Jump to content

Talk:List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

The main page was getting too cluttered with all the information regarding concerns and controversies, so I created this page to help alleviate the clutter.

It was a good idea to do that, thank you. However, this list will rapidly become far too long to be manageable and we need to look to breaking it out into articles about various broad aspects, which in turn will be able to link to more specific overviews, which themselves will become lengthy. Thincat (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2023 African Cup of Nations

[edit]

Anyone know how a winter World Cup would affect the 2023 African Cup of Nations? Perfectamundo (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the bribery section deny that Phaedra Almajid was forced to falsely retract her statement?

[edit]

This is a direct lie, there are hundreds of RSs on this issue. 79.74.4.64 (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid you’ll have to provide more information as to what you’re referring to. Jo Jc Jo (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies. 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) 06:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morality

[edit]

As an addendum to the lgbtq stuff, apparently one night stands are also risky legal wise in Qatar. 41.58.192.133 (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the brief text on Women's Rights (identical here and at 2022 FIFA World Cup, shariah forbids extramarital sex. This should be clarified further to indicate that an accusation of rape must be supported by two witnesses. If there is one (or none), then the woman is basically self-incriminating a confession of extramarital sex. The existing text merely states that the accuser was "investigated" without explaining the shariah justification for doing so. Martindo (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel issue

[edit]

Isn't Palestine listed in FIFA site instead of Israel? Enkhsaihan2005 (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

France

[edit]

Several cities in France are boycotting cup by not putting screens. 41.58.247.93 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then please do update the article with these sources. Be bold WP:BOLD and go for it! Jo Jc Jo (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interview

[edit]

Why don't we add the Danish journalist incident? 41.58.248.84 (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for it not to be included! Have a go and do it yourself WP:DOIT Jo Jc Jo (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bands

[edit]

What's the full story about the onelove armbands that caused so much 'fitna'? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

[edit]

Germany covering their mouths vs Japan, Argentine reporter Pollo Alvarez was tried to be censored by Qatari officials and brawl and Falklands wars chant between Argentina and Mexico fans MatsLP (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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) 06:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fans controversy

[edit]

It has been in news since opening ceremony. Fake fans were introduced in the stadium during opening ceremony. Number of spectators attending each match are manipulated, in some stadiums number of spectators is more than number of seats available. Female spectators are less. I don't see a topic on this. Anyone who is working on this article can consider adding a topic on this. Thank you. 103.162.159.198 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the cultural and political issues section. If you scroll down there is a subsection called paid fans. (Fran Bosh (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Removal of non-notable, unencyclopedic self-published cartoon

[edit]

I removed the self-published cartoon because it is unencyclopedic, inflammatory, and not an improvement to the article. إيان (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I left a warning on your talk page because you have attempted several times to censor pictures that you consider to be "not encyclopedic" on the Controversies article ([1], [2], [3]), without justification and in blatant violation of the WP policies WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IMAGE: Since Wikipedia is not censored, readers and editors may come across offensive images. Political cartoons, satirical drawings, and caricatures about people and events are allowed in accordance with the aforementioned WP policies. GenoV84 (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with other users that the "unencyclopedic" argument is nonsense, I think there could be some discussion had about the inclusion due to the self-published nature of the cartoon: it has been uploaded by the creator to Wikimedia but also used outside of it in their own strip, so it has outside use merit, i.e. it has not been created for Wikipedia. But as it doesn't seem wider independent media have elected to use it, we could debate its illustrative merit. I do think the discussion would err on inclusion since there's little reason to oppose when discounting censorship, but we could have that discussion. Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split suggestions

[edit]

As was noted in the first discussion on this talk page in 2015, this article will be in need of a split, and it really is difficult to navigate. May I suggest the following article titles on topics to split out:

With links to all in a sidebar template on the 2022 World Cup. Kingsif (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the Timeline or the Match incidents splits, they sound like they could be over repetitive/ompletely excessive.
But maybe splitting into 2022 FIFA World Cup pre-tournament controversies and 2022 FIFA World Cup tournament controversies would be beneficial - the article is getting verrry long at the moment and we've only just reached the quarter finals! Sionk (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that splitting by subject matter, for the more ongoing issues, would be more beneficial - it prevents the need to duplicate information for 'background'. The smaller topics would go in the generic articles. Note that the human rights one wouldn't need to be a timeline, that section at this article is just currently set up as one, if that was your concern. Kingsif (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that if there is a split that the current title focus on the events of the tournament (from opening ceremony onwards) and then the "pre-tournament" and "human rights issues" (and possibly "LGBT issues", though much of this occurred while the tournament was under way) could be included in, say, 2022 FIFA World Cup hosting controversies - "hosting" possibly less POVNAMING than "host" in this case? By the way (and with respect), "we've only just reached the quarter finals" means that it's now mostly over. At this time, there are just two quarter-finals left, then the two semi-finals and the final (plus third-place play-off), so not much more can possibly happen... 2001:BB6:A06:EC58:BC60:23F1:C470:4A0A (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting to a single other proposed article, especially with a title that is indistinct from the current, is an utterly terrible suggestion; editors will not know which information is where, let alone readers, and it is just asking for someone to suggest a merge either for being a duplicate or for them being too difficult to distinguish. (POVNAME would not find anything wrong with "host" in the title, for the record. There are controversies about the host as well as the hosting, that is just true, however upset a theoretical person or entity may or may not be about it.) And please don't change the article discussion template anyway. Kingsif (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting the current article into several articles linked using the same category would be better, as the Death of Grant Wahl deserves its own article once information comes in. YouFoundSharpe2 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with splitting the human rights and LGBT sections into their own articles and summarising each in a paragraph here. I think it's probably better to wait for the end of the tournament before deciding whether a separate article on incidents during the competition is necessary or whether that needs to be split further into match incidents x other. (Also, Netherlands vs Argentina (2022 FIFA World Cup) is likely to end up notable enough for its own article). – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 15:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section at the 2022 FIFA World Cup article also desperately needs condensing. Some topics seem to have more detail there than here. Multiple articles could well help with that, so they can be main template linked there and editors know there is somewhere else they should be adding information. I feel a level of splitting and clean-up is needed before the tournament is over, I might start later today with the topics you suggest. Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

[edit]

@Gilles Ouaniche: - Hi, I see you've (rather clumsily, but I suppose I can clean that up) reverted a recent split. As you can see, the split discussion here petered out in December but there was broad consensus to split the article for 1. length, 2. containing disruptive edits. The split article I created was based on the IP suggestion above for a 2022 FIFA World Cup hosting controversies article, so it wasn't unilateral. Either way, it was WP:BOLD and you have now reverted, so it is time to discuss: why do you disagree with this split?

Your edit reason at 2022 FIFA World Cup cites no discussion - which I suppose took place here instead of there - and not leaving a summary in place of every removed section, something which you could have added yourself or asked to happen. Your edit reason here says "this is the article for criticism": you assert that this is apparently the only article where criticism can be mentioned, despite that not being your unilateral decision to make (😉), nor it being true, as there has been consensus for splits and other split articles have existed since December (of course, as an account 1 month old you weren't to know). It also said "not an improvement", which would be a good reason to not split, but I'd like you to explain why as, obviously, I thought it was an improvement (see 1 and 2 above). Kingsif (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Knoll

[edit]

I suggest adding a sub-section in this article about how model Ivana Knoll's skimpy World Cup outfits are insulting to Qatari locals, and how this relates to Qatar's greater woman's rights issues. Halaby18 (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

[edit]

@Kingsif: All sources have mentioned "a group of Iranian football and sports personalities" and "accusing them of supplying". Please give your full reason for ignoring the main words of the sources. M1nhm (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just restored a stable version of the text, i.e. one that had actual full sentences rather than random fragments copy-pasted from the source, and said so in my edit reason. Thus, I have no idea why are you pinging me and not whoever wrote the paragraph in the first place.
Of course, summarising the source rather than plagiarising it is not against NPOV. And that should be a more than satisfying answer to your demand. Kingsif (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronnnald7: In all the sources that have been available here, "a group of Iranian football and sports personalities" and "accusing them of supplying" have been mentioned. The source mentions some people. According to What Wikipedia is not "articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. also, according to Neutral point of view Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". According to WP:DELAY and Neutral point of view, In the event of women entering the stadium, the whole event should be mentioned, not just a part of it at a specific time. You should have mentioned the news of women entering the stadium for a league match on 25 august 2022 and the reasons why women were not allowed to enter in March 2022. "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view." Referring to Neutral point of view/FAQ, In assert Sosha Makani, Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources.... The writing is such that it suggests murder while the source has used suspicious death. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. M1nhm (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, this wall of text is just about parsable… While I'm here, can I comment on one of your further demands?
You say: In the event of women entering the stadium, the whole event should be mentioned, not just a part of it at a specific time. You should have mentioned the news of women entering the stadium for a league match on 25 august 2022 and the reasons why women were not allowed to enter in March 2022. And refer to the DUE weight policy for this. However, you fail to recognise that mentioning every single related instance would be massively UNDUE as not all of those instances are relevant to the World Cup. You can see this by the fact the source that describes the controversy does not detail every single related instance. If you actually understood the policy you were quoting far too much of, you would recognise that bringing mention of everything is often unnecessary waffle. In an article only about women and football in Iran, you can talk about everything; this is not that article. A little critical thinking is required to judge appropriate coverage.
I do not know the details of what you contest is POV, so I won't comment except to warn you that we can all see your editing history, and know that you work on articles related to the Iranian state; be careful throwing stones in glass houses. Kingsif (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I appreciate your willingness to help but you warned me about my edits. According to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "to warn you that we can all see your editing history, and know that you work on articles related to the Iranian state; be careful throwing stones in glass houses. " is a personal attack. I warn you. My goal target to promote and improve the article. I have a suggested text on this topic.
"Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, the presence of Iranian women in Iranian stadiums was illegal until October 2019 after the death of Sahar Khodayari. However, on March 2022, They were banned from entering the stadium for the World Cup qualifier. On 25 August 2022, Iranian women were granted access to the stadium to watch a league football match. Iran’s Interior Minister Ahmad Vahidi claimed the reason for this break was to prepare the stadium for the presence of women M1nhm (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. Telling you not to baselessly accuse (multiple?) other people of POV editing when you could be perceived to be doing it yourself (and in the opposite direction) is not a personal attack, it's a WP:PETARD warning. 2. You need to improve your English before adding extensively to articles, your tenses are all over the place and you're using conjunctions that mean the opposite of what you seem to want to say. If you have the references for the above suggested text - that is, preferably a reference that mentions the relevance of "preparing stadiums for the presence of women" in terms of the World Cup - I could re-write it for you. Kingsif (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. I used the sentences that were written in the article by others. I tried not to change the sentence structure too much so as not to delete other people's edits. Thanks for helping improve the article. source for "preparing stadiums for the presence of women" in terms of the World Cup. M1nhm (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will review this after the holidays. Feel welcome to bring more sources/ text suggestion in the meantime. Kingsif (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of rigging

[edit]

People have accused the game of being rigged. There’s the Ecuador-Qatar goal by Ecuador that was ruled out (That could go under controversial goals), the fact that the Mexican coach is from Argentina, Argentina having an easy group, the Netherlands-Argentina game having instances on both sides of dubious calls by the referee, and it being Messi and Ronaldo’s last World Cup. 2600:1012:B0B4:6526:B507:6DD3:6429:C922 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


People have accused the game of being rigged. There’s the Ecuador-Qatar goal by Ecuador that was ruled out (That could go under controversial goals), the fact that the Mexican coach is from Argentina, Argentina having an easy group, the Netherlands-Argentina game having instances on both sides of dubious calls by the referee, and it being Messi and Ronaldo’s last World Cup. Cali Boy 09 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People You and your mates? Or is there a reliable source out there that says there is controversy of people thinking some matches have been rigged? Kingsif (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/fans-world-cup-rigged-qatar-28539918.amp Cali Boy 09 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/football/world-cup/match-fixing-bribery-claim-rocks-opening-world-cup-game-between-qatar-and-ecuador/news-story/7841f4999328b7df79fd9cd7594691a0 Cali Boy 09 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re using fox and daily star as a source 😂hahaha good job humiliating yourself needlessly 🤦🏻‍♂️ hy[Ω]🐐 HyperionLEO (talk). 05:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose problem

[edit]

This article is written like someone has several personal minor complaints about the world cup. It is rambly — almost incoherent at times — and unnaturally jumps from point to point. This is embarrassing to have on Wikipedia, a website that at least feigns a neutral tone whenever possible. For example, the section about how it was controversial to hold the world cup around (but not even that close to) Christmas just belabours the points for far too long. Yes, state the problem there but move on to the facts and events that followed this decision; do not continue to talk about how holding the world cup during Christmastime is Anti-Christian. This article is riddled with points that are expounded on too little and too much. 120.21.11.35 (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We know. We're trying. Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, thanks for stating the obvious, Mr. Anonymous Critic.

As you should know, the event recently transpired, during which an ongoing slew of editors added a smorgasbord of informational tidbits. As Kingsif mentioned, folks were doing their best to keep it under control, but it was an uphill battle. Now that it's over, things should quiet down and the article could be reformed in a more coherent manner.

You here to help? Crescent77 (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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) 14:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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) 15:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 December 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per the consistent titling mentioned below. Opposition was based upon a non-policy based argument, and a statement of WP:LISTNAME does not explain why the current title should be kept. (non-admin closure) The Night Watch (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 FIFA World Cup controversies → List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies – Since this World Cup controversies article is the only one named this way, I felt it would be appropriate to rename it to be consistent with the other WC controversies articles. TotallyJimmyFallon(talk) 19:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the other articles are titled "List of", it should be an uncontroversial move. You will probably need to request as it is move over redirect. Kingsif (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for me letting me know, I wasn't aware of uncontroversial moves, and thought every move needed a request. I'd close this RM and request the move over redirect but it seems only people who aren't involved can close it? Still not sure how all of this works. TotallyJimmyFallon(talk) 11:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I think we should keep it as it is. Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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.

Controversial refereeing

[edit]

That section needs expansion. Currently there are only complains of Argentinian players in that section, but there were many other complains during the tournament. Many other players criticized referees during the tournament: Pepe (Portugal) who said WC was fixed to Argentina (1), Bruno Fernandes (Portugal) (2), Hakimi (Morocco) who ranted to Infantino (3), Ferran Torres (Spain) (4), Modric (Croatia) (5), Maguire and Bellingham (England) (6)... Even about the match Argentina vs Netherlands, De Jong (Netherlands) said the referee "only whistled for Argentina" (7). Morocco fans shouted "FIFA MAFIA" (8). Lots of fans said WC is rigged (9) and signed a petition to repeat the final match (10). Jorges65 (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least four of your links here are unusable. I'm not saying these things didn't happen (though "lots of fans" saying it was rigged when your only source opens by calling Messi "Pessi" is... more dubious than that source thinks the final was) but that, you need to be basing what is added to the article on sources. Really, this means don't think of something you want to add and then look for a source that sort of says it. And the sources have to be reliable, at least secondary (i.e. not the origin of the controversy, so that we know the controversy is duly notable), and discuss rather than just try to build on scandal or something. Meaningful sources. And then add what they say, not what you want to say that they barely allude to or may just mention in the context of something else.
This being said, I agree that the section you mention is a mess. It's not the only part. Some clean-up was managed during a little edit protection break, but the protection is gone and the floodgates are once again open. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to say anything and in fact I won't write anything in the article because I consider my English is not very good enough to write a serious encyclopedia-text. Adding these links my only intention is to show the current version of this section is not correct because it only talks about complains made by Argentinian players, which are only a little part of the complains had been done during the tournament. If you don't like that sources, it don't change the fact that the current version only shows the point of view of only one of the 32 teams that participated in the World Cup. By the way, you're free to search better sources, surely you will find them, though many of them are in other languages (Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Arabic, French...) so I added here a few examples in English. In other order of things, I don't understand what you want to mean with "Messi-Pessi", in particular when at the same time Argentinian players are saying things like "Camavinga cara de pinga" (Camavinga, d*ckface) or "Un minuto de silencio por Mbappé" (A minute's silence for Mbappe!,). If the players of a national team say such disgusting things, what do you expect of fans? The use of that kind of language don't change the fact that such controversy exists.
In conclusion, that section needs to be expanded and neutralized. Or even deleted if it's considered non relevant. But the current version only shows one side of the coin. Jorges65 (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly believe that this section should be deleted. This is just proof of football polarity, that doesn't count with encyclopedic content, it's more like a small rant. If Argentina celebrates in a rather improper way or the huge animosity and controversy against the Argentine team is not relevant. All the links shown is only player declarations and biased fans, not compatible with Wikipedia. If there's no way to delete this, it should only comment on the referee's performance (who used the most cards in the history), that's all. Everything else, like the Dutch or Argentine player opinions, is inrelevant. Franco el estudiante (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Delete this section. The quarter-final's refereeing is adequately covered in the section about the game. Paul W (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, per these comments, and largely the lack of evidence of any source that isn't a minority of fans on social media. Kingsif (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this with “Accusations of rigging” if possible Cali Boy 09 (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article

[edit]

While the various objections of the European media were mentioned, the defenses of the FIFA officials and the Qatari government were not mentioned. This article is highly biased. In the case of hospitality and accommodation, you have considered one source as a document in general. What does this mean??!! Verddieta (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the statements from Infantino first, then come to a conclusion. There may be something in his statements you weren't aware of. YouFoundSharpe2 (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There have only been documented defenses regarding Qatar's human rights record, and thus the section you wish to see already exists, if you bothered to venture to the appropriate (and signposted multiple times in this article!) page: Human_rights_issues_involving_the_2022_FIFA_World_Cup#Defenses_of_Qatar_and_FIFA. Look, despite not being particularly well-sourced or perhaps even existent outside of people shilling for Qatar, there is mention. Happy? Kingsif (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Wahl's death

[edit]

User Account "Gorebath" added a content in the category, named Grant Wahl's death. This included the sentence below which is not factually correct. The statement mentioned by the user is a speculation and looking targeted towards Qatar.

Statement: "Other journalists with Wahl at the time of his death have reported that he did not collapse but instead began fitting or experiencing a seizure, and called for help himself. They have criticised the Qatar Supreme Committee for not providing defibrillators in the stadium, as they had looked for one to try to help Wahl."

There was a source for Gorebath's content added. The content does not target Qatar, it says that people who saw Wahl either collapse or fitting were critical that there was no defibrillator, something standard in many football stadiums. The reference you provide says that Wahl's brother later rescinded his own accusations that Qatari officials may have caused the collapse/fitting. These are very different things. Hope this helps. Kingsif (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicolas098 The statements are removed from the wikipedia page due to its misleading and targeted behaviour. Starcmic (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't work like that. Gain consensus first (blocked UPE accounts like Nicholas098 don't count). Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed Rigged Tournament Plus Rights to Host.

[edit]

Many Outlets have confirmed the World Cup was rigged for Messi to win. Including confirmed bribe by Qataris on Ecudorian players

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/qatar-bribed-eight-ecuadorian-players-explosive-match-fixing-claim-rocks-fifa-world-cup-2022-353461-2022-11-20

Confirmed Poison on French Players only a day before the World Cup

https://www.sportskeeda.com/football/news-the-french-team-got-deliberately-poisoned-piers-morgan-suggests-2022-fifa-world-cup-rigged-argentina-s-favor

Maybe a section on how the World Cup was rigged for Messi to win would be good?

Pictures of Qatari Organisers hugging and kissing Messi?

Qatari Oragnisers saying "We want Messi to Win World Cup in Qatar"

Museum dedicated to Messi's Hotel Room?

All verified information by confirmed journalists

I don't know why the Right Wing journalists wants to suppress this information after Qatar bribed FIFA and suppressed Women and Gay Rights?

Is it because Messi's team is all White? Is that why it's okay to cover obvious corruption?

There should at least be a section on how it the entire tournament was rigged.

71.9.141.71 (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you have two sources to say that? One source about an unrelated bribery scandal, with no relevance to Messi, and another from sportskeeda, a source which is considered generally unreliable?
That is not going to be getting very far. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"As the World Cup usually occurs during the northern hemisphere's summer"

[edit]

Qatar is entirely in the Northern Hemisphere, and is even above the tropic of cancer. We should probably correct this Polishedrelish (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not incorrect. The World Cup usually occurs during the northern hemisphere summer, where Qatar is located is entirely irrelevant to that fact. Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To look out for: edit summaries "Added new update in the section and corrected grammatical errors."

[edit]

Some IPs, which seem experienced, are using this misleading edit summary "Added new update in the section and corrected grammatical errors." when they are in fact removing content and replacing it with fluff about how great Qatar is. This is of course not the only way IPs and users are trying to censor the article, but it's been quite prevalent. Kingsif (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder of discretionary sanctions

[edit]

WP:ARBEE

[edit]

There are discretionary sanctions for edits on Balkan politics. If this article becomes a battleground for Croatian-related ideology again, they may be levied. Kingsif (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBIRP

[edit]

While it has not yet sparked edit wars, Iranian politics is also a sanction-able topic area. Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA4

[edit]

Stronger sanctions for content related to Palestine-Israel. WP:1RR applies to such content. Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC self-published cartoon

[edit]

Should this self-published image File:Slave Labour ahead of 2022 FIFA World Cup.jpg be displayed in this article? إيان (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman: Can you post links (ideally with permalinks) to the specific discussion(s) that resolved this? --David Tornheim (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[4]
[5] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per above, it serves no purpose. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatives could be File:Foreign workers at a construction site of The Pearl, 2018.jpg and File:Migrant workers in West Bay Doha.jpg, the former being better imo Kowal2701 (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: As a reminder to the current RfC, notice that in 2022 the user إيان's talk page was left with a warning because they have attempted several times to censor this picture, which they labeled as "not encyclopedic" on the Controversies article ([6], [7], [8]), without justification and in blatant violation of the WP policies WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IMAGE: Since Wikipedia is not censored, readers and editors may come across offensive images. Political cartoons, satirical drawings, and caricatures about people and events are allowed in accordance with the aforementioned WP policies.
    Moreover, this picture is used in the cited sources of this article, therefore it is WP:DUE and WP:NOTABLE regarding the international scandal that exposed the Qatari-based slavery system and other human rights violations in Qatar related to the 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies. GenoV84 (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which reliable sources support this particular image? Also GenoV84 is the one pushing their POV to keep the racist, unencyclopedic, self-published image and they are the one that left a note about their opinion on my talk page—no need to mask that with the third person. إيان (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the online references that used this picture to illustrate the aforementioned slavery system: Abadía, Alejandro (30 May 2021). "La Primera Tarjeta Roja del Mundial es para su Anfitrión". www.revistalevel.com (in Spanish). Bogotá: Revista Level. Archived from the original on 2 October 2022. Retrieved 21 March 2023.
    Moreover, you should avoid accusing other editors of racism, fascism, nazism etc. while you are clearly attempting to push your own POV for the second time on the same article, with the same arguments, for the same wrong reason! Bluethricecreamman was right, this is a terrible and ridiculous RfC. GenoV84 (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning no. While the cartoon illustrates a viewpoint about a controversy, our material is not about that viewpoint and how it is characterized and whether it is offensive, and so on; it's about the controversy surrounding Qatar's labo[u]r practices, including both/all viewpoints on the matter, and more importantly about the matter itself and what evidence there is regarding it. The image being a self-published cartoon instead of something from a major publisher that has itself been a subject of controversy (e.g. the Charlie Hebdo Muhammad cartoon fiasco and its aftermath) weakens the case for including it, but is not itself a sufficient argument against inclusion.

    The actual policy-facing problem is that the cartoon simply serves no purpose but promotion of one viewpoint/side pertaining to the controversy (so the OP is correct that this fails WP:DUE), and it isn't informative for readers. Either of Kowal2701's photographs might be better, but a) this section doesn't really seem to need or benefit from an illustration; and b) WP:OR might be involved, since how can we be certain that the persons depicted are in fact forced-laborers and connected directly to the constuction at issue in the article? I would thus prefer no image in that section at all.

    Many of the OP's arguments do not appear valid. E.g., there is nothing "Orientalist" about the cartoon; the only thing that even could lean (for some particular viewer) in that direction is the keffiyeh on one figure, but that is in fact a common item of modern dress in the area, so it's not Orientalism exaggeration (nor, as later claimed, "racist", especially given that Arab or Qatari isn't a "race" under contemporary definitions, but an ethnicity in the former case and a nationality in the other). The WP:V claim by the OP doesn't make sense: the image doesn't make a factual claim, and there isn't any doubt about its origin, meanwhile that the labo[u]r-practices criticism exists is verified already and that this image represents a viewpoint about it is self-evident, so there's nothing to "verify". Next, it is not any more "crude" (in either sense) than typical political cartoons from mainstream publishers, and it is certainly not below encyclopedic quality standards for a political cartoon. In short, do not try to imagine every possible argument and throw it in no matter how weak or ill-founded it it, as if throwing everything that occurs to you at the wall might meaning something somewhere will stick. That just makes it more difficult for anyone to support the one rationale that is actually pertinent (UNDUE, in this case), and apt to !vote against the RfC proposition on the basis of most of the rest of proposer's arguments being wrong or questionable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: To your policy point on use, as mentioned above, the cartoon in question has been used by academic sources in exemplifying response. If the caption at least, and preferably body text, uses said sources and others to mention such response, the cartoon would be more than DUE. I don't think it is particularly undue as it is, given the scope of this article, but if its inclusion is predicated on that section making direct reference to it, that would only improve the article IMO. Kingsif (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any way in which a cartoon that is not itself notable (as a controversy, as an artwork, or even as a very popular meme like the "He tells it like it is" cartoon and the "Leopards Eating People's Faces Party" tweet, which are covered in passing in the Turkeys voting for Christmas article, and which have been the subject of renewed mass attention in the wake of the 2024 US election). Dwelling on this cartoon in this article would fail WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. The fact that someone somewhere mentioned it in print or reprinted it doesn't make it notable or of encyclopedic-level interest level; it's simply one random cartoonist's visualization of a viewpoint on a recent controversy. Most news controversies generate such cartoons, and they do not usually appear in our articles for any reason unless there is significant coverage of the cartoon itself is multiple reliable sources (analysis of it, or of its influence, or of a controvery arising about it, as a thing unto itself).

The cartoon has been used in one or more sources as one sort of example of one side of reaction to the underlying controversy (i.e. the topic of this article section), but that doesn't magically mean WP has to or should include the cartoon. WP:DUE is not about whether any sources reference something; it's about not presenting a biased, imbalanced view to our readers, out of cherry-picking something from some sources and ignoring contrary voices in others of reliable quality, or selecting something sources treat in passing and misrepresenting it as central to some issue and of global import. Some rando's web cartoon satirizing the powers that be in Qatar is not of that importance level. You appear to be confusing WP:V and WP:RS with WP:NPOV's WP:DUE, but no one doubts that the cartoon exists and that others have seen it and commented on it; this isn't a V/RS question, but a neutrality one. My actual policy concern (about balance in Wikipedia's own voice) has not been addressed at all.

PS: It might be reasonable to include or mention the cartoon alongside a comparable cartoon or meme-pic or whatever from the opposite side. But I'm hard-pressed to think of a reason that comparing cartoons and such is encyclopedically pertinent for this topic in any way. Nothing about it seems to lend itself to a "meme-war" analysis, and WP editors trying to spin it as one without the preponderance of sources telling us it has become one would be WP:OR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link some of the academic sources? I was under the impression it was only used in one news article and would undue Kowal2701 (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad RFC There has been no dispute over the inclusion of this notable image, just a single user who has long wished to censor it for their own POV-pushing. They are demonstrably uncivil to those who disagree, and so it would be better for all to close this before they can continue to do so. Kingsif (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it is a crudely drawn cartoon (the file description makes no mention of it being a "political" cartoon, so that appears to be original research by whoever added that descriptor), by a non-notable wannabe editorial cartoonist. This non-notable source (www.revistalevel.com), was apparently added later, which I'm guessing was to try somehow to demonstrate that it is notable (it isn't by any stretch of the imagination), but I can only find that source being used in five articles, where all five articles have this poorly drawn cartoon in it. Additionally, this cartoon is not what I would expect to see in an online encyclopedia to illustrate serious abuses faced by migrant workers – hundreds of thousands of migrant workers lost their money, health and even their lives while FIFA and Qatar tried to deflect and deny responsibility. My preference is having no image at all in that section. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad RFC Is the "self-published" necessary in the RFC statement? seems like a borderline WP:RFCNEUTRAL violation. spintheer (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's necessary. I just came here from browsing through WP:RFC/A and don't have background knowledge of this cartoon. Did a random editor draw this cartoon or is this a notable cartoon that has appeared in reliable sources? Because if it's the former, then I would say No, exclude it from the article. Some1 (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears to have only been used in one junk source and uploaded to commons by its creator if I'm not mistaken. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Some1: The cartoon has been published on several news magazines and sports magazines, such as The Copenhagen Post (2021), POV International (2022), Zeta (2022), and The Eagle Talon (2022), which is the the official newspaper of the Paxon School for Advanced Studies in Duval County, Florida.
    Whether it may be "self-published" or not, it doesn't matter. This cartoon has been featured on several news articles, which makes it quite relevant. I don't know if it has been featured on academic sources as well, but its notability regarding the topic of this article cannot be denied. GenoV84 (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To what extent is that WP:Circular though? I agree with you that the nom is acting in bad faith and that we shouldn't generally give in to things like this, but this seems like a case where the image is unnecessarily crude about a serious topic. You wouldn't find this in any other encyclopedia. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Kowal; your reasoning may as well apply to this article, where the main picture shows a man dying due to setting himself on fire in protest against the persecution of Buddhists in South Vietnam in 1963, and yet nobody seems to care so much about its removal. I find this picture to be far more crude and disturbing than an innocuous cartoon, and that also shouldn't be displayed on an encyclopedia. How is that fair and balanced, in your opinion? GenoV84 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, that's an iconic photo and entirely appropriate for that article's topic. Can you show an example of where we've used a cartoon where that cartoon wasn't discussed or directly related to the topic? Why don't we add cartoons to other articles on slavery? The cartoon would be entirely appropriate in a section on "Reactions to the 2022 World Cup" or "Criticism of human rights abuses" since it is a reaction to and criticism of the human rights abuses, but not in a section on the human rights abuses themselves. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence why I thought images of the migrant workers might be more appropriate but I agree with Mac that it doesn't work. If we keep the cartoon, I suggest the section be retitled "Human rights concern and criticism" in order to include it in its scope. It also might be too humorous. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find it humorous at all, and I think that most of the editors that replied in this RfC would feel the same way about this. However, I agree with your proposal to rename that section to include criticism and reactions related to the 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies. Sounds fair enough.
    GenoV84 (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll retract my no then Kowal2701 (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The section should probably be expanded to include information about the actual human rights abuses, rather than just the corporate response to the concerns. Kowal2701 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most definitely; if I'm not mistaken there was also an international investigation on the then-FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, regarding his knowledge of the human rights abuses on migrant workers in Qatar and many deaths due to the construction of the stadium. GenoV84 (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies&oldid=1258061389"