Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup

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: 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. Spitfire19 ^T/_C 16:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Please add in the bidding section

The voting patterns were as follows:

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

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 revert. I fail to understand why alcohol prohibition is mentioned and LGBT rights in Qatar aren't. Hektor (talk) 18:37, 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.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] 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 [6] 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,[7] 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. [8] 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 [9], although Kevin McE is right, its more a part of the reaction. In which case even the current crop would fit there. + [10]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 [11] 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 [12] 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" ) 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)

Image copyright problem with File:Doha-port-stadium.jpg

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.[13] [14] 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)