Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup

Bids
At the deadline date of 17 January 2014, three member associations confirmed they would be bidding for the event.
 * 🇯🇵 Japan
 * 🇮🇳 India
 * 🇺🇿 Uzbekistan

Edit request on 16 January 2013
Information about bidding, number of teams, and qualification format changes are now available, so I have made the following edit request. Simply copy and paste for the whole article.



The 2019 AFC Asian Cup will be the 17th edition of the AFC Asian Cup, an international association football tournament organised by the Asian Football Confederation (AFC).

Host selection
The bidding procedure and timeline was approved at the AFC congress on 28 November 2012.

Qualification
The number of teams for the 2019 tournament will remain as 16. Besides the host nation(s), the AFC also approved to maintain automatic qualification for top three teams from the 2015 edition in the 2019 edition. However, the winners of the AFC Challenge Cup 2016 and 2018 will no more get direct slots in the 2019 AFC Asian Cup but will have to play the play-offs with the two best remaining teams from the AFC Asian Cup qualifiers who failed to qualify for the Finals.

Restart the article
Info has been released by AFC about the 2019 tournament. I think from this we have sufficient content to restart the article.--2nyte (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Third place match
where is third place match？there is not？really？check it！Dongmanzongli (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See the match schedule. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

South Yemen and Yemen are not related?
Isn’t it strange that Yemen will make debut but not included the appearance of South Yemen? What are the reasons behind this? Ismail Hassan Ismaili (talk)


 * Current Vietnam and South Vietnam are not the same countries! For exemple Yemen and South Yemen are not the same countries too. There were no continuation among that states. Vietnam is successor of North Vietnam and Yemen is successor of North Yemen. So this will be a second appearances of Vietnam and debut for Yemen (last is correct). Please change it. 185.153.35.212 (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You know South Vietnam was predecessor of Vietnam because North Vietnam was not a FIFA nor AFC member right? Even the current Vietnam uses Communist North flag, North Vietnam had never been any FIFA or AFC member. This creates a complicated reason and due to the nature of current Communist Government in Vietnam, FIFA and AFC both recognize Vietnam as successor of South Vietnam but has not included South Vietnam's performances into the result of modern Vietnam team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:EE0:4141:213E:6DD3:BD75:A1D5:3268 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Rashid stadium
I think the pages Rashid Stadium and Maktoum bin Rashid Al Maktoum Stadium, because both contain info which can be found in the AFC document. Can anyone else verify it? Here is the link for the AFC Document.--Anbans 585 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Tournament team rankings (need reference)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tighilda (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No! We do not even know the rules of ranking. Hhkohh (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lebanon v North Korea, 17 January 2019.jpg

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2019 AFC UAE vs India.jpg
 * Rashid Stadium.jpg
 * Sharjah Stadium.jpg

Qatar football shirt fan incident
Hello User:Anbans 585, please do not revert my edits arbitrarily. I said in the Edit Summary that the quotation by the UAE government in the "Qatar football shirt fan incident" section is not by the government! Did you take a look at the references cited? The UAE government never said "This is instead an instance of a person seeking media attention and wasting police time", rather the editor fabricated it! Secondly, the only thing that can be said about bottom section of the paragraph is that the editor is rationalizing the government actions by saying "fans were seen waving the Qatari flag and wearing Qatari football shirts without any instances of arrests"! This is not neutral! You can't call this neutrality. And please tell me what is the problem with my edit so I can fix it. Thank you. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me with the statement "fans were seen waving the Qatari flag and wearing Qatari football shirts without any instances of arrests"! being not neutral? I think this is only the main difference between what you want to edit and the revision which was saved at the time of the tournament.--Anbans 585 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Anbans 585, well, it is clearly a justification for UAE government, and clearly does not have a direct connection to the incident, and the whole point is that we don't need that addition in the first place because it does not enrich the article with any important information, and by adding it, we would look like we are trying to make UAE government look innocent. And even if that claim was true, even if the UAE government did not arrest fans waving Qatari flag, that doesn't mean that the victim is lying which that whole sentence is hinting to. This is the only reason adding that sentence is for, to make the victim look like he is lying! We don't have to go through all of that only to add it, there is no need for that.
 * And by the way, the user who wrote the said paragraph is Emirati. His username is "Wikiemirate", he reverted the edits of many users who tried to make this paragraph a bit less biased to the UAE government. So, we can say, without doubt, that his edits go under WP:Conflicts of interest. And you didn't tell me what is the problem with my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super ninja2 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Anbans 585 Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay now that I get the hang of it, I do agree on your point, so we can remove the Qatar flag paragraph, is there anything else other than this which you think is not neutral. We can have a discussion about it, so that future editors can see this discussion as a reference.--Anbans 585 (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No, my edits are not WP:COI. I'm not hired by any entity or "government" to edit Wikipedia, and editor nationality does not play in COI so keep your Ad Homineim to your self and out of this discussion please. Pointing to my username to justify your non-neutral edits is a moot point. Your edits had been reverted by at least two users for being non-neutral and attempting to justify the attack because to you somehow UAE hates Qatar, even stating that the person has been "attacked" by UAE Police. This is a controversial issue, and hence different points of view should both be elaborated, your argument is that the official point of view is over "justified" and "look like we are trying to make UAE government look innocent". No, we're not trying to make anyone look like the victim or the villain. Wikipedia describes disputes, Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. We do not victimize individuals nor do we justify entities WP:AVOIDVICTIM. This is why information in a controversial statements are attributed to their source and not stated in wiki voice WP:WIKIVOICE, for example According to the Guardian or According to the National. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. The person was charged with the offenses and hence they were included per WP:SUSPECT. We do not attempt to justify the victim or justify the police, we add information based on verifiable sources, you disagreeing with the National source is purely WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and even attempting to censor information WP:NOTCENSORED. The individual said something while the judiciary said something else, which one do we include? We're not biased, we include both. The individual claimed he was attacked for wearing a Qatar shirt and the Police claim he was seeking media attention. Per wiki-policy we include the person's denial and we include the judiciary verdict whether we like it or not. The previous version was edited during the AFC when this article was active and it was accepted as neutral. To me, it sounds like you don't like how a source pointed out that so many people wore Qatari shirts without any instances of arrests that you're calling the paragraph biased and "making UAE government look innocent". That source was published because of the accusations that wearing a Qatar shirt was deemed against the law, which I am inclined to assume you believe so. The information is verifiable WP:VER. Please adhere to wiki policy and stay objective to the Wikipedia project when you're making edits. Most importantly, comment on content, not on the contributor as that can be seen as a form of personal attack in Wikipedia. WP:PERSONAL Wikiemirati (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Anbans 585, thank you so much. I only have two suggestions –  I think we should replace "According to The Guardian, the fan was arrested for..." with "the fan claims he was arrested for..." because it wasn't the Guardian who claimed that, the fan claimed it and many media outlets along with The Guardian circulated the news.
 * the second suggestion is to replace the quotation attributed to the government with the original quotation referred to in the references:
 * "The police took him to hospital where a doctor who examined him concluded that his injuries were inconsistent with his account of events and appeared to be self-inflicted,"
 * this is the official quote by the government. Thank you.


 * User:Wikiemirati well, I have to clear things up, I did not say that UAE police has beaten the fan, as I wasn't there so I can't say whether they beaten him or not. I said that he [the fan] claimed that he was beaten by the UAE police, so I'm not fabricating anything. I attributed the claim to him to avoid any disputes. And as to "This is a controversial issue, and hence different points of view should both be elaborated", well, my edits never ignored the POV of any side, I said that the victim claimed he was beaten and the UAE government denied these claims, so both views are included; Wikipedia is out.
 * And what official POV? If you are talking about the UAE government POV then I did not ignore it in any of my previous edits. And you are right, Wikipedia does not engage in disputes, that's why I suggested to remove the last statement.
 * And, no, we can't add "According to the Guardian or According to the National" because it wasn't The Guardian that "claimed" that the fan was beaten. He himself claimed it and by the way it is not only The Guardian who says that, almost every media outlet is circulating the news, just take a look at the Reuters and The Telegraph. And by saying according to The Guardian, you make it seem like they have an intelligence department that investigate "crimes". They are journalists, they deliver news to the general public, that's their job.
 * "The person was charged with the offenses and hence they were included per WP:SUSPECT. We do not attempt to justify the victim or justify the police, we add information based on verifiable sources, you disagreeing with the National source is purely WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT " now you contradict yourself -- this is a controversial issue, and the UAE government is part of the issue, therefore they are not a " reliable source", that's why I attributed the claim to the government. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Super ninja2 Again, it was the Guardian who broke the story as mentioned by the edits comments in the history. See every reference which mentioned the Guardian   . The Guardian was the reference that stated he was arrested for wearing a Qatar T shirt All other outlets talk about the Sudanese fan being arrested for "wasting police time" or "beaten by fans for wearing a Qatar T shirt". Reuters stated The United Arab Emirates dismissed reports it had detained a British man for showing support for Qatar at a soccer tournament in the UAE" and even mention the Guardian
 * The only other outlet is the BBC which interviewed his Friend, Lokie, which the reference stated: Mr Lokie said:


 * "After he left the stadium he was followed by a couple of people and they assaulted him."


 * Mr Ahmad had been wearing a Qatar football shirt and was holding another one in his hands, he said.


 * "They took away his T-shirt and he went home. Afterwards he went back to police station to report the assault and they held him," Mr Lokie said.


 * Asked whether Mr Ahmad had indicated whether the people who attacked him were members of the public, police or security officials, Mr Lokie said: "I was trying to ask him to clarify but he could not clarify because his time was limited."


 * No where does it state he was arrested for wearing a Qatar T shirt. No where does it state he was beaten up by UAE police either. So I disagree with your suggestion is stating that the "fan claimed", as The Guardian interviewed his friend Lokie and concluded he was arrested for showing sympathy. The "government" does not respond to the media, it was the UAE Embassy in the UK which responded to journalists and specifically to the Guardian questions about the fan. You sound like you don't trust the UAE government, officials, and the UAE embassy in UK and are more inclined to believe the Guardian report, which is fine. However, Wikipedia is impartial. Attributing statements is a wiki policy WP:A You can see the embassy official response here which brings me to my question, why do you want to include that specific statement from the official statement by the embassy as the details are superfluous. The embassy "categorically denied it". Also, this might be superfluous to a Wikipedia discussion but you might not have been there, but I was there in person and there were people wearing Qatari T shirts, flags, and banners and they were not arrested. Also, you said "the UAE government is part of the issue, therefore they are not a " reliable source"" which makes it sound you have very little trust in what the UAE embassy statement said and this is reflected in your initial edits which were reverted for not being neutral, yet you believe the Guardian report that the fan was arrested for wearing a T shirt wholeheartedly and even wanted a source showing multiple fans wearing Qatari shirts to be removed on the basis of "neutrality" Wikiemirati  (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Wikiemirati, It wasn't only the Guardian! stop making excuses to make UAE seem innocent!! Every news outlet is talking about it without attribute to the Guardian. Just give up, it's not working! He was interviewed with Sky News and he claimed he was starved by the police, and his friend Lokie was interviewed by the Guardian and he confirmed that! so stop lying already!
 * and I don't think edit comments said it was the Guardian! On the contrary they said the opposite! and here you are reverting their edits!

His friend Lokie told the Guardian:

“He just went to watch a football match while he was on holiday in UAE and says he was arrested and beaten after being accused of wearing a football shirt which promoted Qatar.

“It seems that he was released after being detained, assaulted by the security men in the car and accused of promoting Qatar.

“He went to the police station to report the assault and was accused of telling lies about the incident.

"I am in shock that he was arrested and assaulted because of the football T-shirt he was wearing.


 * and I suggest adding:

"On its website, the Foreign Office warns travellers to the UAE of a June 2017 announcement "that showing sympathy for Qatar on social media or by any other means of communication is an offence. "Offenders could be imprisoned and subject to a substantial fine"." as it is a result of the incident.

In interview with the fan himself, Sky News says:

A British football fan who claims he was detained in the United Arab Emirates for wearing a Qatar shirt has told Sky News he was left to starve in prison after being beaten up.

"I was beaten. I was terrified. I couldn't handle it.

"They didn't allow me to sleep for three days.

"They didn't even allow me to eat or drink. It was unbelievable to be honest.

"I don't know why they did that because I was only wearing a t-shirt for Qatar football

So I think that is more than enough to attribute the claim to him!

And that "specific statement from the official statement by the embassy as the details are superfluous" is more important than the one already included because it clarify why the police arrested him and what excuse they are counting on to justify their action! Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 Please do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor and don't accuse people of "lying". Calling someone a "liar" may get you banned from wikipedia. I admit I was not aware of the interview with the fan as the paragraph was written when the AFC was still going on and his interview came way later, hence I agree with your suggestion of stating that "The fan claimed" seeing his interview after he was released.

However, your comments still show you're clearly being biased. If we're being biased, then let me state that I was in that specific match in particular with my Iraqi friends, and I have seen many fans (mostly Omani's and some Emiratis even) wearing Qatari T-shirts and banners and waving Qatar flags. Here are multiple photos taken by people SHOWING Qatari flags       Please note, showing SYMPATHY for Qatar means being against the UAE's decision to boycott Qatar and that is what is considered ILLEGAL. Showing SYMPATHY does not mean making sure Qatar never existed and never showing the Qatari flag anywhere. Even the Israeli flag is not considered illegal. All political slogans and images (Muslim brotherhood, Hezbollah, insults to UAE and other political rallies) are considered illegal as mentioned by the British Foreign Office which you cited above. The BFO did not say "Qatari flags are illegal". Wearing a flag of a country, or flag of Qatar in particular, is NOT considered illegal. Therefore your suggested edition is not valid or meaningful. Take in mind that Qatar flag as well as emblem are still present in the GCC banners in so many places in the UAE, including roundabouts, monuments, and GCC-related icons. Heck, some streets are even named "Doha street". This has been clarified by the UAE Embassy statement which stated he was arrested for making false statements. Making false statements is a crime, by law, in many countries worldwide and is considered a federal crime here in the United States so there's no need to "justify" or "make excuses" on why he was arrested for it. So no, in my personal opinion I find it highly plausible that he was arrested, tortured, detained, electrocuted, teeth removed, stabbed, beaten, stalked by four intelligence officers, and kidnapped and jailed, twice. To me it sounds he is counting on media pressure to back him up. However, information in wikipedia must be verifiable and this information is, therefore I accept your decision of stating that the "fan claimed". In wikipedia, we do not maintain "controversy" sections and having a controversy section disqualifies a page from being a good article, however some information have to be included such as the issue with the fan here. This page is about the AFC Asian cup, it is not about the political situation between UAE and Qatar as someone who reverted you already said so. You may edit Qatar–United Arab Emirates relations article if you want to elaborate more on Qatari-UAE diplomatic relations. The current written paragraph is perfectly neutral as arugued by three separate users, two of whom have reverted you. So Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass --Wikiemirati (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Wikiemirati, firstly please do not make edits before discussing them here. Me and Anbans 585 have discussed adding the "waving Qatari flag without being arrested" -part before you join and we agreed on removing it. We are done of that part.
 * And, yes we need that specific quotation to let readers know how the government concluded that "the fan is making false statements", they concluded that by exposing him to a doctor and "[the] doctor who examined him concluded that his injuries were inconsistent with his account of events and appeared to be self-inflicted," so this specific quotation is essential.
 * "To me it sounds he is counting on media pressure to back him up." well, unfortunately, our opinions does not matter to edit this article, you know that.
 * And I think we have to include his claims about being starved, to include different points of view, we will not discuss that, right?
 * And the Foreign Office advice to travelers to UAE is essential as it is an action taken by the UK government as response to the incident. So why are you against adding it? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2


 * "Firstly please do not make edits before discussing them here" no specific or valid reason was given for the removal of content but if you or User:Anbans 585 can give a good reason attributed to WIKIPOLICY for its removal I would not object to it. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason and wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. You also mentioned you wanted to include different points of view so why are you objected to include this point of view? That source was released as the result of claims that wearing a Qatar shirt is against the law. Now, if you can give me a good reason (attributed to a wikipolicy) other than "that sentence is for, to make the victim look like he is lying" then I might agree with you. It is a WP:VER source and you're removing it because you don't like it.
 * "And, yes we need that specific quotation to let readers know how the government concluded that "the fan is making false statements"" I'll take the high road and will include it as it was the official statement by the embassy.
 * "And I think we have to include his claims about being starved, to include different points of view, we will not discuss that, right?" Sure, we can include that.
 * "And the Foreign Office advice to travelers to UAE is essential as it is an action taken by the UK government as response to the incident. So why are you against adding it?" the FCO statement came as a result of the June 5 2017 boycott of Qatar and release of that information by the UAE. It was not added as the result of a British Sudanese fan allegedly being beaten up. --Wikiemirati (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Wikiemirati, ok, fine we can add it. Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Rephrasing
There is a clear difference in Wikipedia between using a primary source and a secondary source. Learn the difference between using sources in Wikipedia WP:PSTS. You are analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting material found in a primary source yourself by rephrasing and including: "The police took him to hospital where a doctor who examined him concluded that his injuries were inconsistent with his account of events and appeared to be self-inflicted, - the government said" which is taken from a primary statement source. You have clearly mentioned this above by saying "to clarify why the police arrested him and what excuse they are counting on to justify their action". Wikipedia is written from independent or secondary sources. An independent source is a third noni-involved party. "According to UAE police, the fan presented to the police claiming he was harassed and beaten up by fans. He was then taken to a hospital to be examined for signs of abuse as is customary in cases of assault and the medical report revealed that his injuries were inconsistent with the account of events he gave to police, and that his wounds were self-inflicted." is taken from a third party source. Identifying and using independent sources Please learn the difference between using sources in Wikipedia. --Wikiemirati (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

penalty
The UAE football federation was fined $150,000 and ordered to play one match without spectators in the next AFC qualifiers.

WHy does this information keep getting removed???! Stop censoring!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masgouf (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sharjah Stadium.png