Talk:List of footballers who achieved hat-trick records

@Kingsif: What is the harm if we differentiate between men's and women's football? The records and numbers are separate for each and should not be confused, and I do not think there is anything preventing us from putting the word (women) next to every female football player. --Mishary94 (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The harm is that by making a point of differentiating, the list is explicitly saying that men's and women's achievements should not be considered the same, and by separating only one of them out, the list is implicitly saying the women's achievements are not as important.

If this list was just records, it would make sense to even have the "men's football" and "women's football" records in different sections (as is done with the sections for Men's and Women's World Cups in the list). But the list is more non-records than it is records. Now, it would be okay if the differentiation was including both (men) and (women), because that implies they're different but equal.

By only doing it to one of them, readers are likely to take it as an asterisk to the achievement, that it's lesser or should be taken with a grain of salt, that the non-specified achievements are the 'regular' ones and anything that needs a parenthesis to define it only matters within that category and not in the 'regular' scheme of things. That's the harm.

And as I said, a player's sex has no impact on their chances of scoring a hat-trick in exceptional circumstances. There is no need. Even if there wasn't harm, if there is no need, then differentiating is just unnecessary. Why would you include something unnecessary? If you want to add differentiation that is relevant within the scope of this list, how about cup games between pro and amateur sides that lead to outrageous scorelines? Kingsif (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Who said that discrimination between men and women means that women are less important? The original is that the greatest popularity in the world was men's professional football, so it is distinguished from all the remaining categories (women, junior, amateurs, etc.). --Mishary94 (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

What? Did you actually read my third paragraph there? Adding just "(women)" is not actually differentiating between men and women, it is segregating women out from the 'normal' and this implicitly says to readers that their achievement is only important within the context of women. This is why gender neutral language in e.g. job titles was introduced decades ago.

The popularity of men's football is also completely irrelevant in the context of this list.

If you think all non-men's, senior, professional, football needs to be distinguished, then why does the list (I say for the third time) not actually have "(amateur league)" etc.? It only has "(women)". And hey, if you are thinking men's professional football [is] distinguished from all the remaining categories, then why not just put "(men)" there? Oh yeah, because your mention of men's football being the most popular is your justification for it not warranting a label as well, meaning you do actually know that having the label means the labelled item will be seen as less important.

All in all, you have not only failed to provide any reason (let alone a good one) to include "(women)", you are also invoking spurious irrelevancies that make me believe you're not actually going to try to give a reason, so I'm removing again. If you respond with an actual reason why "(women)" could be included - and no, I do not think there is anything preventing us from putting the word (women) is not a reason for inclusion - we can continue discussing then. Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article seems chaotic. Women's football should be distinguished so that it is easier for the reader to know who holds the records for men and women. They should not be confused, just as professional and amateur football, senior and reserve clubs, etc. should not be confused. Since football is more popular for men, the distinction will apply to women. --Mishary94 (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

My tablet must've signed me out, but I have reverted your completely unjustifiable edits.

The article is not "chaotic". Adding - very belatedly - women's achievements is not "confusing". Not least when (for what must be the fourth time, and despite you mentioning them in this reason) you have not bothered to distinguish amateur games or cup ties etc., only women.

To be perfectly honest - and I'm sorry but I can't WP:assume good faith as you made the edit without trying to discuss despite you full well knowing it is contentious - it looks like as soon as you noticed the international record could no longer be claimed by C Ronaldo, you decided that having a woman topping that record could not be said without a "but". Without you adding some kind of qualification to it.

To then come here and say the edit was made since football is more popular for men - which is actually literally saying that football is consumed more by men (than others), but logically I must assume you just garbled saying "since men's football is more popular" - is explicitly sexist. It's not a reason anyone should be proud of giving for making an edit.

Everyone knows there are differences between the men's and women's games, some that require distinguishing, predominantly based on culture. A simple list of on-field achievements is not one of those things. Again, you have made it clear through your invocation of popularity (and now attempt at claiming the article needs some kind of clean-up: this may be true, but if so would surely be from editors adding ultra-specific records, not from women being included, no?) that you are aware there is no reason relevant to the scope of this list to distinguish men from women.

And, again for probably the fourth time, there may be relevant reasons to distinguish amateur games or cup ties with incredibly unmatched teams - in which the chances of scoring hat-tricks are much greater - and if you genuinely think the article needs some kind of labelling to make it less confused, I suggest you start and stop with those. Kingsif (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not trying to discriminate in order to belittle women's achievements. How did you judge that? But the standards of men's football differ from the standards of women's football. The tournaments are not the same for both parties. There is a Ballon d'Or award for men and a Ballon d'or for women. Why doesn't FIFA offer one award for everyone? If (according to your logic) FIFA is sexist, does this make sense? I mentioned the reason for popularity because I had to distinguish one of the two parties, and I had to distinguish women because men are the most present in the article, in addition to the popularity of men is the most in the world, do not judge based on your environment and surroundings. You had to assume good faith.

I have made these modifications, not for the purpose of distinguishing between genders, but rather for the purpose of making it easier for the reader to easily know who holds the record for men and women, without the hassle of searching and entering the players’ articles just to know whether it is a woman or a man! --Mishary94 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have to assume you are being deliberately ignorant and knowingly making false equivalencies, either that or you have not read my statement (here, and above) properly. I said Everyone knows there are differences between the men's and women's games, and also that there is no reason relevant to the scope of this list to distinguish men from women. Those are facts.

There are differences in the games, so there are different awards, I literally said this. There is no difference between the fact both Alex Morgan and Cristiano Ronaldo were playing top level international football when scoring hat-tricks, against their equals. Men playing against men and scoring hat-tricks is comparable conditions to women playing women and scoring hat-tricks. I assume you are able to comprehend why there are different awards but that on-pitch achievements are not different - i.e. you made the false equivalency about the Ballon d'Or in bad faith - or if not, WP:CIR.

And assuming you do know there is no difference in the women's achievement, I would ask why have you only chosen to edit contentiously now, after a period of not doing so. But based on you saying making it easier for the reader to easily know who holds the record for men and women, without the hassle of searching and entering the players’ articles just to know whether it is a woman or a man! (with unnecessary SHOUT!) it seems clear I was spot on in my assumption: you saw that a man no longer holds an international record and decided that a woman taking the overall record needed qualification. It does not need qualification. Most of the notes in the handily present notes column mention players' genders, so nobody does need to click through to articles - if you're concerned about readers knowing who holds gendered records, you can add that in the notes column, too.

Last point: users do not actually have to assume good faith all the time, not when editing behaviour points against it. As I noted, you were well aware you were editing something contentious and that you have previously been asked to justify, and yet edited without discussing beforehand. That you then reinstated these edits while discussion was ongoing is further bad faith editing on your part. I suggest you, again, actually come up with a reason before continuing to force these changes. And if you don't get why it's (off the top of my head: focusing on popularity when irrelevant, only editing in distinguishing remarks for women when men are displaced, practically insisting men are the norm) considered sexist, I genuinely recommend learning. Happy to discuss that at a different venue. Kingsif (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Through a simple look at your edits and your personal page, it became clear to me that you are a supporter of women. Unfortunately, you see the issue from a different angle than what I intended in my discussion with you. It seems that the discussion will ultimately be useless for both of us. Therefore, until we find a fair final solution, I will separate the men's and women's records similar to this page. I will be making some edits to the page, so I ask that you please do not retrieve any of them until I am finished. --Mishary94 (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just left a message at your talk page to try and find common ground, as I already realised you likely are coming from a different angle. I am disturbed that you would simply write off my perspective based on me being a supporter of women; I am going to assume again that this is just a mistake with English. Of course, I would like you to explain this view a bit more.

Sure, I will not revert your edits until you signal that you have finished them, however, I would then like for you to justify them (either with sufficient edit reasons when making them, or here) - or I will revert them. I will also consider your edits to be a form of reinstatement of your preferred version, and warn you against trying to force it re. WP:3RR.

Because (again, and hopefully for the last time) two people scoring hat-tricks at the same level of competition and against their equals, are comparable. Separating men and women in this list - which is going further than distinguishing them - has no functional purpose (i.e. you refer to a list of football club seasons. Men's and women's clubs play in separate leagues and through history have had different conditions, it can be said there is a purpose there). It is a fact that Morgan has scored more international goals than C Ronaldo, and it's a fact that doesn't need qualification. Kingsif (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looking at this version of the article, part way through your editing, I am going to have to bring up another genuine concern. If you are planning to duplicate every achievement for men and women, the table of contents is going to be over 60 items long and make the article difficult to navigate properly.

As I think about it there are also, again, more intuitive (i.e. relevant to the subject matter of scoring hat-tricks) ways to split the article (separating amateurs, for example). I say this because I am now confident that your edits are just going to result in reversion, so don't expend the effort. Kingsif (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have finished editing, I have separated the records of men and the records of women without distinguishing between any of them.

Regarding what you said, that separating them has no functional purpose, I want to answer you and say that men and women have a separate system from each other, so why should we create competition between them? Cristiano does not face the same opponents as Alex Morgan, and he does not play in the same tournament as you, and the competition between them is different by nature. It is not fair to create competition between them.

I am a fan of football statistics, and I am not against women. Wikipedia is a main reference for me, so when I look at the statistics pages, I would like to know the records for men and women separately, and I have no problem against women, as I also have additions related to women's football. In Wikipedia, that's all there is to it.

If you also see these amendments as discrimination against women, then please explain that. I have tried to please you enough. You want women and men to be on one list and I do not know why. I am happy to discuss with you and do not seek to impose my opinion as you think --Mishary94 (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your edit, for the ToC reason I mentioned, as I am happy to discuss. I was planning on bringing it to wider discussion to address pros and cons. At the risk of having to exhaustively repeat myself, I will answer you here and ping you there.

It doesn't have a functional purpose. We can consider the men's and women's game as different but acknowledge that they play by the same rules and that men v men and women v women have as equal a chance of scoring a hat-trick as any other man or woman. It is not creating competition between them to say that Morgan has more hat-tricks. The same way that men's skiing and women's skiing are different competitions, but woman A with more gold medals in skiing than man A, has more gold medals, and we do not need to say "but for women".

The consideration that people want to easily know men's stats, and women's stats, separately is something I was planning to bring up in wider discussion I mentioned. But I have presented to you alternative solutions to this.

And as you say, Wikipedia is a reference, and so it is influential. We must be aware of that.

We cannot help it, but when we separate men and women then it is saying that there is something different (because, Wikipedia dealing purely with stats, has no semantic reason to separate unless there is, say, a practical or cultural difference) - and one glance at your average football fans on Twitter will tell you that people may generally assume that women's achievements are lesser when they are handled separately. It can even be seen in the sources of this list - that Cristiano is considered the first footballer to score 10 international hat-tricks, because a report said he was the first man, when Christine Sinclair had scored 11 before he even got his first. If sources had acknowledged Sinclair's achievement in the same report as Cristiano's, such a common mistake would likely not be made.

I have no problem with having separate lists for men's and women's football achievements, either in the same or separate articles, but only when it serves a purpose. There is no difference between men and women scoring hat-tricks. Where the list mentions specific tournaments, which obviously includes gendered competitions, then they are in separate sections. Otherwise, a hat-trick is an exceptional achievement no matter gender, and is not scored differently depending on gender, so I do not know why you would want them in different lists. Kingsif (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply