Talk:2022 European Women's Handball Championship

Controversies section

In my opinion the section belongs in a gossip magazine on not on Wiki.

Group D fair play

Name me 1 team that would not have done what Spain did. When having the choice between advancing with 2 pts or with 0 pts, every team would make the choice in its own best interest and do as Spain did. If Spain would have won with 3 goals difference the header had been "Group D stupid play".

Slovenian espionage scandal

I agree, it all sounds fishy. But it's a lot of speculation. Was there a surprise party prior to the training? Did the recording show the same area as where the party took place (if there was one) or show the full field, or what did it show? If a phone was used, I would stream/upload the recording to a server of mine as well. Was the phone streaming/uploading? Probably one can think of a few more questions. To put it simple a lot of speculation but not a single statement about if and if so what kind of investigation the EHF conducted as well as the findings of this investigation. Without this kind of information, even if it actually was espionage, it's just speculation. Based on the information provided in public we don't know what it was, espionoge or an uncareful stupidity. Wiki is about objective facts and not speculation/gossip.

Romania vs. referees

I agree the referees made quite a few strange descisions in the match NED v ROU. But in my opinion there were more in favor of ROU, but as a Dutchman I'm not objective here. Anyway, Neagu complains about the referees but she doesn't state that the referees were to blaim for the loss of ROU. In the match ROU v MNE I agree the referees favored MNE, but again I'm not objective since a draw or loss of MNE would have put NED in the semis. (Assuming the remaining results had been unchanged). I can't remember having seen the double dribble and the foot mistake in the 7m right after. Here the, according the Romanian media. 16 mistakes made by the referees are shown. The dribble/7m are not shown as part of the 16. Here the 7m but not the preceding double dribble is shown. I can't tell for sure whether it was a foot mistake or not.

The internal debate about protest t-shirts and about the president of the Romanian handball federation are in my opnion irrelevant for this issue. But I admit it adds some extra juice if you already speculating.

Anyway, like I said, I'm not objective but neither are opinions from Neagu and the Romanian coach. And just supplying sources from Rumanian websites isn't exactly objective either.

Wiki is about facts, not about the opinion of 1 involved party.

Bronze match referees

Also in this case I agree that the referees favored MNE. But, again only the renarks from French players and their coach isn't very objective. Likewise, only supplying French websites isn't either.

Conclusion

One sided opinions/quotes and sources doesn't qualify as objective facts. The problem with speculations is that if you repeat it often enough, there're always people who start to believe it's a factual truth. Just look at how many people think the fantasies of Trump are facts. So this section doesn't belong on a Wiki page as long as no onjective facts/sources are supplies.

My controversie speculation

What the 2 referee issues have in common is that in both cases MNE was supposedly favored. So maybe it was only 1 issue. It wasn't about "harming" both Romania and France, this was only a side effect, but an attempt to make Montenegro European champion. To support my speculation I can use all references presented for the 2 seperate issues. The plan failed in the semi final because they assigned the wrong referees. Moldova and Romania have strong ties so the Moldovan referees, as revenge for what happened to Romania, refused to favor Montenegro in the match.

If we're going to speculate, we might do it as well big and turm it into the handball conspiracy of 2022.

Conspiracy theories are popular anyway. Sb008 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Sb008 (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry but your opinions are totally irrelevant in this conversation. Major sports competitions do have sections about controversies, see 2022 FIFA World Cup#Controversies, they even have their own pages discussing those 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies. We are not here to police who said what, or to say who would have done the same or not OR to delete the whole section based on what we think of those events. The section has references to major independent sports publications from different countries. You are free to add different points of view, if there are any and to properly reference them. Sticletele (talk) 06:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a major difference between the FIFA World Cup and the EHF EURO. Romanian players/coach/sports publications about how Romania was mistreated are not independant sources. Those are subjective sources. Furthermore it are only opinions and proof of even the smallest proof is missing. The same applies for players/coach/sports publications anout how France was mistreated. Just using the word "espionage" in relation to the camera incident is what a gossip magazine would do. There is no proof that it actually was espionage and therefore it should not be implied. The Spain issue was no bad sportmanship but the smartest choice to optimize their chances. They didn't break any rule and therefore it was fair and can never be bad sportmanship.

As far as the FIFA WC is concerned, they are in generak proven facts supported by truely independant sources from all over the world and not just from a single country feeling mistreated.

Wiki is about facts, presented ny independant sources. All you did was provide objective (correction: subjective was meant) sources in each case and failed to show any proof for the speculations. --Sb008 (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

What a travesty! To quote what you said, all I did „did was to provide objective sources”. If they are objective sources, It belongs to wikipedia. Thank you for your confirmation. Sticletele (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Romanian issue: Is there any proof that the referees in the Romania matches were not impartial? Are there any sources besides those of Romanian origin which make it a common objective opinion instead of a subjective Romanian opinion? Did the EHF take actions against any of the referees involved? All you do is supply Romanian soouces supporting the Romanian view. Those are subjective sources and anything but independant. No facts, just speculations/opinions of only one party involved. And as far as quoting me, that was a type. Very obvious that subjective was meant.
• French issue: Same applies as for the Romanian issue.
• Spain issue: They did nothing against the rules and therefore something which was unfair. If it's not unfair, the requirement for bad sportmanship is not met, unless you want to claim they should have acted in their own disadvantage. But then, wouldn't this have been self-unsportmanship? Propably only Romania would have made sure they had won by 3 in the same circumstance and afterwards Romanian sources would quote Romarian players saying how bad they were treated by themselves.
• Slovenia issue: No proof was provided for espionage. No findings of an investigation, indicating there was espionage, were made public. Did the EHF take measures indicating espionage was indeed the case? What happened to innocent until proven otherwise? I guess, using a header which implies there was espionage, is your idea of proper sportmanship. Such a header fits a gossip tabloid.

Provide facts or sources per issue not related to any of the parties involved. --Sb008 (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2022 (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:

• Arena Stožice (SLO).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)