Jump to content

Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Qualification

Is this section really necessary at the moment. Qualification won't begin for more than a decade. Jmount (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this page should be deleted until this World Cup even becomes relevant. Spitfire19 T/C 16:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 89.242.207.26, 2 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} 89.242.207.26 (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Spitfire19 T/C 16:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

LGBT rights

the section doesnt mention anythign to do with the 2022 World Cup, all it says is that its illegal. Which may be well and good but it has no relevance to this unless specifically mentioned and can thus stay on the requisite page.Lihaas (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I just told you above, because the alcohol mentions what it has to do with the World Cup (ie- its banned, but fan zones will sell it), this part doesnt mention anything whatsoever to do with the world, it simply states its banned (and the source doesnt draw comparison either, its just asking if the reader would go there with a list of facts). (youve also added the same ref twice, could delete/remove that at least?) If you have some source that suggests it would be legalised for the duration of the world or something of the sort then add it.Lihaas (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
In 2022, it is not absurd to think that there will be international football players who will be openly gay ; supporters can be openly homosexual. Or transgender. This is an issue. Hektor (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
What? Thats an absurd arguement for the sake of arguing. This is complete WP:OR and WP:Synthesis by definition. If it becomes an issue in 2022 then cite, right now you have absoltuely no relevance. Wikipedia is not a WP:Crystal ballLihaas (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
We are in the talk page. Discussion about OR is not relevant here. What I put in the article is factual. Hektor (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, i presume your not that familiar with the english wikipedia (i dont know how this works on other ones) as per your page. But OR is a talk page debate where material that would be thus is talked about. What you enter maybe factual to another page, it is NOT relevant to the cotnents of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, which if you read the section says, and i quote, "Homosexuality is illegal in Qatar."
Anyways, it now seems to have been taken off by another editor for the same reason "and... No football context given so removed"Lihaas (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's totally irrelevant. Qatar may have a number of social and human rights problems, maybe more so than many Western nations, but they don't need to all be mentioned in this article. If, however, some people talk about boycotting the World Cup because of said social issues, then, sure, it'd be relevant. But saying "there might be gay players, so it's relevant" is absurd. -- tariqabjotu 19:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE MAKE MENTION OF THE STATUS OF LGBT RIGHTS SOMEWHERE IN THE ARTICLE. This is a human rights issue, and deserves mention - especially considering that the NY Times in conjecturing that Blatter is vying for the Nobel Peace prize by awarding the World Cup to assorted developing nations. At the very least, the general issue of human rights in Qatar should be raised, with reference to articles on the status of women and LGBTQ persons in Qatar. This is important information that e.g. fans who may be traveling to the event need to be aware of. If Qatar establishes "fan zones" with one set of laws, what happens if errant fans venture outside of that district? To what set up laws are they subject?

They call it the WORLD CUP, which indicates that it should be inclusive of all citizens of the world - regardless of religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Placing the event in a country that has specific laws and customs that discriminate against particular subsets of people brings into question the label "World Cup." These issues must be brought up in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.93.84 (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Given 'tariqabjotu professed religious interests, he may not be an objective commentator on this issue. To quote his user page, "being one hundred percent devoid of bias is just about impossible." Tariqabjuto, this may be one of those cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.93.84 (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Again WP:NOR. If a news article draws that conclusion - then we can include LGBT issues to the article. Likewise with any socio-economic/environmental/political/etc. issue. --Madchester (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Article that describes the Qatar decision as "controversial" with reference to gay rights: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/dec/02/world-cup-2022-qatar-winning-bid Ergo, by Madchester's logic, the WIki entry should mention the status of homosexuality in Qatar as an issue. Ditto for women's rights. I don't understand the resistance to including this information: Qatar legislates discrimination, and the World Cup is the most widely watched single sporting event on the planet. It is important to inform readers of the WIki page of these issues. At a minimum, mention that the status of LGBT persons in Qatar is a concern (cite the Guardian article), and refer to this entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Qatar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.228.90 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I have seen a number of articles that reference Qatar's policy on Gay rights as an issue with their bid and it is therefore not irrelevant and deserves to be in the article. Kafuffle (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

sorry unknown user but "They call it the WORLD CUP, which indicates that it should be inclusive of all citizens of the world" is not correct, they call it the world cup because in includes all teams in the world. LGBT rights might be an issue but no one will arrest you for being gay (i lived in the middle east). And since many people say that it is an issue, what about the US? up until 2003 sexual acts of people of the same sex were illegal, and this only changed bacause of a supreme court ruling, still being contested in places like Texas. Lets remember that in 1994 when the world cup was held in the united states homosexuality was illegal. What im trying to say is, this world cup is 12 years away and the middle east, specially places like Qatar, Dubai and the UAE are rapidly changing. Take a look at any of these places 10 years ago, or 20 years ago and you'll see how much has changed not only phisically but legally. Right now we might suppose that LGBT right might be an issue, but there is nothing that suggests otherwise, as the world cup is not happening now or in 2011. Arg2k (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that says that the legality of homosexuality is a issue concerning the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. The concerns of the weather, alcohol and Israel are covered, whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation, or whatever the situation may or may not be in 2022, I don't see what's wrong with simply stating that concerns have been raised. Grim23★ 17:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL is precisely why we should not be including this as an issue yet. In time it might become a genuine issue, at the moment it is an anticipated concern. If we were writing a journalistic piece about the selection of Qatar, it would probably be worth mentioning, but this is an encyclopaedia that records facts about the event, not background colour on the proposed location. Kevin McE (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The crystal guideline is intended to prevent unverifiable speculation, but reporting discussion of future events is allowed or the article would be a bit slim. Background colour is open to interpretation, but the threshold for inclusion is notability and verifiability, and this issue is notable enough to be written about in a nation newspaper and several other reliable sources.[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Grim23★ 19:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Human rights has been brought up by a lot of newspapers - WP:NOTE, it's in as far as any sensible editor would be concerned. It's not speculation as Qatar has been selected as host with these aspects. Speculation and WP:CRYSTAL would be along the lines of talking about the countries who'll be there in 2022. For Qatar, in terms of construction of the stadia/planning/etc... the cup starts now, therefore any issues are immediate = not speculative. 81.96.245.225 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The other threshhold for inclusion is some sort of encyclopaedic relevance: it is far too early to say whether Qatar's legislation as it stands in 2010 will have any encyclopaedic relevance to a competition in 2022. Homosexuality was illegal in the UK in 1966, but this fact is not considered to have seriously undermined England's win. The press will publish a lot about a relatively little known country in the few days after it has come so much to public attention, but that tells us nothing about the tournament. Kevin McE (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
1. the material is heavily referenced, so your point on 'encyclopaedic relevance' is irrelevant. 2. you've missed the point - the world cup for Qatar starts now in terms of construction and with regards to people trafficking, so your point on speculation is irrelevant, 3. your point about 1966 is irrelevant as no notable news organisations commented on those aspects at the time - if they did, they should be in the 66 article. thanks. 81.96.245.225 (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
There are thousands of things that could be "heavily referenced" (sic): that has no effect at all on whether in is encyclopadically relevant. Human rights issues are notable as far as Qatar, the country, is concerned, and Qatar the country is relevant as far as the 2022 WC is concerned. The offside rule is relevant as far as football is concerned, and football is relevant as far as the 2022WC is concerned, but we will not have a section on offside rules in this article unless the offside rule changes for, or as a result of, this tournamnet. The allocation of the right to host the tournament has been the occasion of comment about Human Rights in Qatar, but until these rules change because of the event, or impact upon those who are in Qatar specifically because of the tournament, there is no direct relevance. Kevin McE (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd too say that section belongs to the Qatar article and not the world club event. Otherwise you could add this section basically to every other sports event in Qatar. -Koppapa (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Kevin, I agree that some of the more general information about the country is not directly relevant but some referenced material with a clear link the the World Cup has twice been deleted. With this dif [7] I added only things directly linked to the World cup. Grim23★ 13:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking of re-adding this paragraph,[8] does anyone have any specific objections to any part of it? Thanks. ps can everyone please keep in mind the WP:3RR Grim23★ 18:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Despite your claims, I see no specific connection of these facts of Qatari life to the World Cup. We are talking about a football tournament, and anything that is not directly related to football should be directly related to the turnament. You are describing issues that were true before Qatar even thought of applying for the tournament. If you wish to write about controversies connected to Qatar's World cup bid, there is an article about that bid. If there are grounds to criticise FIFA's decision to award the games to Qatar, there is an article about the bid process. But this is meant to be about a football tournament that will not take place for another 12 years, not about the religio-sociology of Qatar today. The awarding of a high profile event properly prompts the press to write about the country, but we must be able to distinguish between that which is triggered by the World Cup, and that which is about the World Cup. Kevin McE (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
While I would by no means wish to defend many Qatari laws, a few of the myths that are disseminated by the popular press might be balanced out by this: alcohol is not illegal, gays are not actively persued. Kevin McE (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE to the whims of some media outlets, etc. partcularly where relevance is dubious.Lihaas (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE requires that all significant viewpoints are represented, also several foreign nationals have been flogged for their sexuality. [9] Grim23★ 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd be intrigued to see the evidence that anyone has been flogged for their sexuality, rather than for their sexual activity. But that's beside the point: the issue here is relevance rather than balance, and the legal status of homosexuality has no more to do with a football tournament than any other law in the host country. Kevin McE (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I take your point on the distinction between sexuality and sexual activity. On the next point, it is your assertion that human rights have nothing to do with the tournament, but there are several mainstream reliable sources that have made exactly that link. Grim23★ 22:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
And this is precisely where journalistic standards differ from encyclopaedic ones. A writer in a newspaper, an imminently disposable medium, might extrapolate from today's situation to what will happen in 12 years time, confident that even if it is not long forgotten by then, they have the defence that they were writing according to the situation in 2010. An encyclopaedia should consider how its words will appear in 12, 24 and 36 year's time. We do not know what relevance the current law in Qatar will have in 2022, so we cannot say that it will effect the tournament. At the time of the event, we should of course be ready to include such issues if they impinge markedly upon participants, but frankly the desire to include current facts about the human rights situation in Qatar in 2010 seems more the fruit of enthusiasm to alert readers to the current policies of that nation than to provide information about a football competition that is still nearly 12 years away. That is a commendable intention of itself, and it is commendable that the media do so, using the "hook" of the world cup to bring that attention to a section of their readership that might not read the inside pages. But it is not, encyclopaedically speaking, yet demonstrably relevant to an article about a World Cup tournament. A case could be made that it is relevant to the bids process, as part of the reaction to the decision: is there a reason why people are trying to raise it here rather than there? Kevin McE (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Qatar's Al Jazeera says [10], although Kevin McE is right, its more a part of the reaction. In which case even the current crop would fit there. + [11]Lihaas (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Break following Blatter's Dec 15 comments

Yes, the tournament is 12 years away, but if this article deserves to exist at all then it must cover whatever have so far been the most notable aspects of it. There are currently somewhere between 1000 and 2000 Google News hits on this incident. You may think it's trivial, but a vast number of reliable published sources clearly don't. – Smyth\talk 11:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be relevant as a reaction at 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids: it has absolutely nothing to do with the football tournament. Blatter made an ill thought out response to a question that he wasn't (but probably should have been) expecting, and later apologised/withdrew: storm in a teacup with no lasting consequence, nothing to do with a series of football matches. I doubt an AfD for the article would get anywhere, but what we should do is be willing to admit that very little of encyclopaedic relevance (not the same as journalistic observation/speculation) will happen between now and the completion of stadia/qualification of teams. Kevin McE (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
at any rate, google popularity is not a barometer for encyclopaedic inclusion.
that said if an when a homosexual footballer brings the laws into question then there may be a case for inclusion should he boycott for said reason(Lihaas (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)).

It does not belong in the article about the bids, because that is entirely about the bidding and selection process, which is now over. Exactly what do you think is the distinction between this issue and the others regarding weather, alcohol and Israel, which are equally speculative, and which are mostly referenced by sources which were written before Qatar was selected? – Smyth\talk 13:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The article about the bids does include reaction, at the moment arguably lacking balance because it is mainly about local delight. The alcohol section includes comments about what will happen (or at least what is planned to happen) during the event; the Israel section is about what will be pemitted for the event; the weather section is about the design of stadia for the event, and the possibility of the event being scheduled other than in its usual timeframe. In what way is the LGBT controversy directly referenced to the way the tournament will be organised? If an authoritative warning is released by the organisers, or a lightening of legislation, is announced, that will be relevant, as it will be of either warnings or accomodations are introduced for open discussion and disemmination of literature about non-Muslim religious, but at the moment there is only info about the country in relation to gay issues, not the football tournament. Kevin McE (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We are no longer talking about speculation by media outlets on their own initiative, we are talking about public speculation by the head of FIFA. That is just as directly relevant to the tournament as anything said by Qatar. I have no doubt that the issue will come up again, and when it does, this incident will be its first chapter. But it might take years, so I'm not going to argue anymore just now. If anyone wants me back they can leave a notice on my talk page. – Smyth\talk 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion

Kevin, you reverted this addition [12] about a statement made by the head of FIFA concerning gay fans and the Qatar tournament. You have explained your point of view on including gay rights issues above, but what Wikipedia principle are you justifying the reversion of a sourced [13] addition? Thanks Grim23★ 02:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

See my contribution 2 above your query, This is about the country, and the result of the bids process: it is in no way about the tournament. Where is all the evidence of this having been any issue during the AFC a couple of moonths ago? Kevin McE (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, please could you briefly state the policy based reason for your reversion? Grim23★ 10:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The most important, and least discussed, policy of all: relevance. Kevin McE (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I made an edit adding mentions of homosexual fans, and Kevin removed it. I don't see how it is any less relevant than the issue of alcohol or Israel: after all, there is only a small chance of Israel qualifying, but gay fans going to the World Cup is a certainty. Not to mention that the media and the President of FIFA have said a lot about the issue. Have re-added my paragraph. EamonnPKeane (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, the essay you quoted in your summary (WP:REL), says only relevant facts should be included in an article. Blatter's statement and the sources reporting it show this issue is relevant to the tournament. Grim23★ 00:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Find me one piece of evidence that there was any difficulty over gay fans at the 2010 AFC championships, and I will accept that there might be grounds to extrapolate such an issue to the 2022 WC. Until then, why do people think it is relevant to consider that one throwaway comment in a press conference 12 years before a ball is to be kicked in Qatar confers relevance to this issue. Official statements have been made by the organising committee, as part of the bid about accomodation of Israel, if they qualify, about coping with weather conditions, about relaxation of the anti-alcohol laws. Those comments thus have specific relevance to this event.
On the other hand, we have one comment made by Blatter about gay issues. Let's actually read what the plethora of links, all to the same comment and therefore not gaining anything by multiplication, actually say.
1) Five of the seven citations make it clear that it was a joke. This is the same Blatter who suggested that women should play in tighter shorts. He is prone to inappropriate comments, but they have no automatic jurisdiction, despite his profile.
2) Six of the citations say that Blatter went on to say ""It's another culture and another religion, but in football we have no boundaries. We open everything to everybody and I think there shall not be any discrimination against any human beings,": he also went on to say, "we don't want any discrimination. What we want to do is open this game to everybody, and to open it to all cultures, and this is what we are doing in 2022," so the quotation is highly selective.
3) The comment was made in the context of a press conference in Johannesburg to discuss the legacy of the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. None of the Qatari organisers were involved. The enquiry was off-agenda for that meeting, so the reply was unprepared.
4) The citations speak of the possibility of change in 12 years. So the assumption that this issue has anything at all to do with the tournament in 2022 is WP:CRYSTAL.
5) The vast majority of the journalistic commentary and quoted reactions of other people were in relation to Blatter's comment (or a small proportion of his comments), and not actually about the 2022 WC tournament.
This issue is undoubtedly part of the reaction to the result of the bidding procedure to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup, and should be on that article: it is by no means clear or certain that it will have anything to do with the 2022 World Cup, and that is the subject matter of this article. Why are those so determined to include it here not making any effort to include it there? Kevin McE (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Extrapolations from another competition would have no bearing on this article and would be original research anyway. Points 1,2 and 3 are arguments for refining the information, not deleting it. 4) The WP:CRYSTAL guideline is about excluding unverifiable speculation, it specifically allows the inclusion of verifiable discussion about future events. 5) Blatter was talking about the 2022 tournament. This issue is specifically to do with the Qatari tournament, not to do with the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids. Grim23★ 14:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It cannot possibly be said that gay rights are an issue at the Qatar 2022 World Cup, because nobody knows in 2011 what the law in Qatar will be in 2022, or how it will be applied. It is being discussed in relation to Qatar being awarded the games, so put it in the article about the awarding of the games. When and if the organisers of the games say something about it, it might be worth mentioning: Blatter has no direct personal role in the organisation of that event. Kevin McE (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The text contained no speculation, just verifiable discussion of a future event per the crystal guideline, so I have re-added it. The information is not about the bidding process so it would be off-topic there. Official statements are primary sources, the "Due and undue weight" guideline says any significant view published in a reliable source can be included. Grim23★ 18:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is entirely about speculation. Notice that the section on Alcohol and Israel contain statements from the official organizing committee but no such statement is present in the homosexuality section. In essence, it's only an issue related to Blatter's response, not in relation to the event itself. I don't mind leaving it in, but an official response from the host country would be better. There are many other things that are illegal in Qatar, such as attempting to convert people to a religion other than Islam, couples displaying affection in public, and use of many forms of drugs. Since the country has not commented on these activities either, should we voice concerns from groups about them? I don't think so. So this is a very thin issue. As for the link to the link to LGBT rights in Qatar: gone. It offers no more information on the issue than this article does. Also, it is, or should be, about the rights of the LGBT community in Qatar, not those of tourists going to the country. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that the section that Grim wants included starts with the words "The selection of Qatar as hosts attracted controversy", thus supporting the suggestion that the controversy is about the selection of the hosts (which was the bidding process), not the tournament. Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the link wasn't helpful. Coverage of a statement made by the organisers would be good to find. Although over reliance on official statements, might affect the neutrality of the article by excluding other significant viewpoints. Also I think the list references after the Blatter statement could be trimmed to a couple, does anyone have any preferences? Grim23★ 21:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We can find a way to explain show how Blatter's words were meant, please don't just delete them. Grim23★ 21:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
You've just said that we should follow a guideline which says any significant view published in a reliable source can be included: a throwaway joke by someone who has no authority in the planning of this tournament, and who almost certainly will have no formal role in the sport for 7 years running up to the event, is not a significant view. Kevin McE (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Venues

Hi, a autoconfirmed user goes to this address and upload those pictures here and added to the venues. We can upload them because those pictures are animation like the pictures of the venues of 2014 FIFA world cup that uploaded and never deleted such it.Troly2010 (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Who is the retard? "is gonna get bombed up" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.161.97 (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

adding or removing the International Reactions

i find it important to present the International Reactions on Qatar's Host, since several nations, and public opinion saw that Qatar has bought its way, and we should also present the states that stated their support for Qatar, since im still trying to find a proper referance of other Arab's states participation in the WC, especially in Volunteering, where Lebanon would be designing the Cerographies, Egypt will be providing labored Volunteers, UAE, with organizers, etc... and should also include the part where president Obama stated that FIFA took the wrong decision, in WIKIPEDIA, we tend to include all facts and details about topic... Arab League User (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That section is without precedent on all other World Cup articles, is a random selection of comments from a few nations with no consistency as to the level of the people whose opinion is referenced, makes conclusions not supported by the source, uses blogs as sources, uses sources inaccessible to readers of English, is in poor English, breaches WP:FLAG, and is not about reactions to the tournament, the subject of the article. If you think that something appropriately written and sourced about international reaction to the results of the competition to host the event could be an asset to the encyclopaedia, put it on the article about the competition to host the event. Kevin McE (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It may very well be relevant but not this article. Itd be better at thye article abotu the bid.Lihaas (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

SECTION: Issues with holding the WC in Qatar

Wikipedia ought to be ashamed of itself.

Of course this is an article about the WC in Qatar in 2022.

But the issues such as LGBT rights (and those of women too - who, for example, "must also obtain approval from their husband or guardian before traveling" [1]) simply *must* be included.

And I am absolutely amazed that they have been included - and then removed - on several occassions.

Furthermore, reading the comments above, I see others have asked for the inclusion of these issues. And they have been rebuffed on the most spurious of grounds.

I respectfully ask for there inclusion again.

Any member of the Gay/Lesbian community, any Female visiting Qatar in 2022 is - potentially - going to be affected by these issues.

To not include them is to bring the whole of Wikipedia into question.

Goalsonly2 (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Clearly discussing alcohol issues, and ignoring the bigotry is an issue. None one would disagree that anyone who discriminates against someone based on their sexuality is a bigot. So why are we ignoring this issue that has received extensive media coverage? The only answer that I can see is that those who are removing such information are bigots - and should be removed from the Wikipedia project. Nfitz (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments long before the event have very little to do with the event

Have a look at any article on a completed World Cup. There is almost nothing, in any of them, about thoughts of officials several years in advance of a tournament. Have a look at the state of the articles on the 2006 and 2010 events 18 months before kick-off. We now have the unusual situation of the venue having been announced far earlier than ususal, and a number of comments being made long before the event, that may have little to do with the event as it eventually will unfold.

We should remember the principle of WP:Recentism, and in particular the principle that notability is not temporary. FIFA's early selection of a venue means that rather than a 10 year rule, we need to have the self discipline to apply a 15 year rule. Things will go into the article that will be updated and tweaked before they settle into a stable situation some time after the winning captain has raised the trophy, but things should not be in this article that will no longer be relevant or appropriate by that time. Maybe there is a case for responses to the result of the bids to be expanded in that article: maybe there is a case for an article already on Controversies around the 2022 FIFA World Cup or something similar. What I cannot see as relevant is long quotations here from a man who has a relevant opinion on issues about the English Premier League in 2011, but who is likely to have retired long before, who is not an international manager, and has expessed no opinion to be one , and who is commenting on something that is at present not even a clear and specific proposal. I would invite editors to consider how such comments will look to the reader in 2025. That is what we are doing as encyclopaedic editors, making an enduring product; a 2011 football news blog will have different editorial priorities, and the two different styles of publication should not be confused. Kevin McE (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well said Kevin. This article needs as little on these controversies - I agree with the above section that it seems odd to mention certain 'controversies' and not others. I'd really rather not have a separate article, but if it avoids this article being swamped then it might be the lesser of two evils. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Needs editing

It says that gays got mad because it's in Qatar. That's all it said. The wording looks a little weird and needs editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.92.44 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The image File:Doha-port-stadium.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Artificial cloud?

Anybody gonna bring this up? It's on the news. --TangoFett (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of voting corruption

Reports to the Select Committee of the House of Lords in the UK alleging possible voting corruption on selection of venue have been widely reported in the press.[14] [15] Someone want to pick up the baton and insert a section? --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC) I second this, the corruption in FIFA needs to be exposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.20.215 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup Bid page

Most of the info on both pages is the same. I don't see any reason for a separate bid page anymore (unless there is a re-vote and Qatar loses its WC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.167.182 (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The bid is finished and there is little reason for that article to change however the World Cup event will continue to change and as such this article will grow. Please see some of the articles about previous years' world cup events to see what this article will become. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Police shut out fans at Asian Cup

I found this article about what happened at the final match of the Asian Cup 2011. Can anyone include this information in this article? Here is the link: http://english.aljazeera.net/sport/football/2011/01/201112921940597529.html —CAroom 13:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well it is about the Asian Cup 2011 and not the 22 World CUp, so... why? -Koppapa (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this would be a big concern. What if the same thing happens in the 22 World Cup? There hasn't been any statements made about this to explain what happened. How will Qatari officials make sure that the same doesn't happen in the 22 World Cup? Some people nearly died that night and many people lost money. -CAroom (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
They've got 11 yers to plan now. -Koppapa (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
True, but they should explain what happened that night and they need to tell the fans how are they going to plan for the 22 World Cup so that this won't happen again. If they had problems handling fans for the Asian Cup 2011 and had to bring the riot police to a friendly crowd, how will they handle the enormous crowds of the World Cup 2022? -CAroom (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I just added the article in the Hosting issues section. Could someone please check my spelling, grammer, and citation? Thanks. -CAroom (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Little can go wrong with spelling and grammer (sic) if you copy and paste as you did, but that is copyvio. It is probably worth one brief sentence, but keep it in proportion. Why ask opinions about including it if you are going to ignore the reply? Kevin McE (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
There, I wrote it in my own words now. I'm not really sure about the referencing though. At first I was asking for someone to include the information, because I'm still new to this. I wasn't asking for opinions. I think this is very important as this information brings many concerns about the World Cup 2022. -CAroom (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I like your edit. However, you didn't mention the capacity of the stadium versus how many fans were able to attend the game. You also didn't mention the use of riot police and the woman who was injured. Could you please add that somehow? Thanks. -CAroom (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.173.59 (talk)
It's not notable for this article. That injury has nothing to do with the 22 cup, it belogs to the asian cup article. -Koppapa (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The way that woman was treated, shows how police in Qatar would treat the supporters. That would be a concern for how they would treat the supporters at the 2022 World Cup. -CAroom 10:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Taking the unsubstantiated claim of an anonymous person as grounds to make assumptions about the conduct of the security forces of an entire country after another 11 years of event specific training is unspeakably irresponsible. Kevin McE (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sexism in Qatar

I understand that there are or could be a number of issues concerning women at this event. Ought these not to be highlighted in the controversy section too? Or don't 50% of the world's population being excluded from, eg. driving, constitute a problem? Wembwandt (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Only if the rules of football are changed such that manoeuvring a car becomes an essential part of the sport. There is a lot that is undesirable in Qatari society, but a lot of it has absolutely nothing to do with a football tournament. Kevin McE (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
"Absolutely nothing to do with the tournament"? What rubbish. Supporters have *everything* to do with the tournament and half of them are women. So if they are restricted from going to games (eg. by using a car) then it is obviously relevant. The section should be added. Wembwandt (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
They aren't restricted. They just have to use the bus. -Koppapa (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
With or without a veil? Wembwandt (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there a factual basis to this? Our article states that women can drive in Qatar, and that dress code is driven by custom rather than legislation. About a quarter of the population is non-Moslem. This is beginning to look like searching for a stick to beat a nation with, rather than seeking to provide information about a football tournament. Kevin McE (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on crystal balls

"2022 FIFA World Cup"? This information is all very good, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'm about to nominate this article under AfD. If you don't want to article to be deleted, then you may contest my nomination. Thank you. StormContent (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Event received a lot of coverage and is sourced. AFD wont get through. Don't do it, why not start with 2012? :) -Koppapa (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if the instigator of the thread has actually read WP:CBALL. If so, he/she should have noticed Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. The 2022 WC is both notable and almost certain to take place. WP:CBALL states Examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics: there is far more known about the 2022WC than the 2020 Olympics (like where it will take place). I note that the threatened AfD has not been started: I hope the new editor will continue to stay his/her hand. Kevin McE (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is a million miles from WP:CRYSTAL. Predicting that there will be a FIFA World Cup in 2022 is only mildly more speculative than predicting the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


Investigation into corruption

Should we make a point in the article about the fact that this event is under speculation of corruption and maybe re-voted on? TollHRT52 (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2012 (AEST)

There is an ethical enquiry, which should be covered mainly at 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids, although any conclusions would be worth noting here. I read nothing that suggests that re-voting is in any way imminent. Kevin McE (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please add in the bidding section

The voting patterns were as follows[2]:

Country First round Second round Third round Fourth round
 Qatar 11 10 11 14
 United States 3 5 6 8
 Republic of Korea 4 5 5 Eliminated
 Japan 3 2 Eliminated
 Australia 1 Eliminated

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.35.40.141 (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2010‎ (UTC)

OMG, Wikipedia (wording: gay x LGBT)

If Qatar is a conservative Moslem-majority nation with sharia being count as valid law, that bans homosexual behavior, including that of foreigners, it naturally would be hostile to LGBT in general, not just 'homosexual' people (as I have pointed out, a rather silly term, see men who have sex with men, bisexuality, etc.). In the English-speaking world you guys are 2 generations after that word became out-dated in favor of gay, that is increasingly being substituted for queer by many. Furthermore, homosexual is not per se an offensive term (I believe it is past the days it was controversial because of its past medical connotations), but it is problematic because what what is supposed to be described here is a social category rather than a 'biological' one (really, sexual orientation is not something that can be read just by looking at someone's face). Lguipontes (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"sexual orientation is not something that can be read just by looking at someone's face"???? What on earth are you on about? I have seen no evidence that transexual visitors to Qatar have been subjected to any difficulties, yet alone that they are under threat of being in 10 year's time. The heterosexual activities of bisexual people are most unlikely to incur any difficulties in Qatar: there is some concern that homosexual activity might, but even that is virtually crystal balling 10 years ahead of the event. Whatever the current LGBT rights, or rights of anyone else, in Qatar might be at the moment is not the subject of this article: we are writing about a football tournament, not launching a campaign for rights in that country. Kevin McE (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm, you are not trying to understand. "The heterosexual activities of bisexual people are most unlikely to incur any difficulties in Qatar"... That is not what not using the term homosexual is about. Uh, you're newbie about this kind of thing. Let's make an extremely bad comparison but that maybe will be understood: If we were in 1990 and someone told us that South Africa would have a World Cup in 2010 (even if by this time, we persons of the future know that the country bears no scaring among the common sense of the people as it did because of its bad human rights record), the immediate reaction would be: "zOMG apartheid, I don't believe FIFA's allowing these nazis to do a World Cup!"
Imagine that, by that time, Wikipedia already existed (or whatever famous source of information with an user-generated content it may be, awesome it is but with a somewhat negative public image in the respect of its reliability), and it told something like "black activists protest about the selection of the world cup". This would be bad in itself, as black people aren't the only that suffered in apartheid – although they were the most visible (and abused and impoverished, not in the case of homophobia as trans people suffer the most, but that's not what I'm addressing), but racism isn't only anti-black – so better choices would be "people of color" or "non-whites". Now imagine that further below, it informs us that Fifa's officials said that "they assure discrimination won't take place according to their plans", so it is not of concern for the negro fans. Homosexual is not such a problematic term for people of the generations Y and Z in the 2010s, but by the 1980s it'd have a similar height.
Furthermore, what is of polemic here is that Qatar currently criminalizes a kind of sexual activity, more specifically sex between consenting adult men or between consenting adult women (I believe such laws would include general foreplay and display of affection as against nature, too). Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and people of this SO may or MAY NOT engage in such sexual/affective activities; likewise, bisexuality amd heterosexuality are sexual orientations, and if people don't know I assure you that there are "instances", specially for the earlier where this law may be of concern, when it is NOT REQUIRED a homosexual sexual orientation to perform intimate same-sex activities. Using terms such as gay, lesbian or homosexual to describe all kinds of men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women is an essentialist approach to sexuality, so this usage may be not very welcome.
If it is really not of concern to the article, thus the question shouldn't be addressed at all. Just because it is a football tournment, it doesn't justify poor language use. Lguipontes (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I am quite concerned about your Lguipontes' condescending tone. I refuse to stoop to your level and rather than escalate and call you names and insinuate ignorance I'll simply ask what you would like changed. Here are the changes since you arrived to grind your WP:AXE. We have seven references and only one of them even mentions your preferred term, and that only once in referencing The Justin Campaign. They all use the term homosexual. If you can find good references to support your term, we should consider to use it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

People got soft these days. I'm sorry if you take the pain of the others (I probably translated this proverb wrong but who cares) even if it is not offensive, but if English was the native language of the region where I live, newbie would be a perfectly collegiate and polite term to describe someone that lacks knowledge about something. Yes, I assume ignorance, because in a decade where we see gay marriage become same-sex marriage, gay and lesbian alliances/groups become LGBT or queer groups, gay rights become LGBT rights, gay and lesbian (as an umbrella-term for non-heterosexuals) become sexual minorities, a person which does not get my point probably has a vocabulary that is a little outdated about this terminology.
The most weird it may seem, it is wrong to assume that all homosexuals do intimate activities with persons of the same sex of theirs and that everyone that does intimate activities with a person of the same sex is a homosexual. LGBT, sexual minority, even queer would be more appropriate wording nowadays.
Maybe it needs a source for this article (even if a wise interpretation identifies the reasoning of the above paragraph as the most adequate), but it is often used the way I am pointing out elsewhere in Wikipedia. It is not a POV, I started to have this usage because of its uniformity here. Lguipontes (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Official Song

has been said and confirmed that SpitFire (Songs of the British group The Prodigy) will be the song of the world, according to the twitter of Joseph Blatter, the song would have been chosen by one of the children of Hamad Al Thani.--201.246.112.109 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Doha-port-stadium.jpg

File:Doha-port-stadium.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Doha-port-stadium.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 08:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Climate section

Talks about the stadiums. Which is fine. But what about outside the stadiums? No mention of it. Why? Fans will be outside of the stadium for all but 2 hours per day. Where will they stay? How will they cope with the climate? What provisions are being made for them? What new hotels? Will there be campsites? Will they be air-conditioned? How? Lots and lots of pretty obvious issues need to be mentioned about this. BarbarellaTwo (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for deleting the section header before I was aware of this talk section, but I do not believe that it is appropriate to make a new section purely to contain an expansion needed tab, so I will not be reverting myself.
Frankly, how visitors to any country will cope with the climate is for the visitors themselves to address, not the organisers of sports events. Presumably there will be expansion of the accommodation in years to come, and facilities catering for different budgets will have different degrees of comfort. As information emerges, it can be added, but the event is still 10 years away. If you think there should be reliable sources reporting such info at this stage, by all means google it and post it if found, but I suspect that there is not much detail available yet, and until there are reliable sources reporting on the matter, our hands are tied.
I would suggest a more wide, spectator/visitor facility section, rather than suggesting that the climate is in the control of sports administrators. Kevin McE (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
how are people going to cope in such hot temperatures ? the wc will bring thousands of fans who are not used to such heat and where will they stay ? what will they do in the daytimes with such heat ? these things are unique to a wc in qatar, have been mentioned in media and should be addressed in this article. 2.13.53.58 (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I expect if people are hot, then they will probably try to cool down in a swimming pool, have an ice cream, turn on the air con in their accommodation, same as when I go on holiday really. Can't see why it would need to be written into this article, can you? Druryfire (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You clearly dont live in the trophic zone. Jack Bornholm (talk)

>> FIFA 'powerless' over Qatar labour rights(Lihaas (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)).

Terror threat 09 JUL 14

ISIS is threatening to blow up the World Cup if its held in Qatar. They will probably not exist by then but its still a threat. Google sites that support the threat. —AMAPO (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Certainty that it will be in Qatar

The wording "scheduled to take place..." seems a good one. Other wordings in the article such as "It will be the first World Cup in the Middle East" seem less good. Yes, it's the current official plan that that's the case, but nobody I know thinks it's really going to be in Qatar. Are there guidelines about how to report on things which have been declared but which are unlikely? Wikiditm (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not in Qatar

There's been reports that Qatar will not host the world cup. Should we add this or expand on it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not until there are reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

November date

I received reverted an edit saying that the WC would be in November. The source, which appears to be Grant Wahl at SI [16], says "Multiple sources say it's a done deal that World Cup 2022 will take place in November and December of 2022 in Qatar. A FIFA task force will meet in Doha next week and make that recommendation, and the FIFA Executive Committee is set to make the decision final at its meeting in Zurich next month." So it is likely, but is not confirmed. If anyone thinks the information provided is reliable enough, please re-add. -- Chuq (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I restored this and clarified that it is reported by SI with a quote. IMHO, SI is a sufficient reliable source, but we should still report it as uncertain. --Trödel 13:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Climate?

No separate section about the climate problems??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.117.125 (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What problems? It's warm there, but football can be played there. -Koppapa (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
This Mickey Mouse league you're pointing to is played between September and April, not in June/July when FIFA and Qatar said there would be no problem playing the World Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.164.206 (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Climate section and most controversy things are on List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Would vs. will

I've adjusted the wording in the intro to be more tentative and less certain, to reflect not just that the possibility that the 22nd FIFA World Cup might end up not being held in Qatar, but given the way things are going at the moment, also the possibility that by 2022 FIFA itself might no longer exist, and the planning for the 2022 World Cup might have been taken over by some other organization. -- The Anome (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all of it except for the fact there's no evidence that there won't be a 2022 World Cup, even if Qatar don't host it. I'm not going to edit war to change it back, but I think "The 2022 FIFA World Cup will be the 22nd FIFA World Cup"- it's the terminology used for every other future sports event, and there's no evidence that it won't happen. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, there will definitely be a 2022 World Cup, somewhere, and it will be organized by someone. The timescale is not a problem: there are plenty of cities that have held past World Cup or Olympic events that have stadia and infrastructure capable of hosting the competition with 5 or even 3 years notice. But FIFA's continued viability now seems to be in question. Perhaps this article should be called "2022 World Cup"? -- The Anome (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
No, many sports have World Cups in 2022, also thinking "FIFA might not exist then" is ridiculously speculative. Currently there will be a football World Cup run by FIFA in 2022 in Qatar, that's what the facts are, and what the reliable sources say. Anything else is speculation. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is any where near enough evidence that FIFA won't even exist by 2022 to speculate that they won't be in charge by then. Reform is being pushed, as it should be, but not dismantling of the organization as a whole. Chris1834 Talk 12:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Qatar to be stripped of 2022 Cup

[17] and [18] both say Qatar will be stripped, this should be added somewhere. IMO not the lead, as it's speculation though, either Host nation section, or controversy section. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It is the same person for both articles and it is just her opinion that they will be stripped. She doesn't actually have any proof that it will happen. Seems to me, it is more likely someone trying to get her 15 minutes of fame. Chris1834 Talk 12:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I've added it to the end of the controversies section. She's a notable figure in all this so her views do carry some weight. Valenciano (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense, I didn't have time to check them very carefully, but that's probably where I'd have put it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
If we have multiple reliable sources reporting this, we can report it here: but we should do so in NPOV fashion, by reporting that she is making this assertion, not stating it as fact in Wikipedia's editorial voice. -- The Anome (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

We now have this from Domenico Scala (also here), the head of FIFA's audit and compliance committee: "Should there be evidence that the awards to Qatar and Russia came only because of bought votes, then the awards could be cancelled." Still only a possibility, but this is from a current FIFA official, on the record. I think this supersedes the Phaedra Almajid statement. -- Impsswoon (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Move to winter

That's not what's described in that passage. It says it's moved to November/December. Technically, the World Cup was held during winter in 2010 and 2014 too. That's not some kind of new news. It's the date, not the season. --Explosivo (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. We even have a policy on that as well WP:SEASON, so I've changed it. Valenciano (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What was wrong with the addition regarding safety of Israeli players?

I'm not expressing an opinion on it, but what is wrong with this change [19], linked to the Jewish Times?

Well, for one thing, it's very unlikely that Israel will even qualify for the 2022 World Cup. – PeeJay 07:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. With the absence of an edit summary, I wondered why. Red Jay (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2022 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:

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) 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2022 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:

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) 07:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Qatar bashing (censoring) and racism againt Qatar in wikipedia

Why are you censoring allegations of racism and discrimination against Qatar? Link: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/qatar-world-cup-2022-sepp-blatter-says-critics-are-racist-9518018.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.48.65.118 (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

We're not. We're removing unsourced content. If you add a neutral statement with the source above, it will likely stand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
You mean the quote from the guy who was banned by FIFA for bribing an ExCo member? Without context, the quote clearly fails WP:NPOV. I moved the quote to a more relevant location. And also avoid using POV terms like "Qatar bashing" in section titles. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning that up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
you are just racists and bad faith. For the 2022 World Cup, you have filled the article of negative content and slander but for the 2026 World Cup, you will censor all allegations of corruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.1.54.33 (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I have not deleted content that meets Wikipedia standards. I did delete the headings you added earlier, but that's based on editing guidelines outlined at MOS:LAYOUT that states we should not have short sections. Currently the headings separate one-paragraph entries and do not need their own sections. If you disagree, feel free to discuss. I will ignore name-calling.
If I deleted earlier entries (you seem to jump IP addresses) it was because of WP:V. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
And if the anon Nagoya, Japan would rather create an account, we could refer to the editor by name, but going forward, I will refer to the editor as "Nagoya". Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Racist in this article say first world cup in winter on history is controversies ? lol, basards ridiculous racists in wikipedia--112.197.192.199 (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Racists as in you have a bias toward Qatar and any neutral commentary that goes against it is seen as "bashing". See WP:NPOV and stick to it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Stadiums

Al-Rayyan stadium has not been expanded for the tournament but constructed from the very ground after demolition of the old venue. 31.0.121.218 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Source? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2019

Migrant workers, slavery allegations and deaths

PLEASE ADD THIS: In June 2019 following the investigative report 'Trapped in Qatar' by German journalist Benjamin Best for WDR, FIFA admitted for the first time violations of labor standards at the World Cup construction site of the Al Bayt stadium.In addition it was revealed that 125 Nepali workers had their passports illegaly confiscated by their employer and did not receive their salary for up to eight months.[3] Jurgana (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The language and grammar used are poor not to mention American spelling. Second, it's not factually true as FIFA agreed to the February 2019 Amnesty International investigation. Perhaps we can add something after the May 2019 content, but not what you wrote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/qatar/page.do?id=1011226
  2. ^ [1]
  3. ^ "Qatar 2022: FIFA admits violation of workers' standards - Deutsche Welle". 6 June 2019. Retrieved 30 July 2019 – via www.dw.com.

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:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2020 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add that Norway will not boycott the games that can lead to a berth at the World Cup

Please add to the section, "Migrant workers, slavery allegations and deaths":
"On 14 March 2021, voting was held by the representatives of The Norwegian Football Federation, to see if the federation was going to boycott [qualification games for the] World Cup in Quatar; the vote was 146 to 61, so there will be no boycott [without at least two rounds of voting being called]."
Source: [20], Verdens Gang. 89.8.75.21 (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

While you've provided a source, I don't see the value in adding that something that the article doesn't mention as a possibility, won't happen. Valenciano (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The vote has taken the issue off the table. Please add: "On 14 March 2021, voting was held by the representatives of The Norwegian Football Federation, to see if the federation was going to boycott [qualification games for the] World Cup in Quatar; the vote was 146 to 61, so there will be no boycott."
Same source. 89.8.75.21 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add that Norway will decide in June 2021, regarding a (remotely) possible boycott

Please add to the section, "Migrant workers, slavery allegations and deaths":
"On 20 June 2021, Norwegian Football Federation is scheduled to have an extraordinary congress, to decide if the federation will boycott [qualification games for] the 2022 FIFA World Cup."
Source: [21], Verdens Gang (accessed 15 March 2021). 89.8.116.184 (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The Workers Cup

I recently created an article for the film The Workers Cup. The film depicts the condition of the construction workers at the various work sites in Qatar. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

2022 FIFA World Cup#Venues C to F degrees

Why is the temperature of 20 degrees C as 36 degrees F in here? It should be 68 degrees F. Someone either fix this or clarify it. Thanks. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Because this refers to a change in temperature rather than an official measurement, as explained in a hidden notice when you view the source. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

That makes no sense. I can't edit because semi-protected. But this needs editing. At best, wording is unclear and misleading (suggests 20c = 36f); at worst (and in most likely case) it is downright wrong. As someone mentioned, it should be 20c = 68f AdaCicada (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm personally not confused, and it's definitely not wrong. If the temperature changed from 40C (104F) to 20C (68F), the temperature difference is 20C (68F). Perhaps the confusion is because of the different zero points in celsius and Fahrenheit? I'm not sure how to reduce the confusion, though it seems obvious (at least to me) if you read the full sentence. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Paul Vaurie and AdaCicada, the documentation of Template:Convert, the template that's used to make this conversion, explains more, particularly the section on expressing a change or difference in temperature. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for title to be changed to "2022 FIFA Men's World Cup"

Please can the title of the page be changed to "2022 FIFA Men's World Cup"? This is for clarity and consistency with existing page "2023 FIFA Women's World Cup" Heartyseven (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I am torn, common name is valid, but it would make sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
It wouldn't make sense at all. The only time it's ever referred to as the "men's World Cup", it's to differentiate it from the Women's World Cup (and my capitalisation of "men's" and "Women's" was quite intentional there). – PeeJay 19:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The term has also been used to differentiate the tournament from the FIFA U-20 World Cup and FIFA U-17 World Cup, which are also a men's tournaments without the sex of the players in the title. There are also FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup and FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Most of the time, people would say "the senior World Cup" if they were differentiating from the U20 or U17 versions, unless there was a need to specify the gender. – PeeJay 22:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand that we have cited the WP:OLINK policy for not linking to the country of Qatar. However, is Qatar actually a "[subject] with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar?" I suspect that many readers would have not heard of the country of Qatar, nor have any idea where Qatar is. Qatar is not a "major country", such as Japan or Brazil, which are listed as examples in the policy. A link to Qatar would be helpful for a majority of Western readers. Natg 19 (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It's also not a minor country. All the cities are linked. Not sure the nation needs to be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The "policy" mentioned even makes an exception for cases where the thing (e.g. major country) is particularly relevant in the context, which I would have thought it is in this case. It seems a bit strange not to link to Qatar here, at least the first time it is mentioned. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
None of the previous cups are linked because the nation itself is not particularly relevant in the context. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Still seems odd and unhelpful to me. Is the climate, the political situation, etc., of the relatively little known host country not of likely interest to people learning about the competition? I know it's just five letters they can type or paste in the search box if they want, but I don't see why we should want to be deliberately obstructive. W. P. Uzer (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
All discussed in the article, and better linked to articles on their climate and political system, not the nation itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with W. P. Uzer. To me, an exception can be made (compared to previous cups), as this is a minor / little known host country, which would be helpful to people learning about the competition. Natg 19 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
You made that clear earlier. The project has not spoken. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Actually, Mr. Gorlitz, it appears you yourself unlinked all the previous cups after I brought them to your attention a year or so ago in this edit: [22] Wikipedia is not a totalitarian website prescribed to be at the mercy of any one user's interpretation, and so I will be restoring all relevant links. You are welcome to open a RfC if you disagree.Rowsdower45 (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I did and that is because that is the consensus of the footy project. If you want to change consensus, open a discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The RfC category |policy has been used, which is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply them to a specific case.
  • If the intention is indeed to change a policy or guideline, you should not discuss it at the talk page of articles where you wish to apply that change. Instead, it should be discussed at the talk page of the policy or guideline itself, or at a discussion board of broader scope such as WP:VPP.
  • If the intention is to discuss how to apply it to articles such as 2022 FIFA World Cup and the other four for which similar RfCs were started within a quarter of an hour after this one, it should be discussed at WT:FOOTY; but if done as an RfC, the category |soc should be used.
It's clear to me that whichever of those two cases is the actual situation here, this is the wrong venue for a discussion of this nature, so I'm closing it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Should the name of the host nation include an inline link to the nation's article? For example, should the first instance of the word "Qatar" be bracketed so as to provide a link to Qatar? Rowsdower45 (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose It has been the longstanding consensus of the WP:FOOTY project to not link the host nation. I accept Qatar may be slightly less known that South Africa or Brazil, but it's not about the nation and cities are linked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Nominator has also asked the same question at the 2010 edition and several others. I left the first but reverted the rest as WP:FORUMSHOPping. If nom wants to expand this request, I would not be opposed to a change after my comment, but essentially the questions are 1) is Qatar well enough know that it does not need to be linked as an WP:OVERLINK and 2) should there be a general consensus to exclude other World Cup hosts if they are sufficiently well-known or does each need to have an RfC to determine OVERLINK? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:OVERLINK. Does this really merit a RfC as well? GiantSnowman 06:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we don't generally link major landmasses such as countries. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per my comment at Talk:2002_FIFA_World_Cup#Inline_link_RfC. Tony (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The intro includes inline links to such articles as Association football, FIFA World Cup, and Arab world, all of which are useful for users looking for more information on these subjects. In particular, Arab world covers a larger area than Qatar but appears to be allowed. Rowsdower45 (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The word “Qatar” appears 9 times in the lead. A wikilink is clearly necessary. JBchrch talk 11:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. The first rule here is "serve the reader". Unlike say France or Brazil, Qatar is pretty obscure. Many if not most readers could find Spain in a map and kinda-sorta know about it some, but not so for Qatar. We are not rulebound here. Serve the reader. (Yes, that means that sometimes we should link the country (El Salvador, Brunei) and sometimes not (United States, Germany). So where's the line -- where does Khazakstan or Luxembourg fit? There's no firm line, just like in most things, and might as well get used to it. Making best guess is why we have wits and common sense. If people are going to fight about minor stuff like that rather than being "whatever", then yeah you're going to have a bunch of RfCs. It is what it is. Herostratus (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021

Change “to reduce temperatures within the stadium by up to 20 °C (36 °F)“ to “to reduce temperatures within the stadium by up to 20 °C (68 °F)”. Cablosone (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: 20 °C (68 °F), 40 °C (104 °F) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Cablosone, Please see here for why the temperature is expressed like this. The sentence is a change in temperature and not a temperature measurement. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The talk page discussions are relevant and compelling. One discussion on the talk page is whether or not to include the word “Men’s” in the title of the discussion. This is important because it is clarifying and the Women’s World Cup pages always include the word “Women’s” in their title. However, historically, most likely due to the fact that the Women’s World Cup is a relatively new development, the Men’s World Cup is always referred to as the World Cup, without the word Men’s. I can understand both sides of the argument here and would find either decision to be valid. ZbarConsumer (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately WP:COMMONNAME is our guide. Since the sex of the players is not stated, we should not, although I am dissatisfied with that and would prefer to see Wikipedia take the lead in gener neutrality (and other areas). Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021

TikTok will be sponsor 2022 Qatar FIFA World Cup okay very that. 217.96.228.42 (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:13, 3 October 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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2021

About the draw and seedings for the groups? 62.198.141.146 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_FIFA_World_Cup/Archive_1&oldid=1136476722"