Jump to content

Talk:Sportswashing

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

Write a section on the NEOM Project and other large sporting initiatives organized by countries with poor human rights record

[edit]

Explanation or Citation

[edit]

How is the 1958 Basque Pelota world championship an example of sportswashing. I’m not saying it isn’t but it should either have a citation or be elaborated on. I’d understand for countries with more obvious human rights issues, but France seems decent. Greenwhitechequered (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An examples section for sportswashing is inherently biased

[edit]

An "Examples" section for sportswashing is inherently biased because it invites biased and speculative uncited examples. I think the page would be improved if a "Notable examples" section were included that includes detailed specific examples of sportswashing that are not subject to debate, such as Nazi hosting of the Olympics. In its current form, the section is a list of uncited examples which simply invites NPOV and original reporting. Regards Sentientwo (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a WP:V issue not a bias issue. You are free to remove anything which is unsourced which you believe can’t be sourced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Horse Eye's Back, that makes sense. However, if a WP:V issue, wouldn't the mere creation of a list of examples provoke an edit war? The reason being that sportswashing as a concept speaks to the intent of the sportswasher, that is, getting involved in sports through sponsorship, ownership, or hosting in order to improve one's reputation. Wouldn't almost any contemporary example be the opinion of a writer, no matter how reputable? What are your thoughts on this? Sentientwo (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything in the social sciences is “just an opinion” by that standard. I’ve never seen an edit war over something like this, anyone repeatedly restoring unsourced material is going to get blocked like greased lightning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt there are massive WP:V issues - entries with no reference, entries where the reference demonstrate a backlash against the sponsorship but fail to demonstrate sportswashing by the sponsor (e.g. [1]), and entries where the reference mundanely describes the existence of a sponsorship which the editor considers controversial (e.g. [2]). I have no problem backing up the outright removal of unreferenced content here and preventing this from turning into List of sporting events associated with companies or countries considered to have had a questionable human rights record by an editor. The inherent bias question, I think, needs to be addressed through reputability and quality of sources. Aspirex (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think an examples section would be much better arranged by sportswasher than by sport. It's much more likely to find a well explained reference which details a specific company's or country's overall strategy with regards to sportswashing, than it is to go event by event looking for references – much less chance of bias or making additions based on references which throw the term around more as a buzzword than a reasoned opinion (which is something I saw in a number of the references that I looked through). Aspirex (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Sportswashing is the practice of an individual, group, corporation, or nation-state using a major or prestigious international sport to improve its reputation" - actually that's called sponsorship or hosting. Almost no individual or state or corporation has ever supported an event or sport or team without the hope of enhancing their image - sportswashing only comes into play where someone else, a journalist, org or state thinks the enhancement is undeserved and done to deflect criticism. On this article it sometimes even seems as if the WP editor is the one deciding what is 'undeserved'. I agree with others here that the examples seem random and even unclear as to what the accusation was (Mexico Olympics?). Since the term appears to be mainly a US, or at least a Western one, those criticised are mainly ones that the US/Westerners don't like. I don't know much about Berlusconi, but the section about him may present BLP concerns. Has it ever been proved that he committed these offences? Pincrete (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some of the examples (eg boxing), they sometimes seem designed as much to divert the local population (Bread and circuses) as much as to enhance international reputation. It isn't clear therefore what the term ITSELF means, other than using sport to divert attention. Pincrete (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This issue seems to have been somewhat settled, but I completely agree with the sentiment that this is simply a list of 'countries that the US/"west" doesn't like who hosted sporting events'. Could we start listing events held in America given their war crimes or issues such as Guantanamo bay or illigel detention? I could easily source a link from a random article'. Just my thoughts. John arneVN (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't really been settled, and the underlying problem is that this is simply a random list of examples of what either some editors themselves, or some journalistic source thinks are examples rather than being about the phenomenon (with only a few specific examples that each fulfilled an illustrative purpose). This often happens with a 'political' term, especially if it is relatively new and relatively obscure. I don't really have the time or energy to fix that though. Pincrete (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sentientwo America! We're definitely not involved in any type of sportswashing but all of these other countries are absolutely! No question! It's called projection! 69.162.253.80 (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examples section

[edit]

It's way too long for the purpose of showing examples and non them have minimal explanation and it doesn't give any real educational value Red Gabriel (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Multiverse Union,  I agree; it's a mess. — Python Drink (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

examples?

[edit]

A lot of these 'examples' are literally just a list of sports events in different countries with no indication of what makes the events sportswashing or not. This needs to be changed. For example, we cannot just list 'The 1986 Commonwealth Games held in Scotland.', 'The 1991 Pan American Games held in Cuba.' and decide they are sportswashing without elaboration. Also the USA does not appear once on this list despite having some of the world's largest sporting events.. This should be fixed in a timely manner. I will leave this here for a little in the hope someone who understands the subject better edit this, if not after some months I think it will be best for me to delete much of this article. Edit: I see a lot of the issues I have with this article have been hit on above, sorry. But it confirms to me that this article really should not exist in its current form. I will get to deleting large parts of this by the end of the week if someone more knowledgable and experienced doesn't get at it. Danke. SP00KYtalk 05:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let's discuss

[edit]

An editor removed my edit. I put the following news article as a source.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/football/cristiano-ronaldo-to-earn-extra-310-million-in-saudi-arabia-as-deal-to-back-world-cup-bid-revealed/news-story/7484a3991b409a5bf95fc6d3186f7a55

123.103.210.114 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, great to see you on the talk page. I reverted your change with the following rationale, present in the summary (Special:Diff/1132931828): It makes no sense and not supported by the source. These are just footballers making money, they are not individuals engaging in sportswashing of *their reputation* (their reputation by default is that they seek money-making deals). Regards—Alalch E. 13:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sportswashing has become what it purports to describe

[edit]

Even when invented a few years ago the term had little explanatory power and virtually no value as an analytic tool. [3] It is now used routinely in the media as a baseless smear, a blatant form of propaganda by those who wish to damage the reputation of their economic or cultural rivals. Usually targets are both.

As such I propose this article should simply become a redirect to a new section on that page which deals critically with the subject in a much reduced form and its contentious sections appropriately revised in line with NPOV.(Same goes for Greenwashing, Pinkwashing_(LGBT), Rainbow-washing, Veganwashing etc)

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you can redirect articles out of wikipedia, although in some cases it would be better than allowed some misguied wikipedians to make edits. With that said no this article should not be reduced or removed ether by deletion or by redirect as it does proper job of keeping tracks on teams and ventures that have been used for sportswashing. As everything seems to be properly cited. DoctorHver (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definitions of the term Sportswashing and examples given of its use are simply descriptions of a form of Propaganda as explained in the article's lead para and it should properly be included in that wider entry.
Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I propose merging Sportswashing into Propaganda. I think the content in Sportswashing can easily be explained in the context of Propaganda indeed the current lead para already successfully achieves this, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Propaganda. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 09:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, this doesn't seem to follow the logic we normally do with merges. Not seeing the upside of merging, let alone to Propaganda. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be helpful if you could explain the difference between this merge proposal and others. Your comment:"Doesn't seem to follow the logic we normally do with merges." is (with respect) ungrammatical and meaningless word soup. The upside you are looking for is that Sportwashing would be merged into in its appropriate WP context in Propaganda as already described in the currently unlinked article. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that this is the most well-developed article, but a merge would absolutely cause size and weighting issues. This seems a pretty clear and distinct subtopic of Propaganda, and an appropriate topic to spin out per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. CMD (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List really needs to be cut down and should be titled "accusations of sportswashing"

[edit]

This is a general comment, not about any particular example. The long list of examples is already strange for an article of this type, the bad source quality notwithstanding. This doesn't need to be an encyclopedia of every time someone has accused an event of being sportswashing; it should provide a few key examples to illustrate the scope of the concept. They should also probably be labeled "accusations of sportswashing" since most cases (especially more recent entires) are not well-discussed by multiple sources. Moshe HaTzaddik (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please propose a reduced example list so that we can agree a better version of this article.
Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sportswashing&oldid=1255963511"