Talk:List of 2018 FIFA World Cup controversies

Merger
I think this page would do well as part of the 2018 FIFA World Cup article we already have. Meşteşugarul -  U  01:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mestesugarul (talk • contribs)


 * Oppose - I moved it from there as the detail had become superfluous. Other World Cups have similar pages &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Point taken. As the 2018 World Cup draws nearer, and through the duration of the Cup (and perhaps even after it), I'm sure there will be many more controversies to list and it would indeed make the article much, much bigger than this. I retract my opinion. Should we remove the merge tag? Meşteşugarul -  U  12:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mestesugarul (talk • contribs)
 * As you put it there, it's your choice to remove it. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing now. Thank you for enlightening me and being patient with my quirkiness! Meşteşugarul -  U  13:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mestesugarul (talk • contribs)

Controversies
Hi everyone.

As we approach yet another WC tournament, I believe that now is an appropriate time to revisit some key issues (at least IMHO).

I know that this is not the first conversation about this, but I'm trying to resurrect the List of 1998 and 2002 Fifa World Cup controversies articles (see here).

Those of you who followed the process will remember the 2002 article was the subject of two deletion debates, and then closed down and SALTed. Since I believe that controversial incidents are a window into the development and evolution of the game. I hope as many of you as possible will join me in this effort. Regards. Asoccer maniac (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi Protection
After this edit by 88.207.26.224 I was wondering should there be Semi Protection for the article? Mobile mundo (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

flipped the bird
The Robbie Williams flipped the bird is third party news from Fox News, which in many regards is unreliable and stewing the put. Govvy (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This apparent upending of some bird does not belong in the article. All of this is about the interpretation by some people in one culture of something done half a world away. Only the perpetrator knows what actually went on, and the intention. Wikipedia certainly doesn't know. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The Guerrero situation?
The lifted disqualification of Peru's number 9 Guerrero, should it be mentioned in this article? I do not know any details, but entered this page to find them. :) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * What makes it a controversy? Given that you know no details I guess you can't tell us. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The fact that a team's foremost star player first is out of the tournament and then becomes re-instated through a number of court decisions and other teams' involvements seems rather controversial. Additionally it is football related, which most of the present controversies do not seem to be.  (I made a fast check on previous World Cups' articles on controversies, where most parts are related to incidents during matches rather than discussing international politics.)  Fomalhaut76 (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with about all the political point scoring. We are in fact encouraging it by publicising it here. Not good. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

UK media
Several sections of this article are about UK media outlets telling the world the Russians are evil, and being subsequently proven wrong. Rather than being described as controversies of the World Cup, maybe they should be in an article called "Controversies of UK media". They don't belong here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Use of Cossacks Section
Is the use of cossacks section even necessary? This may belong to an entirely different section since its unclear that the protesters were protesting the FIFA 2018 World Cup rather than protesting against Putin in general. I think it should be removed given it may not be an actual fact about the Cup. Best 173.64.109.152 (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Group H fair play controversy section
Nothing about this section reads controversial in my opinion, I guess a lot of people were angry about that situation, but does is really belong on this page? Govvy (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's about correct application of the rules, and some clever gamesmanship. Always part of sport. I'm pretty sure I've already reverted an attempt to add this story once before. This article must not become a collection of "I don't like it" events. It should be removed. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I removed it on 1st July, with an Edit summary asking that it be taken to the Talk page. Obviously it wasn't, and it was re-instated without even an Edit summary. (They seem very rare for that article.) I have just removed it again, WITH an Edit summary, asking those committed to it to come here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I added this section. I didn't add it because 'I don't like it' and I consider that assumption to be condescending. I added it because it was controversial. Fans at the stadium booed the teams. Many famous figures in football condemned the Japanese team. It could have wider implications for the future of the fair play rule. Senegal have lodged a compliant about the rule and FIFA have said they will review it. As it happens, I don't think Japan did anything wrong. They only played the game FIFA made. But the point is that it did prove controversial. I don't even see how there's an argument about this. Nobody is saying that they broke the rules. I certainly didn't when I added that section. You're counter argument is missing the point. I am reinstating the section. EricthePinko (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * So, why didn't you come to the Talk page first, OR use an Edit summary? Do you follow any Wikipedia rules? They matter more than your opinion. Reinstating now would be edit warring. I wouldn't recommend it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I see you have reinstated it. Do you realise that's reportable? AND appalling manners. HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I second EricthePinko's view; it *WAS* controversial in the sense that several people questioned whether the whole thing was fair; both teams played within themselves. Therefore I think it should remain. Moreover, references exist that share this view, some of them even reliable sources. Asoccer maniac (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Several people question actions and results in almost every soccer match. That doesn't make them controversies. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been done in different tournaments and has become part of the game, so there really is no controversy in my opinion. Anyway this article is getting ridicules now and reads like a 12 year old wrote it. Govvy (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Mark Geiger Controversy
Is the amount of detail here necessary for what is essentially standard complaints towards a referee from losing teams and a former player who has lost most of his credibility. The heading itself is also problematic. It doesn't fit in with the other controversies presented here. What, if any, of this reaches the level where we should signal this referee out? AIRcorn (talk) 08:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's also partly why I reverted it before only for the editor to return it. I though it was overly-unnecessary. Govvy (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They were adding it verbatim to Mark Geigers article, and I followed them here. It is slightly more relevant here than there, but I would support removal or at least some major trimming. Nothing in that section stands out as particularly controversial. AIRcorn (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As far as I can see there is nothing special about the incidents; they are standard complaints against a referee (mostly from the losing side) and do not stand out from similar complaints against other referees in this or any other tournament. The Ronaldo jersey incident is the only possible exception, but that one is unverified. From a glance at the cited sources, it seems only mentions more than one of the Geiger incidents, and some of the sources don't mention Geiger's name at all. Thus, the cited sources don't back up the claim that there is a "Mark Geiger controversy;" only isolated incidents which the section synthesizes. That violates WP:SYNTH, and possibly WP:BLP. The section also seems very out of place alongside the real and serious controversies otherwise covered in this article. I think it should be removed asap. 96T (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"Hooliganism" section
Unless notable instances of hooligan violence actually occurred, this section seems much ado about nothing; furthermore, the bulk of the section is sourced from (as I understand it) a British tabloid newspaper, which doesn't seem a particularly reliable source (especially in light of the general negative pre-WC coverage in British media, as documented elsewhere in the article). It also erroneously links the British diplomatic boycott of the WC to the hooligan threats. I would suggest this section should be removed. 24.206.97.189 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah this article is a mess. Wouldn't object to removing that section. AIRcorn (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. Delete that section, AND everything that has any sourcing from the UK. It's rubbish in this context. HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article is a complete mess, it has just become of a collection of possibilities to come and then the squabbles of what has happened during the World Cup, really needs streamlining. Govvy (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks all, removed. 24.206.97.189 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

page needs better ordering
I tried a bit, but need to make sure the article is in better order, so all the stuff leading up the the world cup, is in a sensible order, during and after the world cup, but England vs Russia, this stuff seemed all over the place, I tried a bit of tidy, but I think it might need stripping down. The whole article feels very WP:OR. Govvy (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You won't get an argument from me on that front. It's basically a compilation of individual, POV complaints from individuals. But a couple of attempts I've made to clean it up a little have met with very aggressive responses. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hows that, does that look better order to you? Govvy (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Good work. But if I had free rein I'd be wielding the hatchet extensively. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I had a look at some of the other articles in Category:FIFA World Cup controversies and they are all as bad as each other. They appear to be dumping grounds for upset fans. I guess it serves a purpose as it gives them an outlet away from the more important articles. Maybe the best strategy is to keep the worst out of this one until the cup is over and then when the drive bys are gone we can get rid of the cruft. Saying that I am happy to support any trimming we decide on here. I am going to clean up the old articles soon in any case and see what happens there. AIRcorn (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

VAR controversies
VAR, a new technology in this World Cup faced quite a lot of criticism, whether it's fair or not, or that what cases can be reviewed with VAR, especially the Griezmann dive and the Perisic handball in the final. I think it deserves a section. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)