FIFA is the ultimate authority for the competition, and at present FIFA's literature lists the USA as third. It is not permitted for us to choose what is "better evidence", we merely report what the sources say. You said on my talk page that you have contacted FIFA about it in the hope that FIFA will make a change. If FIFA come out and change their records, then we can change things here. But we should not be making such changes pre-emptively. Oldelpaso ( talk) 21:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

In any case, a bronze medal would not be conclusive proof - there is also evidence that the USA captain was awarded a bronze medal [1]. Oldelpaso ( talk) 21:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Newspapers form 1930. On July 31 1930, page 9, title translated form Serbian (Uruguay is third time World champion; Yugoslavia takes third place). Also on August 1 1930, page 8, both national teams Yugoslavia and USA made deal, main title form newspaper is (Bloody clashes in Argentina over lost game), subtitle (Why we didn't play against USA). ^{Snake bgd} 21:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Would it be possible to provide fuller translations of those articles? Oldelpaso ( talk) 21:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Sure but look there is also bronze medal form Yugoslavian captain, this confuse me most. ^{Snake bgd} 21:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Its possible that USA and Yugoslavia split 3rd place. ^{Snake bgd} 21:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

There's a lot of unknowns here. The two player medals have the same design (the goddess Nike, and the FIFA logo at the bottom). The Hadži medal is inscribed with "A U DE F", which is presumably Asociación Uruguaya de Fútbol. As to exactly when and why they were awarded, we can only speculate. There's a lot from this World Cup where details are unclear and sources contradict each other! Oldelpaso ( talk) 22:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I will edit with all references official and unofficial. Bought medals will be in references. ^{Snake bgd} 22:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

The medals are evidence of what FIFA did in 1930. We are responsible for reporting the case as it is known in 2013. The truth in 2013 is that FIFA reports third place as having been credited uniquely to the US. We might individually believe that it is unreasonable of FIFA to have made such a conclusion 56 years after the event, but we cannot as encyclopaedic editors pretend that they did not. Kevin McE ( talk) 00:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Completely agreed with you. ^{Snake bgd} 00:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply

The "bronze" medals where given to all the captains of the NO finalist teams, look the Chile's captain one: https://i0.wp.com/magiccity.soccer/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/1930-medal.png (Was the captain of the first 2 matches, don't play on the last match) 181.29.116.218 ( talk) 21:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC) reply

The other issue mentioned by the OP is that of the flag. It seems counter-intuitive to represent the country by its naval flag in a realm that clearly has no direct connection to maritime forces. I will restore the KoY flag, and ask that compelling reason for the naval flag be presented before any restoration of that variant. Kevin McE ( talk) 18:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Picture form Kingdom proving that was real flag in 1930. Without coat of arms was people flag and with it it was state flag. ^{Snake bgd} 21:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply

According to this website the national flag was without the coat of arms, opposed to the state flag. In sports competitions national flags are normally used and unless sources claiming the opposite are found I see no reason to make an exception for 1930 Yugoslavia. (According to vexillological markings by Helmer, the state version was used on public buildings and on unarmed government vessels. The national version without the coat of arms was meant to be used by citizens on land). Timbouctou ( talk) 09:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reply

If you have a look at the surviving footage from the 1930 opening ceremony, the Yugoslavian delegation is filmed close-up for a few seconds at 1:37. The actual flag on the pole is unidentifiable (as is that for Bolivia a couple of seconds later), but the guy at the front of the Yugoslavian group is fussing with and showing off another flag, a triband which clearly has no coat of arms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JvzbPq2GX4 84.92.8.221 ( talk) 13:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

The Uruguayan media was also impressed by the Peruvian performance. See [2]. The current structure of the paragraph places Peru in bad light, making it seem as if the Peruvians were happy to lose. The pride comes in the style and form of play shown by the Peruvian team, lauded both in Peru and Uruguay.-- MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Fixed the problem.-- MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Why is there used flag of Argentina without sun? It's not symbol of Argentina. Actual flag of Argentina was used before 1930 World Cup Aight 2009 ( talk) 20:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Can someone add Yugoslavia to the participant map? 1.126.255.253 ( talk) 02:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I see both the reports and goalscoring data is missed from the main page, remaining only in the groups' articles. I think that info is too important for remaining hidden in another article, and it should be brought back. Besides, it's a bit incoherent to use different game-formats for the Group Phase and the Knockout Stages. Ipsumesse ( talk) 23:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Why was "not" played the Third Place Match? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.88.217.93 ( talk) 07:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Because this match was "not" established until 1934, for the only time in the history. Twillihero Grumicker ( Messages) 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Is the fact that Bolivia's match versus Yugoslavia was the only one played by the Bolivians against non-South American opposition until 1972 not notable enough? 1982vdven ( talk) 17:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Not really. What difference does it make to anything? – Pee Jay 17:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

It shows how isolated Bolivia was in footballing terms compared to other nations that participated in early World Cups. 1982vdven ( talk) 17:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm failing to see the significance. – Pee Jay 18:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

If a country plays 90 internationals over a span of several decades, and only one of those is against an opponent outside of their own continent (and which happens to take place during the World Cup), is that not significant? 1982vdven ( talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Not really. Kante4 ( talk) 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, because such a situation was common with teams that took part in 1930, right? Oh wait, no it wasn't. Even Cris Freddi comments on it in his book on the World Cup, I believe. 1982vdven ( talk) 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

First I would like to point out, that FIFA cannot be the ultimate source for everything. In numerous debates I was told that per Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources, the neutral, independent sources like newspapers can be better than what some organization has to say about itself on its webpage. So, why are we making exception here?

Second, the "proof" for USA 3rd place is Florie's medal, but Yugoslavia players got the exact same medal, seen here by Marjanović: http://sport.blic.rs/fudbal/svetski-fudbal/mocnici-vole-da-menjaju-fudbal-od-tirketa-i-mose-pa-do-mundijala-sa-48-reprezentacija/mtb6svt

Third: Yugoslavia has that other bronze medal that USA don't have, seen in many many sources:

• http://www.politika.rs/scc/clanak/133200/Medalja-iz-doma-Hadzijevih-svedoci-da-smo-bili-treci-na-Mundijalu
• http://www.blic.rs/vesti/reportaza/jos-uvek-sjaji-bronza-iz-montevidea/bk9m6en
• http://www.sdcafe.rs/vesti/gde-smo-danas-a-gde-smo-nekad-bili-el-grande-smederevci

Fourth, contemporary newspaper sources from 1930 indicate that Yugoslavia was third, that their anthem was played etc. and also explain why, there are also many, I'll put just one: http://digitalna.nb.rs/wb/NBS/novine/vreme/1930/08/01#page/7/mode/1up

So, there are no indications for USA third place except self published FIFA statements, that aren't supported by any relevant, contemporary or independent sources. Therefore I propose to put Yugoslavia in third place. Linhart ( talk) 10:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply

If noone will comment, I will put Yugoslavia in third. Linhart ( talk) 14:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply

All the captains of the non-finalist teams received "bronze" medals, not only those from the USA and Yugoslavia, as example the medal of the Chile's captain: https://i0.wp.com/magiccity.soccer/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/1930-medal.png 181.29.116.218 ( talk) 21:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 1930 FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927110220/http://montevideoproject.com/srpski/?page_id=192 to http://montevideoproject.com/srpski/?page_id=192
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140610005422/http://montevideoproject.com/srpski/category/da-li-ste-znali/ to http://montevideoproject.com/srpski/category/da-li-ste-znali/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222012747/http://www.fifaworldcup.webspace.virginmedia.com/1930_fifaworldcup.htm to http://www.fifaworldcup.webspace.virginmedia.com/1930_fifaworldcup.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6HkG7EIve?url=http://jaimepulgarvidal.blogspot.com/2007/02/peru-en-el-mundial-del-30.html to http://jaimepulgarvidal.blogspot.com/2007/02/peru-en-el-mundial-del-30.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017013954/http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Magazin/Sacuvana-medalja-Mose-Marjanovica.lt.html to http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Magazin/Sacuvana-medalja-Mose-Marjanovica.lt.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100503051629/http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Sport/sportske-price/Medalja-iz-doma-Hadzijevih-svedochi-da-smo-bili-treci-na-Mundijalu.sr.html to http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Sport/sportske-price/Medalja-iz-doma-Hadzijevih-svedochi-da-smo-bili-treci-na-Mundijalu.sr.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623154744/http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Reportaza/194796/Jos-uvek-sjaji-bronza-iz-Montevidea to http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Reportaza/194796/Jos-uvek-sjaji-bronza-iz-Montevidea

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply

This article fails criterion 2b of the featured article criteria: appropriate structure. There are too many one sentence/single paragraph sections. I can see that the structure matches that chosen for all FIFA World Cup articles, of which none except this one are featured articles. So, there is a decision to be made: keep the same structure here as the other articles and list the article for potential demotion, or change the structure of this article so that it is inconsistent with the others but consistent with the featured article criteria. Whether to change the other articles to match the featured structure is a decision that would need to be made across articles not just this one. DrKay ( talk) 15:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC) reply

The start time of the Yugoslavia v Brazil match was 14:45 (local), not 12:45 http://www.digitalna.nb.rs/wb/NBS/novine/vreme/1930/07/16#page/7/mode/1up Eu-football-info ( talk) 06:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Can you please point out where in that newspaper clipping it says what the kick-off time was? The official FIFA match report (see here) says kick-off was at 12:45, and I'm inclined to believe them. – Pee Jay 10:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

In the second column is written "Свака утакмица треба да почне тачно у 14.45 часове по тамошњем времену. 15 минута оставља се за поздраве и избор места. Наша утакмица почела jе тачно у 14.55 минута.". If translated from Serbian it means "Each match should begin exactly at 14.45 hours in the local time. 15 minutes left for greetings and a choice of place. Our match started at exactly 14.55 minutes.".

Also other newspaper wrote that the match was started at 15 hours http://www.digitalna.nb.rs/wb/NBS/novine/politika/1930/07/15#page/6/mode/1up At the top of the first column is written that the match was started at 3 o'clock Eu-football-info ( talk) 13:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The Brazilian newspaper also wrote about ~15:00 kick-off time http://memoria.bn.br/docreader/DocReader.aspx?bib=098027_03&pagfis=89 Eu-football-info ( talk) 15:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

If to believe this source http://memoria.bn.br/docreader/DocReader.aspx?bib=098027_03&pagfis=95 the match France v Argentina also was started at 15:00 (with greetings started at 14:45), not 16:00. I think all 1930 World Cup matches were scheduled for 13:00 (12:45 + greetings) or 15:00 (14:45 + greetings) Eu-football-info ( talk) 15:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

The Participating countries graphic is quite unclear what it is trying to represent the key references a number (including a very large 5-13 category) but no mention of what this is actually describing. I suggest it either needs to be removed, or updated to be more clear on what the numbers are supposed to represent. Fulner ( talk) 16:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC) reply

In the article there is no mention of Bulgaria, which was not among the 13 participating nations. But it may actually have been due to participate.

In a discussion in 2016, I said I personally wasn't aware of such a thing. However, today the official FIFA World Cup page on Facebook shared a poster of the 1930 World Cup that displays a total of 14 flags, including Bulgaria's.

This 2014 article by 24 chasa tells of the same poster. It says, among other things, that Bulgaria was one of the invited teams, but had to decline because the players couldn't get long enough leaves from work, and only then the invitation was instead given to Yugoslavia, which, boycotted by the Croats and composed only of players of two Belgrade clubs, went on to finish third, the best result in its history.

Although this implies that only one of Bulgaria and Yugoslavia was due to participate at any given time, a red-blue-white tricolour is depicted in the poster as well.

Meanwhile, the Bulgaria national football team article still has an unsourced section on the 1930 World Cup, which states, in its entirety, "Bulgaria's first qualification to a World Cup was for the first World Cup in 1930 in Uruguay. The national team had to cancel their entry due to flight delays caused by tropical storms and hurricanes on the Atlantic Ocean. Their original group stage opponents were set as Brazil, Yugoslavia and Bolivia."

I think that, if the credibility of such a thing can be established, Bulgaria should be mentioned as an invited non-participating team. -- Theurgist ( talk) 23:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Shouldn't the flag of Yugoslavia in the infobox be changed? This was in 1930, before the communist government which pushed in the flag with the red star in the middle. It's kind of a minor thing, and I was going to change it myself, but it said to discuss this on the talk page. Fernsong ( talk) 23:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Assessing as part of the ongoing FA sweeps at WP:URFA/2020. This article contains uncited statements, and uses a self-published source in a few spots (I've tagged the self-published spots). With these sourcing issues, this article currently does not meet WP:FACR and may require a featured article review. Hog Farm _Talk 22:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I am following up with the above, and I agree that there are issues with this article that cause it to no longer fulfil the FA criteria. My concerns include uncited statements, unreliable sources (like a blogspot), the "Last surviving players" section that I don't think is necessary, and a section about cultural depictions that should probably be included (ie a section that includes movies and other media that depict this event.) Is anyone interested in fixing this up? Z1720 ( talk) 01:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I have doubts that Egypt has lost the boat or even that it is registered in the championship, I have never been able to find any document or newspaper of the time that supports it, I think that this should be eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardo5890 ( talk • contribs) 06:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

https://koraapedia.com/%d9%85%d8%b5%d8%b1-%d9%81%d9%8a-%d8%aa%d8%b5%d9%81%d9%8a%d8%a7%d8%aa-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%85%d9%88%d9%86%d8%af%d9%8a%d8%a7%d9%84-%d8%ac1/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardo5890 ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The USA didn’t win. Uruguay did. Somedev123Gtg ( talk) 12:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply