Talk:Argentina–Brazil football rivalry

Help

The article has a number of things missing.

1. The incident of the contaminated bottles (Pinchex, that's your beloved Bilardo's bidon)
2. Cites from footballers of boths sides describing the importance of the rivalry
3. Pictures of games, grafitties, etc...
4. Maradona vs. Pele rivalry (an article of its own?) [1][2] [3][4] Cites:Figo Ronaldinho

Mariano(t/c) 10:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the Rocca Cup (Copa Rocca)? It was a trophy played in anual basis between Argentina and Brazil, from the 10's to the 70's. There's not a single mention about that in the article. marceloschleder ^Talk 18:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have sources, please add, we need it! Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Roca Cup sources :

1) http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Roca_Cup

2) http://www.rsssf.com/tablesr/roca.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.223.147.50 (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The 1983 youth teams

Both Argentina and Brasil had successful youth teams in 1983. In the final of the 1983 South-American competition (held in Bolivia), there were many incidents of violence (Argentines singled out Dunga as an especially dirty player). Both national teams reached the final of the world youth championship (held where?) (the rosters were basically unchanged) and the violence repeated itself. (Mariano: Arg's coach was one Carlos Pachamé...)

Calls by fans during matches

On one match in the late 60s, Pelé was playing very good—even by his high standards—and a frustrated Argentina fan shouted: Ché negro, teléfono ("Black [man], phone call [for you]").

Note: The usage of "negro" is not necessarily a racial slur in Argentina; many use it as a term of endearment; this is also true for Brazilians, who will often shorten it to "nego".

Don't play stupid, Argentinian.^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.182.24 (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't say a word if you don't have a clue of argentinian talking manners. "Negro", like stated before, is not even in the vacinity of being necessarily a racial or mean slur. You people can't help it to feel pursuited by that word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.244.218.22 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If the Argentina fan use first the word "Ché" as you say...not racial concept..."Ché negro, teléfono"...is more, that is a kindest use of the word...well, my nickname also is Negro...... ask to Alphonse Tchami if when The Boca Juniors fan sing him "Olé Olé Olé Negro Negro" were insulting him or giving his blessing like a Boca Star--186.62.182.23 (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Usage of "macacos" in Argentina

Some Argentine press (such as diaries Crónica and Diario Popular) have insisted in calling Brazilian football teams macacos ("monkeys"), but the term never caught with the general public. On the other hand, some of the fans' Anti-Brazilian songs do refer to the "blacker" nature of the Brazilian team.

Huh? I never ever read something like that, and I lived in Argentina for 25 years! Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The usage of "macacos" in the "popular" press was quite consistent during the 70s and 80s. Maybe it declined later. As for the songs... the "Siga el baile" candombe was used for quite a while, as well as another song derived from Palito Ortega's Caradura... elpincha 16:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I meant just the "macacos", but you're right, I barely remember the early 80s (Was born in '77). Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a curiosity: Is it legal to be that young? Seriously now: since Argentina and Brazil had some geopolitical issues (which, ahem, subsided with the creation of Mercosur) it is not altogether impossible that some Argentine governments, especially de-facto ones, fueled anti-Brazilian sentiment through the press. The "macacos" stuff was aimed at less-educated classes, while oblique allusions to Itamaraty's "dark designs" were written on the more serious press. That much I remember clearly from the Proceso days, and could be validated by anybody caring to go to a library and read the stuff. elpincha 09:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

At least they let me drink beer! :) Re: the allegations, I believe you, I wouldn't put anything past the Proceso goons... they were pretty much capable of doing any evil you accuse them of. :( Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "macacos" not is used in Argentina...is more, the common word to that animal here is mono...--186.62.182.23 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The water-bottle incident in 1990

The 1990 World Cup match was clearly dominated by Brazil, but the team who did score was Argentina, through Caniggia (after a sensational pass by Maradona). In one incident, Brazilian defender Branco drank from a bottle supplied to him by an Argentine field assistant (true name of "Galíndez" here). Branco felt dizzy afterwards. When he some of the Argentines about the true contents of the bottle, he did not receive a conclusive answer. After a few years, it was disclosed in the press (source here) that Argentine coach Bilardo had added (substance name here). (Controversy timeline here, including Diego's admission on TV in 2005).

This article provides most of the needed information, including a quote of Branco saying it didn't affect the result of the match. Galindez (Miguel di Lorenzo) denies the acusations.

Ronaldinho

(Warning: POV). Many Argentines who are of the opinion that Maradona was greater than Pelé are willing to admit that Ronaldinho may possibly surpass both as the greatest player of all time.

Like who? He is great but I don't believe any Argentine fan (and never heard of one that does) will ever admit that a Brazilian can possibly be better than Maradona. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 21:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Like, em, about half the argies I know... maybe the age and the distance are mellowing us. But maybe we should just "leave it there", as Bernardo Neustadt would say... elpincha 11:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow... I must be younger that I thought... LOL!!! Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

During Maradona's tv show "La Noche del Diez" in 2005, when Pele was invited, he asked about the issue. Maradona confirmed and when Pele asked for the names of the responsible people he said "I tell you the miracle, but not the name of the saint". Ronnie Schneider Forget about it, man. I've lived my entire life in Capital Federal and have never heard such a thing. It's an excelsious player, but he's really far from Maradona's and Pele's skills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.244.218.22 (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Rivals For The New Millenium

Section looks like crystal-balling. Remove? Conscious 10:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

(Personal opinion) Yeah, or at least edit for relevance... elpincha 11:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The section is even POV, and does not give any information. I'm deleting it. Mariano(t/c) 11:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Title with Argentina and Brazil

The title of this article is Argentina vs. Brazil. Logos with the opposite positions : Brazil and Argentina...always respecting both countries...regardsCloretti2 23:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I will take out logos201.1.152.19 02:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Inserting logos again...Cloretti2 02:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Names and logos are usually sorted alphabetically. I'm sorry for Zimbabwe, but that's the only logical thing to do. What's more, having the logos opposite might confuse the reader. Secondly, wether I agree or not, there's the idea that such logos (which are used under the fair use license) are not to be used for decoration. Mariano(t/c) 07:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Macaquitos

Hello people, I just created the Macaquitos article, an old infamous argentine offensive joke against Brazilians. --Celso Daniel 21:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, then you should create the Cucarachas article as well, given this is the infamous brazilian offensive joke against Argentines ;). 17:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias

While reading the Incidents section of the article, I realized how all of the incidents defend the National Football team of Argentina and it seems to imply that Brazil has only won because of chance. Mariano seems to be the main editor of this article and his affiliation with the national team of Argentina would naturally cause him to defend the Argentineans and try and refute the Brazilian successes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cuenca (talk • contribs).

I now I'm an Argie, but I've tried to show both sides of the coin; from the Argentine media insults to Maradona's vicious kick. What's more, the article is hevily based on this Brazilian web page, which doesn't even include the Galindez' special incident. You fail to point out any biased part of the article, nor any missing subject. Please, be constructive and tell us at least what is the article missing, and what is it that you think should be rephrased. Until then, I will remove the {{toofewopinions}} tag you added. Thanks, Mariano(t/c) 07:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Brazilians abroad

I removed "This is perhaps due to a greater proportion of Brazillian footballers playing with overseas clubs." on Argentina having better results in South America, sicne this is not only unsourced to be true (I actually doubt it), and second, it is especulation. Argentinians have been playing in Europe since the beggining of the 20th century, several even nationalized Italian and played for other countries. There's also no need to tell that a huge number of Argentine players currently play abroad, perhaps as many as in Brazil, with a population 4 or 5 times smaller. Mariano(t/c) 13:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible Bias

Pretty much all of the incidents are all obviosly tilted towards Argentina. The Pele-Maradona rivalry section does not take into account the claims by many observers that many TV stations and Newspapers urged Argentines to vote for Maradona in the Fifa awards, with one TV station even giving free internet access, leading to claims of rigging.Nor does it mention countless other polls where Pele has come in front. And besides, most footballing expers will tell you it is unfair to compare them. Maradona was an Attacking Midfielder come supporting striker, while Pele was a deep lying forward. And can someone add the number of matches played, and who has come out in front?

Completely agree, the incidents section is ridiculous, was it written by and argentine? I will erase it and continue to do so for it is deliberately biased. It is incredible that in all that Brazil is always the villain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.73.179 (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing of the history but Brazil is certainly not always the villain as it has been written. In the first 3 incidents that you have deleted Argentina come out worse. It is of course possible that other important information has been missed out of these sections, if this is the case you should try to find references for this. I'm tempted to restore much of this, particularly the parts that already have references. JMiall₰ 08:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removeed the incident section, which was obviously not neutral and confirmedly written by the Argentine user Mariano, which, despite claiming having used as main source a Brazilian page, has omitted every single incident where the outcome clearly favoured Brazil over Argentina (for example, the much memorable "jogo do olé", in which Brazilian players treated the Argentines as mere playthings). He rightfully didn't omit the racist manifestation on the side of Argentines, but, well, if he omitted every single incident where Argentines behaved in such a way, there would be no reported incidents in favour of Argentina.Guinsberg (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the incidents section is hiding lot of things, for example the 1996 Ole newspaper called Brazilians again "macacos" (monkeys) and there is no ref about it. --Ciao 90 (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Games Statistics

Mr. "Selecciones de la Vida", I agree with you on your "Readjusted table to show current tournaments on top" in the club level. But we need first to ask here to others wikipedians what do they think about this change. From Conmebol and RSSSF we see that all "Copa Sudamericana","Copa CONMEBOL", "Copa Mercosur","Supercopa Sudamericana" are in the same level of competition, so maybe they shoud be in the same row. You also said that "The 2008 title is already included with the South American U-20 Championship which now serves as the qualifier to the Olympics Games" if that is true we realy need to remove the last Brazilian's title, but first we need a source. Only one thing I don't agree with you: Both "Artemio Franchi Trophy" and the two first "Intercontinental Championship" aren't officially recognized by FIFA, but the RSSSF source says that both of these competition can be considered a pre-cursor of "Confederations Cup". We have two choiches, or we remove both argentinians titles and we only recognized the FIFA's officially, or we left them because they have the same importance. I think the second choice is better because it's more fair, but we need to listen other wikipedians to change it anyway. Sorry for my bad English, my first language is Portuguese, so I can't speak English very well.--Italodal (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Italodal, there is no denying that Copa CONMEBOL, Copa Mercosur, and Supercopa Sudamericana have the same level of importance, they are all officially recognized tournaments. another common factor that all three now also share is that they are defunct. Which is why those three while being official should be grouped together. The currently relevant Copa Sudamericana should be listed by itself along with the FIFA Club World Cup, Copa Libertadores, and Recopa Sudamericana. This assures the actual visual representation of the trophies that are currently being disputed while acknowledging their present importance.

The following reference from CONMEBOL's website refers to the Preolympic 2004 edition as being the final chapter. http://www.conmebol.com/articulos_ver.jsp?id=56562&slangab=S

As for the Atemio Franchi Trophy I'm going with what the RSSF sources state where it it not recognized by FIFA.

The 1980 Mundialito is another example of an international friendly tournament with no official recognition that may only serve as an unofficial precursor. There's no official recognition that signifies a certain level of importance. The only tournaments recognized retroactively by FIFA are the 1992 & 1995 editions of the King Fahd Tournament. http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=101/awards/ Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Important information : Italodal, Artemio Franchi Trophy is not a tournament.Is a simple match played between the reigning European champions and Copa América winners.

Brazil (Copa América winners)played too two matches against European champions, in :

20-12-1989 Rotterdam Netherlands (European Champion 88) 0-1 Brazil (Copa América 89 winner) 25- 3-1998 Stuttgart Germany (European Champion 96) 1-2 Brazil (Copa América 97 winner)

But, if you considered Argentina match against Denmark in 1993, should considered Brazil matches against Netherlands in 1989 and Germany in 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.223.147.50 (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Italodal, the only tournaments recognized retroactively by FIFA are the 1992 & 1995 editions of the King Fahd Tournament. http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/tournament=101/awards/ Selecciones de la Vida.

In my opinion, a simple trophy (Artemio Franchi Trophy) disputed between two nations is not in a same level of Confederations Cup, and can´t be considered in statistics.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Italodal, Artemio Cup isn´t FIFA official tournament, but only a FRIENDLY match between Argentina and Denmark. Rey Fahad Cup (1992) is Confederations Cup precursor.

View : http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/statisticsandrecords/headtohead/team1=arg/team2=den/index.html

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompovw/51/99/04/fs-299_06a_comp-winners.pdf

In my opinion, you shouldn´t exclude Artemio Cup in the Confederations Cup row. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.1.114.15 (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Important information : Conmebol officially recognized two tournaments : Recopa Sudamericana (organized by Conmebol) and Recopa Mundial (organized by UEFA and Conmebol)wins by FC Santos (Brazil). View : http://www.conmebol.com/articulos_ver.jsp?id=58211&slangab=S.

Conmebol and FIFA officially recognized 1948 South America Club Championiship (precursor of Copa Libertadores) wins by Vasco da Gama (Brazil).View : http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=1882504/index.html

In my opinion this titles should be included in statistics. Recopa Sudamericana (1968) is in same level of Supercopa, Copa Mercosur or Copa Sudamericana. Recopa Mundial is in same level of Intercontinental Cup. And 1948 South America Club Championiship is in same level of Copa Libertadores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.223.147.50 (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

-Italodal, there are 03 officially recognized retournaments by Conmebol and FIFA not yet included in statistics : Recopa Sudamericana (organized by Conmebol), Recopa Mundial (organized by UEFA and Conmebol)wins by FC Santos (Brazil) and 1948 South America Club Championiship (organized by Conmebol and precursor of Copa Libertadores)wins by Vasco da Gama (Brazil). In my opinion this titles should be included in statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.223.147.50 (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right. In the CONMEBOL website (http://www.conmebol.com/ranking_index.jsp?slangab=S) their have a list with all the official tournaments, and two of the Championships you said are there, the Copa Ganadores de Copa and Recopa dos Campeões Intercontinentais (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recopa_dos_Campe%C3%B5es_Intercontinentais). However neither Brazilians or Argentinians teams won the Copa Ganadores de Copa so you don't need to put it in this list. I couldn't see on the CONMEBOL's list the South American Club Championship (football) won by Vasco da Gama, however in the Wikipedia article says the tournament was official but we can only put it on the list if we have a source that confirms this is an official tournament.

So that's it. The Copa Ganadores de Copa we don't need to put on the list, the South American Club Championship (football) we only could put if we have a reliable source and the Copa Ganadores de Copa and the Santos's title of Recopa dos Campeões Intercontinentais (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recopa_dos_Campe%C3%B5es_Intercontinentais) we should add, but I don't know in which row so I'll wait the opinion of the others wikipedians.--Italodal (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Italodal, Vasco da Gama was admitted in Conmebol Supercopa João Havelange (competition played from 1988 to 1997 by the past winners of Copa Libertadores) as winners of the 1948 South American Club Championship. View : http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Supercopa_Sudamericana . View : http://www.rsssf.com/sacups/supcopa97.html

Important note : FIFA officially recognized 1948 South America Club Championiship (precursor of Copa Libertadores) wins by Vasco da Gama (Brazil).View : http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=1882504/index.html.In my opinion this title should be included in statistics, in Copa Libertadores row.

Internacional de Porto Alegre (Brazil) wins Copa Suruga Bank 2009, official tournament by Conmebol.View :http://www.conmebol.com/competiciones_evento_index.jsp?evento=2006&ano=2009&slangab=S. In my opinion this title should be included in statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.223.147.50 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I already added the Suruga Bank Cup on the same place of the official minors cups. About the Santos' Recopa, I'm creating an article in this wikipedia and then we can see where we can add this cup.--Italodal (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Italodal, FC Santos (Brazil) wins two tournaments, not only one:

1) Recopa Sudamericana (organized by Conmebol) - Santos (Bra) beats Peñarol (URU) in final. View http://www.rsssf.com/sacups/supcopa68.html

2) Recopa Intercontinental (organized by UEFA and Conmebol)- Santos beats Internazionale (ITA) in final. View : http://www.rsssf.com/tablesr/recopa-int.html

View : http://www.conmebol.com/articulos_ver.jsp?id=58211&slangab=S.

In my opinion two titles (Recopa Sudamericana and Recopa Intercontinental) should be included in statistics, not only one (Recopa Intercontinental).

Recopa Sudamericana (tournament held once in 1968-69. Participating teams were those South-American clubs that had won the Intercontinental Cup until 1968 - Peñarol (Uru), Santos (Bra) and Racing Club (Arg). Recopa Sudamericana is in same level of Supercopa (competition played by the past winners of Copa Libertadores 1961 to 1997 and winner of 1948 South America Club Championiship), Copa Mercosur or Copa Sudamericana.

Recopa Intercontinental [(disputed by Internazionale (Ita) - Internazionale qualified directly because Real Madrid withdrew without playing - and the winner of the 1968 Recopa Sudamericana (Santos)] is in same level of Intercontinental Cup.

Italodal,1948 South America Club Championiship is considered precursor of Copa Libertadores. View http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Copa_Libertadores. View : http://www.rsssf.com/rssbest/rssfaq.html.

Please, pay attention in Vasco da Gama History in FIFA Site (view http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=1882504/index.html):

The Victory Express

Vasco won the Campeonato Carioca again in 1929, 1934 and 1936, before embarking on the most dominant period in their history. Indeed, between 1945 and 1952, they added five state prizes to their collection and won the 1948 South American Club Championship, a once-run, round-robin tournament that is recognised by CONMEBOL as the precursor to the Copa Libertadores, in Santiago, Chile. There, Flavio Costa's charges swept to glory unbeaten, an honour not even an Alfredo Di Stefano-inspired River Plate, nor the great Nacional side of Atilio Garcia, could deny them.

Honours

• 1 South American Club Championship: 1948
• 1 Copa Libertadores: 1998
• 1 Copa Mercosul: 2000
• 4 Brazilian Championships: 1974, 1989, 1997, 2000
• 3 Rio-Sao Paulo Tournaments: 1958, 1966, 1999
• 22 Carioca State Championships: 1923, 1924, 1929, 1934, 1936, 1945, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1952, 1956, 1958, 1970, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2003.

In my opinion this title is official and should be included in statistics, in Copa Libertadores.

Game Stats

 Done--Italodal (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The game stats are wrong. Someone counted the Olympics game when it was an under 23 team. It was not the senior team and it does not count. You should put the stats claimed by CBF and the stats claimed by AFA. CBF: BRazil has 36 wins 23 draws and 33 losses. http://www.cbf.com.br/confrontos/30002.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.115.237.197 (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The CBF says this, the AFA says that Argentina has more wins. The best thing we can do is leave the FIFA stats, a it's neutral source,--Italodal (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Italodal, FIFA stats are wrong. FIFA counted one match pre-olympic game, with Brazil and Argentina under 23 team (30.08.88 - Los Angeles - Brazil 1 - 1 Argentina - Nations' Cup) - view http://www.rsssf.com/tablesa/arg-u23-intres.html.

FIFA counted too one irregular match (12-10-1920 - Buenos Aires - Argentina 3-1 Brazil). This match started with 8 players on each side. FIFA rules : match should start with 11 players on each side. View : http://www.rsssf.com/tablesb/brasargres.html)

The RSSSF stats are more corrects. You should put the RSSSF stats and exclude FIFA stats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.223.147.50 (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't say if RSSSF stats are more correct. I did't know that the FIFA stats are wrong, but also note that are some problens in the RSSSF data:The match in 07/08/1968, some sources clain that Brazil didn't play this match, but the Guanabara State Team. For the other side, in the match of 11/08/1968, other sources say who plaiyed wasn't Brazil, but Minas gerais state team. http://www.rsssf.com/tablesb/brasargres.html . How can you see this source also have disputes, but in my opinion we could show data from FIFA or RSSSF but nevel put the CBF or AFA's stats, because both aren't neutral.--Italodal (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Italodal, there aren´t controversy in matches disputed in 07/08/1968 and 11/08/1968. FIFA and RSSSF counted this matches.

There are controversy only in three matches :

1) 30.08.88 - Los Angeles - Brazil 1 - 1 Argentina - Nations' Cup. Pre-olympic game, with Brazil and Argentina under 23 team. View http://www.rsssf.com/tablesa/arg-u23-intres.html.

2) 12-10-1920 - Buenos Aires - Argentina 3-1 Brazil). This match started with 8 players on each side. FIFA rules : match should start with 11 players on each side. View : http://www.rsssf.com/tablesb/brasargres.html)

3) FIFA miss counted one regular match : 22-10-1922 - São Paulo - Brazil 2-1 Argentina - Roca Cup. This match was counted by RSSSF. View : http://www.rsssf.com/tablesb/brasargres.html

Brazil is being affected by FIFA stats.

In my opinion, you could show data from FIFA AND RSSSF stats, in other words, both statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.223.147.50 (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There are 6 controversial matches:

1)12-10-1920 - Buenos Aires - Argentina 3-1 Brazil. This match started with 8 players on each side. FIFA count, RSSSF show in the list but doesn't count.

2)22-10-1922 - São Paulo - Brazil 2-1 Argentina - Roca Cup. This match was counted by RSSSF but not by FIFA.

3)05-12-1956 - Rio de Janeiro - Argentina 2-1 Brazil. According to some sources is the Guanabara State Team. Both FIFA and RSSSF count this.

4)07-08-1968 - Rio de Janeiro - Brazil 4-1 Argentina. According to some sources is the Minas Gerais State Team. Both FIFA and RSSSF count this.

5)11-08-1968 Belo Horizonte - Brazil 3-2 Argentina. According to some sources is the Minas Gerais State Team. Both FIFA and RSSSF count this.

6)30-08-1988 - Los Angeles - Brazil 1 - 1 Argentina - Nations' Cup. Pre-olympic game, with Brazil and Argentina under 23 team. FIFA count, RSSSF doesn't.

So, the RSSSF information is far more complete and reliable than FIFA. I will change the FIFA stats by the RSSSF stats.--Italodal (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Italodal (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Italodal, congratulations for changes in stats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.92.188.185 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Move Panamerican Championship to Copa America row

Panamerican Championship is completely different from "Football at Pan American Games". First because it isn't played by adult teams, second because "Football at Pan American Games" is a competition that is part of the Pan American games that are disputed since 1951. The Panamerican Championship is almost the same tournament as is today's Copa America (South America countries with some CONCACAFs countries). This tournament was played by adult selections, unlike the "Football at Pan American Games", and in my opinion I think we should put it in the same row of Copa America.--Italodal (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Panamerican Championship isn´t almost the same tournament as is today's Copa America. Copa America is organized by Conmebol and Panamerica Championship no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.92.175.217 (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is valid. But before you make changes, write in the discussion page, as you did, but wait the opinion of the others editors to achieve a consensus. Thank's.--Italodal (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Important information : The Panamerican Championship was a football tournament held by the Panamerican Football Confederation every four years from 1952 through 1960. Since the Americas' premier tournament, Copa America, was restricted to South American teams, the Panamerican Championship was an attempt to create an Americas-wide championship. (view : http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Panamerican_Championship). The Panamerican Football Confederation was a football federation formed in 1946 in an attempt to unite all of the countries from the Americas. The body's only achievement was organizing the Panamerican Championship for the Americas (view : http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Panamerican_Football_Confederation). This tournament isn´t almost the same tournament as is today's Copa America, organized by Conmebol (Conmebol only in 1993 Copa América edition included Concacaf countries), and in my opinion I think we shouldn´t put it in the same row of Copa America. Panamerican Championship is a tournament, organized by Panamerican Football Confederation. Copa América is other tournament, organized by Conmebol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.223.147.50 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The table wasn't built to show all the tournaments. In fact, Panamerican Championship and Copa America are two different tournaments, but Artemio Cup and the Confederations Cup are also different. At the Club Level, the Copa Sudamericana is different from Mercosur, which is another competition when compared with the CONMEBOL Cup, but they are all in the same row. If you will separate all the competitions, you would have more lines and the article would be much more confusing. The purpose of the table is put similar tournaments and with same importance in the same row, is because that for exemple the World Cup is separated from the Copa America , but the Panamerican Championship doesn't.--Italodal (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Italodal, Artemio Cup isn´t FIFA official tournament, but only a FRIENDLY match between Argentina and Denmark. Rey Fahad Cup (1992) is Confederations Cup precursor. http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/statisticsandrecords/headtohead/team1=arg/team2=den/index.html)

In my opinion, you shouldn´t exclude Artemio Cup in the Confederations Cup row. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.1.114.15 (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Club Level

Due to several championships created, and many of them extinct, the table of titles at club level is very confusing. It's difficult to know which cup is official and what is the importance of each cup. According to Conmebol, the following championships are official:

-FIFA World Club Championship -Intercontinental Cup -Copa Libertadores -Copa Sudamericana -Copa CONMEBOL -Copa Mercosur -Supercopa Sudamericana -Recopa Sudamericana -Copa Interamericana -Copa Oro -Supercopa Masters -Copa Masters Conmebol -Recopa Intercontinental(Supercopa de Campeones Intercontinentales) -Copa Ganadores de Copa Plus the newer Suruga Bank Championship

All of these championships must be in the table. However is hard to sort the minor cups by their importance level. I suggest to follow the Conmebol's ranking: http://www.conmebol.com/ranking_index.jsp?slangab=S The cups which have similar weight should be in the same section.

The Copa Oro, Supercopa Masters, Copa Masters Conmebol and the Copa Interamericana have a weight of 15 points. The Copa Ganadores de Copa and the Recopa Intercontinental(Supercopa de Campeones Intercontinentales) have a weight of 10 points. All those cups should be in the same section because they have almost the same weight. Conmebol didn't range the Suruga Bank Championship yet, but I think it has the same weight of the minor cups above. However, maybe it shoud be in a different section because this cup isn't defuncted.--Italodal (talk) 06:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Italodal,1948 South America Club Championiship is considered precursor of Copa Libertadores. View http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Copa_Libertadores. View : http://www.rsssf.com/rssbest/rssfaq.html.

Please, pay attention in Vasco da Gama History in FIFA Site (view http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=1882504/index.html):

The Victory Express

Vasco won the Campeonato Carioca again in 1929, 1934 and 1936, before embarking on the most dominant period in their history. Indeed, between 1945 and 1952, they added five state prizes to their collection and won the 1948 South American Club Championship, a once-run, round-robin tournament that is recognised by CONMEBOL as the precursor to the Copa Libertadores, in Santiago, Chile. There, Flavio Costa's charges swept to glory unbeaten, an honour not even an Alfredo Di Stefano-inspired River Plate, nor the great Nacional side of Atilio Garcia, could deny them.

Honours

   * 1 South American Club Championship: 1948
   * 1 Copa Libertadores: 1998
   * 1 Copa Mercosul: 2000
   * 4 Brazilian Championships: 1974, 1989, 1997, 2000
   * 3 Rio-Sao Paulo Tournaments: 1958, 1966, 1999
   * 22 Carioca State Championships: 1923, 1924, 1929, 1934, 1936, 1945, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1952, 1956, 1958, 1970, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2003.

In my opinion this title is official and should be included in statistics, in Copa Libertadores row. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.223.147.50 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Italodal, FC Santos (Brazil) wins two tournaments, not only one:

1) Recopa Sudamericana (organized by Conmebol) - Santos (Bra) beats Peñarol (URU) in final. View http://www.rsssf.com/sacups/supcopa68.html

2) Recopa Intercontinental (organized by UEFA and Conmebol)- Santos beats Internazionale (ITA) in final. View : http://www.rsssf.com/tablesr/recopa-int.html

View : http://www.conmebol.com/articulos_ver.jsp?id=58211&slangab=S.

In my opinion two titles (Recopa Sudamericana and Recopa Intercontinental) should be included in statistics, not only one (Recopa Intercontinental).

Recopa Sudamericana (tournament held once in 1968-69. Participating teams were those South-American clubs that had won the Intercontinental Cup until 1968 - Peñarol (Uru), Santos (Bra) and Racing Club (Arg). Recopa Sudamericana is in same level of Supercopa (competition played by the past winners of Copa Libertadores 1961 to 1997 and winner of 1948 South America Club Championiship), Copa Mercosur or Copa Sudamericana.

Recopa Intercontinental [(disputed by Internazionale (Ita) - Internazionale qualified directly because Real Madrid withdrew without playing - and the winner of the 1968 Recopa Sudamericana (Santos)] is in same level of Intercontinental Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.223.147.50 (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction of Brasil argentina head to head

Regarding above subject kindly find the correct information

Brasil and Argentina met each other till 28th sept.2011, 98 times

Brasil won 39 match , scored 152 goals Argentina won 35 match,scored 150 goals Draw took place in 24 match

The above result considering matches finished with penalty kicks as DRAW,but if it is considered as winner and looser, then Brasil won 42,Argentina 36 ,Draw 20 match.

Thanks Designce (talk) 09:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC) 8th oct.2011

Actually, the current head to head is 34-34. Argentina was ahead but Brazil tied with the last match.

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/statisticsandrecords/headtohead/team1=arg/team2=bra/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzaloges (talk • contribs) 06:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Football Culture

Someone add "brazilian soft drink.

Maradona is pleased that it was all a dream and remarks that he perhaps drank too many Guaranas". 108.54.62.227 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Number of Goals Pelé Scored

Officialy he has scored "only" 794. This article should not perpetuate the myth of the "1000 gols". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.67.219 (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone added a new chapter to the Incidents and historical matches

based on this world cup (2014)

their conjecture is irrelevant. every other section in this passage has actual matches. there is no match this time, so adding a section to speculate about what happened in the semis is pointless. 1 we could speculate about their rivalry in every world cup. without matches its irrelevant. 2 we are just showing bias to the contemporary and bias to conjecture.

yes, the tournament is in brazil, which throws up some interesting questions as argentina have made it and brazil have not. but no, this hardly seems to be relevant to a section about two teams that always hate each other, and has until now be focused on their matches. 77.100.67.56 (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. No match between Argentina and Brazil. It must be pulled from this section. --LuchoCanalla (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I am counting, and I only see 97

36 for Brazil, 36 for Argentina, the rest (25) are ties, 300 Goals Scored, 152 for Argentina, 148 for Brazil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.45.44.57 (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, there's been some recent vandalism from a user with this account (119.30.35.78). He makes malicious edits on this three pages (Argentina national football team, Argentina–Brazil football rivalry and Roca Cup), by posting a false result from a game that never happened and using a false link that redirects to a dead website. Hope some measures could be taken by a mod. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.133.166.106 (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Argentina–Brazil football rivalry. 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/20100201210855/http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/torre-sac-best.html to http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/torre-sac-best.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2018

Change the number of goals and winner in result section. That is currently it is Date:13 December 1925,Venue:Argentina Buenos Aires Score:90-1 Winner:Brazil Comments:1925 Sudamericano

Edit the Score:4-1 and winner is Argentina 2405:204:D380:ABF9:0:0:B81:C8A1 (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for picking up on this. TeraTIX 13:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Maradona pele elgrafico.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Neymar's skill Against Argentina.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Neymar king.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Recurrent vandalism

What measures could be taken to prevent the huge amount of vandalism that this article has suffered? Often the numbers of matches are changed in order to just mess up the statistics.Svartner (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's all coming from one person, since the problematic edits come from IP addresses that begin with 2409:4073, and they seem to have a similar POV in other Seleção-related articles. I know Wikipedia is hesitant to block entire dynamic IP ranges, but we can request protection if the edits are truly problematic. Ytoyoda (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Svartner: Please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dynamic IP introducing errors, copyvio and unsourced edits in Brazil footy-related articles. Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Messi vs neymar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): APC04OU (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mparra179, HornNest.

— Assignment last updated by HornNest (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Count of matches

Hi everybody. There is a conflict in the final count of matches between Argentina and Brazil. There are two FIFA´s official sources, and a lot of other sources (Rsssf, AFA, Promiedos, etc) that differ between them. FIFA´s sources are clearly the most important, because they are from the Mother house of world´s football association... No source can be avobe a FIFA source, it would be ridiculous!

One FIFA source, from 23 november 2023 (after the Brazil 0 - 1 Argentina for 2026 WC qualifiers in Maracaná) says they are tied in 42 victories each [5]. Another FIFA´s source, from february 2013, says Argentina is 1 match up. [6]. After Feb. 2013 (date of this other FIFA´s source), there are 4 victories each and the rest are ties, so the final count would not change. So for this FIFA´s source, Argentina would be above for 1 match... To see the complete list of matches according to FIFA click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches"[7].

FIFA do not recognize these matches:

• 1920 (Oct.6): Argentina 3 Brazil 1 (played with 8 players each)

• 1922 (Oct.22): Brazil 2 Argentina 1 (The two teams played with reserve teams because Brazil played THE SAME DAY the 1922 Copa America´s final vs Paraguay)

• 1923 (Dec.2): Argentina 0 Brazil 2 (Copa Confraternidad. Not Argentina´s first team, because Argentina played THE SAME DAY the 1923 Copa America´s final match vs Uruguay...)

• 1956 (Dec.5): Brazil 1 Argentina 2 (Copa Colombo. Not Brazil´s first team. It was a Guanabara´s team (a Rio de Janeiro´s team)).

• 1968 (August 7): Brazil 4 Argentina 1 (Neither Argentina nor Brazil presented national teams. Brazil played with a Guanabara´s team, and Argentina played with a Buenos Aires team)

• 1968 (August 11): Brazil 3 Argentina 2. (Neither Argentina nor Brazil presented national teams. Brazil played with a Minas Gerais team, and Argentina played with a Buenos Aires team)

AFA (Asociación del fútbol argentino) totally agrees with the FIFA´s source of Feb.2013... The AFA´s source is from 2019 (November) after Argentina 1 Brazil 0 in Riad. After that match, they played 3 matches, with 2 victories of Argentina and 1 tie... So, according to this, Argentina would take the lead for 1 match... Here is the AFA´s oficial list of matches, after Argentina 1 Brazil 0 in Riad (Nov. 2019): [8]

According to me, only FIFA´s sources are neutral, because they are not from Argentina nor from Brazil, and the most importan association in football is above any other organization or confederation. I think we should take only FIFA´s sources to put in the article, except the "notes" in the "Unrecognized matches" or "Unofficial matches", to clearify why there are 6 matches that are not counted by FIFA. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Raúl Quintana Tarufetti, English FIFA source, November 2023, Brazil 43 wins, Argentina 42. Torimem (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Torimem: show me please the english FIFA´s list of matches. I can show the list of matches from FIFA´s source from Feb. 2013: [9] To see the complete list of matches according to FIFA click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches" --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

PD: and another thing: why the FIFA´s "english" source could be more "valuable" than the spanish one??? --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The list of matches was widely referenced by me, one-by-one, citing different sources (World Elo, RSSSF, 11v11). The @User:Raúl Quintana Tarufetti, which appears to be a single-purpose account, has been trying to impose WP:POINT for weeks, based on an article on the FIFA website that alleges the confront is tied without providing further details. The list of matches is explained, has both Argentine and Brazilian sources, and can be easily checked. Svartner (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Providing further details on the matches presented above

The 1922 Copa Roca and Copa Confratenidad were not actually played by Argentina's main team, something that normally happened at that time, but they appear on the list of official matches in all the sources I presented. [10], [11], [12], [13].

The 1968 matches were played by the representatives of Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais officially as the Brazil national team, as happened in the Copa Bernardo O'Higgins and Taça Oswaldo Cruz. In 1956 in the Copa Raul Colombo, in turn it was a match of the Rio de Janeiro state football team. [14]

The 1920 match has a series of problems, mainly due to a case of racism committed by a newspaper, and in some sources it really does not appear as completely official, but I mentioned that there is divergence between Brazilian sources (which do not consider the match) and Argentines (who are considering the match). Svartner (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Svartner: look carefully: first of all, I edit in a lot of articles, not only in this wikipedia. I am a well respected user in the Spanish Wikipedia. Going to the most important thing, you are not respecting 2 official FIFA´s sources (one of them shows the complete list of official matches according to FIFA) and many others that even put Argentina above by one match (AFA, El Gráfico, TyC Sports, Promiedos). You only put 3 sources that say that Brazil leads, and really only one source gave by you can be considered "serious" (rsssf.com)... The others (eloratings.net and 11v11.com) are a complete "joke". ANY source by ANY web or page or organization CAN´T be above a single FIFA´s source... A single FIFA source "kills" any other source, because FIFA is the major world football official organization... So you are clarely vandalizing the articles not recognizing 2 FIFA´s sources, one of them with the complete list of matches according to FIFA. But there are also others from AFA (with the list of matches), El Gráfico (with the list of matches), Promiedos (with the list of matches too), TyC Sports tha even put Argentina leading. Please, READ all of these sources:

1) FIFA source number 1. Updated to the latest game (BRA 0 ARG 1, 21/11/2023):[15]. Tied in 42 each.

2) FIFA source number 2. Updated to the 21/11/2012 game. After that match, they played 11 matches, with 4 wins each, 2 ties and one suspended because of the circus made by the brazilian "Ministry of Health" or "Security"... The source shows all the lists of matches... To see the complete list of matches, please click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches":[16]. Adding those games, Argentina is above by one match...

3) Argentine Football Association source number 1 (the major Argentina´s football organization). Updated to the 15/11/2019 game. After that, they played 4 games, with 2 Argentina´s wins, one tie and one suspended match because of the "circus". The source shows all the lists of matches... [17]. Adding those games, Argentina is above by one match.

4) AFA source number 2. Updated to the 16/11/2021 game. After that, they played only 1 match, won by Argentina. The source shows all the lists of matches... [18] Adding this game, Argentina is above by one match.

5) El Gráfico Magazine source (the major football Latin American magazine between 1919 to the middle 2000´s). Updated to the 16/11/2021 game. After that, they played 1 match, won by Argentina... The source shows all the lists of matches... [19]

6) Promiedos.com source. Updated to the latest game (BRA 0 ARG 1, 21/11/2023). The source shows all the lists of matches...: [20] Tied in 42.

7) TyC Sports source. Updated to the latest game (BRA 0 ARG 1, 21/11/2023). The source shows all the lists of matches... [21]. Argentina is above by one match.

To be "good" I think we should consider the FIFA´s sources. Beacause if we are "evil", we should even say that Argentina leads by one match, as many sources say...

I think it´s crazy and inconceivable, and your behavior is tottally capricious and unacceptable. And I think you may be blocked if you continue whit this attitude. I will revert. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

All sources mentioned by you as "joke" (RSSSF, WorldElo, 11v11) are the base reference for official matches in other articles:

• • Argentina national football team results (1920–1939)
  • Argentina national football team results (1960–1979)
  • Brazil national football team results (1914–1949)
  • Brazil national football team results (1950–1969)

The reason? Because they are the sources that detail the list match by match, providing accurate information. The articles you posted give a final number of the confrontation, but do not detail the games one by one. A completely out of context number.

The sources you present from FIFA, one is without details, the other is outdated and archived, and can no longer be found on the official website. El Grafico's source, different from the others, presents a list, but with a different count compared to your previous editions, removing a series of matches without further context, and in disagreement with all the others sources. Therefore, it is clear that the edits I made are in accordance with the project adopted on en.wiki, while yours (which were only brought up now, such in previous editions you simply removed referenced content and changed the numbers arbitrarily) are merely speculative. Svartner (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No no no no. As I see, you didn´t read the sources I gave... 6 of the 7 sources have the complete list of matches, and they are from serious pages or organizations. I repeat again: to see the complete list of matches according to FIFA, PLEASE click in "Advanced search, and then in "Show all matches"... [22] That source is updated to the 21/11/2012 game. After that match, they played 11 matches, with 4 wins each, 2 ties and one suspended because of the "circus" made by the brazilian "Ministry of Health" or "Security". You can see this and prove in ANY records matches page, but I will refresh your memory. After the 21/11/2012 game they played:

• 11/10/2014: BRA 2 ARG 0 (Beijing)
• 13/11/2015: ARG 1 BRA 1 (Buenos Aires)
• 10/11/2016: BRA 3 ARG 0 (Belo Horizonte)
• 09/06/2017: ARG 1 BRA 0 (Melbourne)
• 16/10/2018: BRA 1 ARG 0 (Jeddah)
• 02/07/2019: BRA 2 ARG 0 (Belo Horizonte)
• 15/11/2019: ARG 1 BRA 0 (Ryadh)
• 10/07/2021: ARG 1 BRA 0 (Rio de Janeiro)
• 05/09/2021: Suspended because of the "circus" made... Game without result.
• 16/11/2021: ARG 0 BRA 0 (San Juan)
• 21/11/2023: ARG 1 BRA 0 (Rio de Janeiro)

So, there are 4 wins each, 2 ties and 1 suspended match.

Any source can´t be above a single FIFA source... A single FIFA source "kills" any other source, because FIFA is the major world football organization... And above that, the other 5 sources I gave are much more serious than 11v11 and WorldElo... Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Raúl Quintana Tarufetti English FIFA source, 21 November 2023, Brazil 43 wins, Argentina 41: "Argentina and Brazil have met 110 times in official matches. Brazil have won 43 to Argentina’s 41, with 26 ending all square. The Seleção have registered five more goals than the Albiceleste in the encounter. In four FIFA World Cup™ games, Brazil have won twice and Argentina once". Torimem (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Torimem: As I asked you a couple of months ago, show me please the english FIFA source´s complete list of matches. I can show the list of matches from FIFA´s source from Feb. 2013: [23] To see the complete list of matches according to FIFA click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches"

PD: and another thing: why the FIFA´s english source could be more "valuable" than the spanish one??? --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Svartner, Torimem and Fma12 (I name you because you are the people who participated in this issue of the count of matches). I found recently 3 Rsssf.com sources that do not count a few matches counted by Svartner as official, and they are the "quid" of the question... In this Rsssf source we can see the list of matches between Argentinian Teams vs. Brazilian Teams [24]. Here is the one about Dec. 1956 match won by Argentina. According to rsssf.com it was Argentina against a Rio de Janeiro Select [25]. Conclusion: NOT OFFICIAL as National selection teams. But there are 2 matches gave to Brazil in the article from 1968 that weren´t played by Brazil National team, and were played both by Selections States (Rio and Minas)... August 7 and August 11 of 1968: see [26]. Clearely says Argentina vs Rio de Janeiro Combined (August 7, 1968) and Argentina vs. Minas Gerais Select (August 11, 1968). Conclusion: NOT OFFICIAL National selection teams both of them...

So, neither FIFA nor these Rsssf.com, nor AFA, nor El Gráfico, nor TyC Sports sources recognize these matches. Only brazilian sources do...

One FIFA source, from 23 november 2023 (after the Brazil 0 - 1 Argentina for 2026 WC qualifiers in Maracaná) says they are tied in 42 victories each [27].

Another FIFA´s source, from february 2013, says Argentina is 1 match up. [28]. After Feb. 2013 (date of this other FIFA´s source), there are 4 victories each and the rest are ties, so the final count would not change. So for this FIFA´s source, Argentina would be above for 1 match... To see the complete list of matches according to FIFA click in "Advanced search", and then in "Show all matches"[29].

AFA (Asociación del fútbol argentino) totally agrees with the FIFA´s source of Feb.2013... The AFA´s source is from 2019 (November) after Argentina 1 Brazil 0 in Riad. After that match, they played 3 matches, with 2 victories of Argentina and 1 tie... So, according to this, Argentina would take the lead for 1 match... Here is the AFA´s oficial list of matches, after Argentina 1 Brazil 0 in Riad (Nov. 2019): [30].

Another AFA source number 2. Updated to the 16/11/2021 game. After that, they played only 1 match, won by Argentina. The source shows all the lists of matches... [31] Adding this game, Argentina is above by one match.

El Gráfico Magazine source (the major football Latin American magazine between 1919 to the middle 2000´s). Updated to the 16/11/2021 game. After that, they played 1 match, won by Argentina... The source shows all the lists of matches... [32]

TyC Sports source. Updated to the latest game (BRA 0 ARG 1, 21/11/2023). [33]. Argentina is above by one match.

According to all these sources, they agree each other in NOT to recognize these matches, that brazilians do recognize:

• 1920 (Oct.6): Argentina 3 Brazil 1 (played with 8 players each)

• 1922 (Oct.22): Brazil 2 Argentina 1 (The two teams played with reserve teams because Brazil played THE SAME DAY the 1922 Copa America´s final vs Paraguay)

• 1923 (Dec.2): Argentina 0 Brazil 2 (Copa Confraternidad. Not Argentina´s first team, because Argentina played THE SAME DAY the 1923 Copa America´s final match vs Uruguay...)

• 1956 (Dec.5): Brazil 1 Argentina 2 (Copa Colombo. Not Brazil´s first team. It was a Guanabara´s team (a Rio de Janeiro´s team)).

• 1968 (August 7): Brazil 4 Argentina 1 (Neither Argentina nor Brazil presented national teams. Brazil played with a Guanabara´s team, and Argentina played with a Buenos Aires team)

• 1968 (August 11): Brazil 3 Argentina 2. (Neither Argentina nor Brazil presented national teams. Brazil played with a Minas Gerais team, and Argentina played with a Buenos Aires team)

What I try to say with all of this speech is that it´s an absurdity to show in the article that Brazil is above by 2 matches 43-41, because there are a lot of sources (1 from FIFA say they are tied 42-42 and another say ARG is above by 1 match) they say ARG is avobe by 1 match, and a lot of sources that say they are tied in 42... No way Brazil leads.

Brazilian users must accept the sources (many of them with the complete list of official matches) that show this... I don't see a solution of this... Only if we re write the article saying there are many versions of the list of official matches and we put according to FIFA, AFA, Rsssf, Tyc, El Grafico and Promiedos thay say a thing, and by the opposite, there are sources from Elo, 11v11, another from Rsssf that say another thing... And show the different list of matches according to Argentina and other table according to Brazil... I do not see another way... I invite other users to participate. Please, do it! Regards, --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Photographic records of the 1968 matches where the uniforms of Brazil and Argentina can be clearly seen, ruling out that they were combined or state teams [34], [35]. These two matches are, unquestionably, official.

The 1956 match (Copa Raúl Colombo) was indeed played by the Rio de Janeiro state football team, but it is already excluded from the list in the article.

The 1922 Copa Roca and the 1923 Copa Confraternidad appear on the list of official matches, but in fact, they were played by reserve teams. Here's an article about 1923 where Argentina didn't just play twice on the same day, but three (twice for the AFA, once for the AAmF). Note that this type of circumstance was common at that time, with football being treated in a completely different way than it is today. [36]. In 1922, Brazil played with a reserve team, made up of players from São Paulo [37], but the CBF considers the match normally (remembering that in this case, Argentina played with its main team, who had competed in the 1922 South American Championship, and only Brazil used reserves).[38]

The 1920 match is the most controversial and in fact does not appear in the list of official matches, due to an episode of racism where Brazilian players refused to enter the field. [39], but even though it was 8 vs 8, the match actually took place.

Svartner (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Svartner: For what suits you, the rsssf.com source that say Brazil leads is ok, but when the same site (rsssf.com) say the 2 1968 friendlies were played by States Selections (Rio and Minas) [40] they are not ok... The second match, the Minas State select was coached by ¿Lísio Juscelino Gonzaga “Biju”, Carlyle Guimarães, and Jota Júnior?.

For what suits you, the CBF source, the "Meufogao" source and "Torito Casale" (a blog) are ok, but the AFA, TyC Sports, El Gráfico, Promiedos, and FIFA (the major football association in the world) sources are not ok... No way, I thought it was english wikipedia not "brazilian" wikipedia... It seems that in this article barzilian sources are more "valuable" and considered than FIFA and argentines sources...

The only solution I see is to put in the article the 2 "visions" about the count of matches, with the count according to FIFA and AFA and the count according to CBF and another brazilian sources... Two lists, explaining everything, as for example it figures in the Clássico Mineiro article [41]. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I included sources that show photographic records of the matches. Clearly the 1968 matches questioned in your comment were between Argentina and Brazil, where the AFA and CBD (current CBF) crests are present. You claimed that they were between state teams of Rio de Janeiro/Minas Gerais and a Buenos Aires XI, and it is clear that this is not true. Svartner (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

No. I proved with the Rsssf.com source (and another 7 sources that it seems you don´t want to see) that those 2 games form 1968 are not official, because Argentina played against 2 State Selections (Rio and Minas). [42]. Neither AFA nor FIFA counts them, as I proved a lot of times in this talk page. It´s the same situation about the match of december 1956. The same: Argentina playing against a local combination. The same.

About the photos of the brazilian pages, they can be archive pics from another mathces of BRA and ARG, and not pics from the 2 matches themselves played in August 7 and 11. They don´t prove anything.

Here there is another source from november 2016 that clarely say those matches were deleted in the count because it was proved that those games were played against local selections and not the national selection team, or because Argentina or Brazil played vs reserve teams of Argentina or Brazil. [43]

I see you don´t want to change anythng in the article and discuss anything. What do you propose? How can we solve this? Do you agree to include the 2 visions (Arg and Bra visions) and the 2 list of matches with the sources according to the 2 countries? And in "Most wins" we can put "acoording to Arg XX and According to Brazil XX"? --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, as nobody else participated in the possible solution (I asked in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football here [44] and nobody came), and as I gave 9 or 10 sources (2 from FIFA) and the user Svartner aparently doesn´t want to accept any change in the article (disrespecting 10 sources, a few of them with the complete list of games), I will wait a few days to do the changes, in order to wait for another opinions from another users. If nobody else participates, I will change the article and introducing the two visions of the count of games and the two list of matches between this two national selections: one count according to FIFA, AFA, a few sources of Rsssf.com, El Gráfico, TyC spors, Promiedos, ert., and one count according to Elo Rankings, 11v11, CBF and a few of Rsssf.com.

It´s tottaly unacceptable to see only one vision (the brazilian one), with 3 o 4 sources (many of them not very serious) and leaving out the 10 sources that clarely say another count and show the count. 2 sources of FIFA, 2 sources of AFA, a source from El Gráfico, a source of TyC Sports, 2 sources of Rsssf.com, a source of Promiedos.com, a surce from goleamos.com... It´s too much to look the other way. I will wait a few days. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Firstly Raul - you have been extremely aggressive and disparaging, and often threatening Svartner throughout this exchange for no reason. They have pointed out very basic things: there are multiple sources that include all 110 games. These are not decade old archives of websites, these are not a single football federation who may choose not to include games for whatever reason, and they are considered reliable sources across wikipedia football articles. To simply declare, as you did repeatedly, that FIFA trumps all - and then when presented a FIFA article saying they had played 110 games immediately shifting the goalposts - is not good faith editing. That you then accuse Svartner of being obstructive among threats to have them blocked etc is just disgusting behaviour to be honest. You have displayed nothing but contempt and a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

Secondly - Edit summaries such as this are disgusting.

Third - the idea is to move towards a consensus. Wall of Text responses, bold text, dismissing otherwise valid sources as a "joke", attacking other peoples motives etc is not consensus building. Koncorde (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Koncorde: please, see that I gave a lot of sources that counts 110 matches too! One of FIFA from november 2023, that counts 42 vs 42 matches won each and 26 ties...And I put it in the article, among others! In fact, I included the 3 versions of the count of matches, not only one way (in favour of Brazil) as it wrongly figured. Please, see the only source of FIFA that includes the full list of matches until 2013 was given by me too. Please, see I tried to reach an agreement or a solution several times, and the other user didn´t want to change anything. You can see there, in this talk page, for expample. I tried to ask for help to other users, or in the Wikiprojet Football, by nobody came to participate. And I´am aggresive...

Secondly, when you use a source that recognises the 6 matches that are with discrepancies, but in the article here you want to take off one or two of them (casually won by Argentina) when the same sources you use say they are official, this is double standard, and this is not good faith editing. For the thing it suits to him the sources are ok, but when the same souces he uses says the 2 matches won by Argentina are official are not ok... Very strange...

The only thing I recived (and recive) were and are accusations, I think this is disgusting... I´am a well respected user in the spanish wikipedia, and I only try to imporve here (in this wikipedia) many topics that are of interest to me. That´s all. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

TLDR. Acknowledge your absolutely toxic behaviour and we'll talk. Until then you are unapproachable. Koncorde (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I gave all the arguments and you call me "toxic". Other users should admit their parcial and no neutral behaviour, using the double standard to edit according what it suits for their interests. And I'll clarify it for you: I do not want to "approach" you. If you want to discuss about the article, please go to the ponit of the discussion, and don´t make axis in my "behaviour". I will not answer to you again. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You accuse me of being partial since I added sources for each game, proving their existence. The discrepancies in the count presented so far are questionable, and even so I am not opposed to debating them. The problem was the series of disruptive edits based on impose your WP:POV, the changes of versions you present in the arguments, etc. For me, it's even good that more users participate in this article, which is also constantly subject to vandalism. Svartner (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not doubt in the existence of those matches! They existed! What it´s disputed is the officialdom of those matches, and in 3 cases (1956, 1968 and 1968) if they were played against Rio and Minas States selections, as it was demonstrated with sources. I will repeat, and you did it again in this editions [45] [46]: what I am saying is that in this case you have a double standard behaviour: in the first case (1956 match) Rsssf.com and Elo Ratings count it as official, with a note saying it could be a Guanabara State selection. And you erased! But when the same sources count as official the two 1968 matches, saying with the same note that one match would have been played with a Guanabara State Selection, and the other with a Minas Gerais Selection you look the other way and nothing happened, you keep whith them in the article... Even worse: Rsssf.com has another source I provided with the list of Argentina national team UNOFFICIAL matches, and there (as I think you and the others saw a lot of times) it figures as unofficial the 1956 match [47] and the 2 matches of 1968 [48]! Rsssf.com do not agree with itself... It´s insane, or perhaps I´am crazy... The same case for the 1920´s match... Elo ratings include it, and it do not figure in the Rsssf.com´s source [49] I put lot of times of the List of Argentinas UNOFFICIAL matches... Really, I´am "dreaming" whit this article and with the arguments that a few users are using. Sometimes I think It is the upside down kingdom...

You have to admit this, man! There is a huge dispute and discrepancies in these 5 or 6 matches. FIFA doesn´t agree itself... Meanwhile FIFA doesn´t make an official report as it did in 2013 (for me, the best, neutral and complete source we have, including the list of matches) the article should remain as it is right now, whit all the notes that are needed. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The 3 versions of the count of matches

Hello. As I said a few days ago (more than a week) I waited here in the talk page to see if we could reach an agreement according to reach a solution in the count of matches in the article. Unfortunately, as it´s happened a few months ago, nobody came to say anything, so I made a hard work to show the 3 versions of the count of matches of this article.

As I proved in this talk page a lot of times, there are a few sources that say they are tied (included one FIFA´s source), a lot of sources that say Argentina leads by one match (including a FIFA´s source whit the complete list of games in history), and a few sources that say Brazil leads by 1 or 2 matches. The article as it was before this new editions, was clarely not neutral: the only version it had was the brazilian one, not seeing those sources (I repeat: 2 from FIFA, the major football association in the world, and one from AFA, the major association in Argentina´s football, with also the full complete list of matches recognized) that had another count of matches. So, I included the 3 versions, to be 100% neutral... It´s is all explained with serious and neutral sources and notes. The reader of the article will have the 3 versions and will know that there is a dispute in the official count of matches.

PLEASE, do not revert. Correct if there are mistakes of style, or grammatical but not the content. Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

those 6 matches clealry shouldnt countMuur (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree with you. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarifications required:

Under "other names" we have Clásico del Atlántico and Clássico do Atlântico listed, but no source for either and we don't mention it in the lead. Can this be sourced? Koncorde (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not kwow this rivalry or derby whit this name. Really, at least in Argentina, it dosn´t call like this. Regards, --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

1968 matches. Book of AFA´s Memory and Balance of 1968

Hello everybody. User:Koncorde and User:Svartner: I found an official AFA´s document from 1968 that gives no room for discussion about these 2 games... I found digitized the 1968 AFA´s Memory and Balance.[50] It is on the internet, in the "Library of AFA". http://biblioteca.afa.org.ar/libros.html (Biblioteca AFA in spanish). There are many of them digitizeds, and I will continue searching. In the 1968´s book, you go to the page 32 and 33, and you will see the sumary of those 2 games. Not need to know spanish, are very clear the summaries. And as I told you lot of times, it was not Brazil national team... Those matches were played between Argentina and a Rio de Janeiro selection (August 7) and Argentina vs Minas Gerais Selection (August 11). Please, see here [51]. The summary says "COMBINADO RÍO DE JANEIRO VS. ARGENTINA" and "SELECCION MINAS GERAIS VS ARGENTINA".[52] As you can see, AFA always (alredy in 1968) counted them as unofficial matches, against state selections, not against Brazil. Now, we can discover (and not only "interpretate") why AFA do not count those matches as "Class A full international games": that´s because always considered them not against Brazil national team. As you can see in the source of the "Memory and Balance" of AFA, already in 1968 they were considered unofficial, and considered as 2 matches against 2 provincial rivals. Can you see Koncorde, why AFA "ignored" those 2 games?... Simple... I hope we can following unraveling the puzzle.

Said that, we must re write the part of 1968 games in the related articles of Argentina and Brazil. Above all this Brazil national football team results (unofficial matches) (they don´t figure) and Brazil national football team results (1950–1969) (they figure as official, and not as Rio´s Selection and Minas Selection).

What else do we wait, Koncorde? Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Found the 1956´s game in the AFA´s official book of their Memories and Balance from 1956

Hello everybody. A little "introduction": recently, a few days ago, I demonstrated that AFA, in their official Memories and Balance from 1968, clarely recognised as Argentina national team played against a Rio de Janeiro´s selection (first) and vs a Minas Gerais Selection (then) instead of against the national team of Brazil, as Elo Ratings and one source of Rsssf.com assert. For those who didn´t see, please click here and see the pages 32 and 33 from the AFA´s official book of the Memories and Balance from 1968 [53]. As at this stage almost everybody know, the two matches were won by the Rio de Janeiro´s team (4-1) and the Minas Gerais team (3-2) and this 2 sources (Elo Ratings and ONE source of Rsssf, that clarely Svartner and Koncorde value the most) incredibly say that were won by Brazil… See [54] [55] [56]. They both appears; the two games won by "Brazil"… Here we have a big discrepance, because for AFA, oficially they were 2 unofficial matches against 2 State´s selections, but for Elo Ratings and ONE source of rsssf.com (another source from THE SAME Rsssf.com includes them at the list of Argentina national team unofficial matches [57]) were “official” and against Brazil, and not vs State´s Selections... This clarely demonstrates that neither Elo Ratings nor Rsssf.com are 100% reliables... Above all, Elo Ratings...

Well, adding more discrepances and confusion, and as I am intelectually honest, I searched and searched and searched and found today in the 1956 official book of AFA´s Memories and Balance, that the december 1956 match (Raul Colombo cup, that also counts as official according to Elo Ratings and Rsssf.com [58] [59] [60] and as unofficial in this rsssf.com source [61]), AFA (in this book) counts it as played against Brazil, that was represented by a “Federación Metropolitana de Football” team... In the infobox of the match of this book says Argentina 2-Brazil 1… See here, the page 60 [62]. Here, it is ambiguous: by one hand, AFA tells the brazilian team was a “Federación Metropolitana” team, but in the infobox of the match says “Argentina 2 – Brazil 1”… And in the description of the line ups they put Argentina (whit the players) and Brazil (with the players)! Well, I´am already very confused because moreover, AFA´s source from the 2023 do not count this match as official against Brazil [63] and either FIFA´s 2013 source [64]. Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't value anything the most. Please stop projecting complete nonsense at me. I have just repeatedly told you that using multiple sources that disagree with each other to argue a conclusive, or inconclusive outcome, is pure WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Koncorde (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don´t care if you "value" a thing or not. I´m talking with the whole community, not only with you. I have just repeatedly told you that you are NOT the "owner" of wikipedia... Do what you want. --Raúl Quintana Tarufetti (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)