Talk:List of 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup controversies

Haka

There was an issue with some teams mocking the haka which upset people in New Zealand. I added it here but it was deleted without any form of conversation. It may not be a controversy - but I don't think that's the issue. How can it be deleted without some sort of discussion? Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Because nothing in what was added to the article actually explained what was controversial about it. It was one of several items I removed. This article is full of dross. Note also that Sky News Australia is an appalling source. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I also supplied a reference from stuff - https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/world-game/132514203/cultural-sensitivity-urged-after-spain-fifa-womens-world-cup-team-films-haka-attempt Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Remember this is a global website. The words you wrote - "Spanish and Dutch players were filmed mocking the haka"- don't describe or explain anything controversial. People mock things all over the world every day, without it being a controversy. Maybe try a rewrite telling us what the controversy is. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand you and I'm certainly not going to indulge you here in playing your games. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I've done my best. And I wan't playing games. I was trying to help. HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Trying to help would have been creating a discussion like this on Talk Page.

It would have been you, an experienced editor, working with me, a newbie to try and see if this can stay on the page.

It would have been you working with me on the rewrite, maybe even do it yourself to show me the ropes.

It doesn't look like anything you did and to be honest, you upset me. My first interaction with an editor here and it was an upsetting one :(( Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry this was your experience - the entry you added wasn't great, but should have had a better removal reason than Come off the grass. You are correct that a helpful edit would have been to check your sources (of course, remember that Sky News Australia is not Sky News, and while probably not "appalling", there are better ones) to add context. I have found other sources and will re-add the section. Kingsif (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

My simple point all along is that nowhere was it made clear why this was even a controversy. As I wrote earlier, people mock many things all over the world every day, without it being a controversy. HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Your attitude that what could be summarised as cultural appropriation by invited guests on traditional land isn't controversial is, frankly, unbelievable. I honestly cannot fathom how you could think it isn't. We literally have the article Haka performed by non-New Zealand sports teams, that's how prevalent this specific form of offense is and how serious a topic it is. Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I find your attitude arrogant. You are expecting everyone to know in advance what is offensive, when it's not really obvious. You cannot expect the whole world to know it. Cultural appropriation is a relatively new concept. I am of mature years. I don't go out of my way to offend, but I get annoyed when expected to know stuff I've never been told. The words in the article now are better. They explain the problem properly, but they still don't explain why the whole world is expected to know this without being told. BTW - How come non-Maori members of NZ rugby teams are allowed to do the Haka? HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

So you'd happily be invited somewhere and mock something important to your host, until told not to? No, it's common sense that it would be offensive. I find it arrogant that you expect me to believe otherwise. And trying to argue that does you no favours in the slightest, it makes you appear willingly ignorant. Being "of mature years", I'm sorry, is no excuse - being able to get away with offensive actions in the past because the people they offended had no power to speak out does not mean that people should not have known the actions were inherently offensive. The fact indigenous rights campaigners have been around since the 1800s is testimony to that. I will say, how deeply significant the haka is to the Maori is not common sense, but one does not need to appreciate the depth to know that you don't go to someone's house and laugh at their art and expect to get away with it. How come non-Maori members of NZ rugby teams are allowed to do the Haka? - because they have been given permission, as it says. One of the women's football players actually did it without permission a few years back and had to profusely apologise. Kingsif (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a trap. You are missing my point. I would never deliberately offend. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not missing your point, I'm saying it's not a valid one. You may not set out to deliberately offend, but by refusing to question if something may be accidentally offensive until you are told, you're making a choice to let yourself offend. You're also trying to excuse yourself from that guilt by victim blaming - "they should have told me", no, you should have asked. It is not hard to use a bit of initiative. Kingsif (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a logic problem there. If I don't know what might be accidentally offensive, how do I know which things to ask about? HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You can ask about everything. You see a rugby team do a haka, rather than immediately copying, you ask "what's that, can I do it, can you tell me about it". It's quite simple. If you don't want to ask about everything, then you can use logic: I can call my friends "losers" because I know they find it funny; I don't know if other people will find it funny, so I don't call other people losers. You don't know something about something? Don't do it.

Of course, this discussion demonstrates why we call these things "list of controversies" and not "list of bad things" - you seem to have fallen into the trap of assuming something being controversial means it's wrong. Whereas nowadays it usually means it generates discussion or scandal. Remember, women wearing pants is still (somehow) "controversial". Kingsif (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for everything. It wasn't a great entry when compared to yours but I'm new and learning. My issue wasn't that it was removed but the bullying aspect of it. Thank you for showing me how an experienced editor should conduct themselves - with respect, humility, and class. Three things that other editor is severely lacking. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply; we want to encourage contributions from everyone, so I hope you continue! Kingsif (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. Thank you for making me feel seen. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to discuss the other items you removed, surely we don't need to append them with "this was controversial because even considering bankruptcy points to major failings in a national organisation, let alone if it happens two weeks before the World Cup it would cause issues" and "this was controversial because (as said) the host nations had to remind FIFA to get on with approving the flags and thought FIFA might say no, when they realistically shouldn't have even had to ask". If we give people 2+2 they can do the rest, Simple English Wikipedia we are not. Kingsif (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Timezone problems

Is there no controversy regarding timezone issues that can affect viewers who live in different timezones in which they can't watch the matches due to incompatibilities with the timezones? 2604:B000:B130:F7:3D78:A276:AE8E:146A (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Sort of, but sources mostly mention it in relation to the broadcasting deals going wrong. Otherwise, it's mostly on social media from what a quick search shows me; I (personal opinion) assume that since promoting the matches at unfavourable times to potential TV watchers around the world is a media responsibility, that same media isn't going to give any indication that there's an issue with the times. Kingsif (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to the controversy that people in New Zealand and Australia almost always have to watch international sport at inconvenient times, and for once now have it on at times that suit them? Should New Zealand and Australia never be allowed to hold such events? HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Ironically, the times aren't ideal for Australia/NZ given 1. there's a lot of timezones, it's big down there, 2. they've seemingly tried to make the match times as appealing to Europe as possible. Anyway, since media are awfully quiet about the minor anger on social media about this, with the only real report on match times being that Brazil has moved its working hours so people can watch the matches without calling in pretend-sick, there's nothing more to add here about any region until a RS does surface. Kingsif (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Auckland shooting

Should we mention the Auckland shooting on this page since it happened a day before matches were set to start? Or should it be left on its page and closed at that? It seems based on a former edit that it won't be mentioned here. Fair enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitslain12 (talk • contribs)

• @Digitslain12: I think it should, based on the responses to it; the user that removed it gave no reason - not that you'd have to agree with them (or me). Do you think it should? Kingsif (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of,

@HiLo48:, if you are going to keep removing entries you disagree with, you are going to need to give substantive reasons, i.e. "NOT a controversy" is not a suitable reason. Since the content you're removing also demonstrates or fully explains why it's considered a controversy, you're going to have to make a good argument why you think it isn't. And if you recall, I mentioned above that controversy is typically understood as "causing a scandal" and similar in media sources, and their treatment of incidents is what we stick with. Kingsif (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles on controversies on are rarely a good idea. They far too easily attract content that is mostly about one group of people complaining about what another group of people said or did. That is NOT encyclopaedic. It is impossible to create rigid rules about what deserves to be in such an article, and what doesn't. But we do have an essay on it - Wikipedia:Criticism. Please read it, and think about it. Your opinion on what belongs differs from mine. Such differences are inevitable. And THAT'S the problem! HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but as I said, most information that is added is done so with all the reasons the user thinks it should be included. You are allowed to disagree with the inclusion/those reasons, but then you actually need to give your reasons, otherwise it's pure and simple unexplained removal of sourced content, i.e. vandalism. (It's also not very courteous, effectively saying your opinion trumps everyone else's). Kingsif (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

All my reasons are in my comment above. Articles on controversies on are rarely a good idea. This article should be deleted, but that won't happen, because all the contributors to it, such as you, are convinced that all the disputes and incidents that you are determined to tell the world about, are really, really important. It would be a uselessly loaded ballot. Objective discussion would be impossible. That's why such articles should never be created in the first place. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You disagreeing with the existence of articles documenting controversies is not the topic and not a reason for deleting individual entries. I think you know what I'm asking, so please respond in kind. Kingsif (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you really failing to comprehend what I am saying? The articles, and hence, inevitably, MOST of the content, should not be here. Don't try to argue that the stuff you want included IS important. That was the point of most of my previous comment. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I understood. You think 'list of controversy' articles shouldn't exist, you did say that. I said that your opinion that they shouldn't exist - in other words, your opinion that the well-sourced information which (like it or not) becomes more-discussed in the real world than many results - is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And deleting content under the excuse that you think the article shouldn't exist (for no policy reason, just your opinion that controversies shouldn't receive WP focus, right) is then clearly attempting to progressively blank or decontextualise a list until you can argue for its deletion on content grounds. Don't be that guy. Kingsif (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Broadcasting rights in Australia

The broadcasting rights in Australia were controversially not placed on the anti-siphoning list and bought by the streaming service Optus Sport, making it unavailable without paid subscription. As a result of the controversy, Optus sold rights to some games to the free-to-air Seven Network. Per 2023 WWC broadcasting rights (Australia). Should this be included on the page? Lord Beesus (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably. The coverage of it at the article on the broadcasting rights would be the main location for information, with an overview here, like for the Big 5 rights. Kingsif (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)