The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Qatar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Qatar-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Talks about the stadiums. Which is fine. But what about outside the stadiums? No mention of it. Why? Fans will be outside of the stadium for all but 2 hours per day. Where will they stay? How will they cope with the climate? What provisions are being made for them? What new hotels? Will there be campsites? Will they be air-conditioned? How? Lots and lots of pretty obvious issues need to be mentioned about this. BarbarellaTwo (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for deleting the section header before I was aware of this talk section, but I do not believe that it is appropriate to make a new section purely to contain an expansion needed tab, so I will not be reverting myself.
Frankly, how visitors to any country will cope with the climate is for the visitors themselves to address, not the organisers of sports events. Presumably there will be expansion of the accommodation in years to come, and facilities catering for different budgets will have different degrees of comfort. As information emerges, it can be added, but the event is still 10 years away. If you think there should be reliable sources reporting such info at this stage, by all means google it and post it if found, but I suspect that there is not much detail available yet, and until there are reliable sources reporting on the matter, our hands are tied.
I would suggest a more wide, spectator/visitor facility section, rather than suggesting that the climate is in the control of sports administrators. Kevin McE (talk) 10:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
how are people going to cope in such hot temperatures ? the wc will bring thousands of fans who are not used to such heat and where will they stay ? what will they do in the daytimes with such heat ? these things are unique to a wc in qatar, have been mentioned in media and should be addressed in this article. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I expect if people are hot, then they will probably try to cool down in a swimming pool, have an ice cream, turn on the air con in their accommodation, same as when I go on holiday really. Can't see why it would need to be written into this article, can you? Druryfire (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
If Qatar is a conservative Moslem-majority nation with sharia being count as valid law, that bans homosexual behavior, including that of foreigners, it naturally would be hostile to LGBT in general, not just 'homosexual' people (as I have pointed out, a rather silly term, see men who have sex with men, bisexuality, etc.). In the English-speaking world you guys are 2 generations after that word became out-dated in favor of gay, that is increasingly being substituted for queer by many. Furthermore, homosexual is not per se an offensive term (I believe it is past the days it was controversial because of its past medical connotations), but it is problematic because what what is supposed to be described here is a social category rather than a 'biological' one (really, sexual orientation is not something that can be read just by looking at someone's face). Lguipontes (talk) 19:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
"sexual orientation is not something that can be read just by looking at someone's face"???? What on earth are you on about? I have seen no evidence that transexual visitors to Qatar have been subjected to any difficulties, yet alone that they are under threat of being in 10 year's time. The heterosexual activities of bisexual people are most unlikely to incur any difficulties in Qatar: there is some concern that homosexual activity might, but even that is virtually crystal balling 10 years ahead of the event. Whatever the current LGBT rights, or rights of anyone else, in Qatar might be at the moment is not the subject of this article: we are writing about a football tournament, not launching a campaign for rights in that country. Kevin McE (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Facepalm, you are not trying to understand. "The heterosexual activities of bisexual people are most unlikely to incur any difficulties in Qatar"... That is not what not using the term homosexual is about. Uh, you're newbie about this kind of thing. Let's make an extremely bad comparison but that maybe will be understood: If we were in 1990 and someone told us that South Africa would have a World Cup in 2010 (even if by this time, we persons of the future know that the country bears no scaring among the common sense of the people as it did because of its bad human rights record), the immediate reaction would be: "zOMG apartheid, I don't believe FIFA's allowing these nazis to do a World Cup!"
Imagine that, by that time, Wikipedia already existed (or whatever famous source of information with an user-generated content it may be, awesome it is but with a somewhat negative public image in the respect of its reliability), and it told something like "black activists protest about the selection of the world cup". This would be bad in itself, as black people aren't the only that suffered in apartheid – although they were the most visible (and abused and impoverished, not in the case of homophobia as trans people suffer the most, but that's not what I'm addressing), but racism isn't only anti-black – so better choices would be "people of color" or "non-whites". Now imagine that further below, it informs us that Fifa's officials said that "they assure discrimination won't take place according to their plans", so it is not of concern for the negro fans. Homosexual is not such a problematic term for people of the generations Y and Z in the 2010s, but by the 1980s it'd have a similar height.
Furthermore, what is of polemic here is that Qatar currently criminalizes a kind of sexual activity, more specifically sex between consenting adult men or between consenting adult women (I believe such laws would include general foreplay and display of affection as against nature, too). Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and people of this SO may or MAY NOT engage in such sexual/affective activities; likewise, bisexuality amd heterosexuality are sexual orientations, and if people don't know I assure you that there are "instances", specially for the earlier where this law may be of concern, when it is NOT REQUIRED a homosexual sexual orientation to perform intimate same-sex activities. Using terms such as gay, lesbian or homosexual to describe all kinds of men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women is an essentialist approach to sexuality, so this usage may be not very welcome.
If it is really not of concern to the article, thus the question shouldn't be addressed at all. Just because it is a football tournment, it doesn't justify poor language use. Lguipontes (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I am quite concerned about your Lguipontes' condescending tone. I refuse to stoop to your level and rather than escalate and call you names and insinuate ignorance I'll simply ask what you would like changed. Here are the changes since you arrived to grind your WP:AXE. We have seven references and only one of them even mentions your preferred term, and that only once in referencing The Justin Campaign. They all use the term homosexual. If you can find good references to support your term, we should consider to use it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
People got soft these days. I'm sorry if you take the pain of the others (I probably translated this proverb wrong but who cares) even if it is not offensive, but if English was the native language of the region where I live, newbie would be a perfectly collegiate and polite term to describe someone that lacks knowledge about something. Yes, I assume ignorance, because in a decade where we see gay marriage become same-sex marriage, gay and lesbian alliances/groups become LGBT or queer groups, gay rights become LGBT rights, gay and lesbian (as an umbrella-term for non-heterosexuals) become sexual minorities, a person which does not get my point probably has a vocabulary that is a little outdated about this terminology.
The most weird it may seem, it is wrong to assume that all homosexuals do intimate activities with persons of the same sex of theirs and that everyone that does intimate activities with a person of the same sex is a homosexual. LGBT, sexual minority, even queer would be more appropriate wording nowadays.
Maybe it needs a source for this article (even if a wise interpretation identifies the reasoning of the above paragraph as the most adequate), but it is often used the way I am pointing out elsewhere in Wikipedia. It is not a POV, I started to have this usage because of its uniformity here. Lguipontes (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
has been said and confirmed that SpitFire (Songs of the British group The Prodigy) will be the song of the world, according to the twitter of Joseph Blatter, the song would have been chosen by one of the children of Hamad Al Thani.--220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)