Talk:Barassi Line/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

This article as it stands.

At the bare minimum statements asserted need to be cited, or they should be challenged and removed. From a purely academic perspective (having spent my time earning my stripes there) you must treat your audience like they are a 5 year old child who knows nothing about the subject matter. It really is as black and white as that, there is no grey. This article is missing a significant amount of citations, and if a whole paragraph does not have a citation it can only be concluded from a 5 year old's perspective who knows nothing (mostly about the AFL) that the content is original research. If you want this content here then please cite it, or it will continue to be challenged. --2001:8003:645C:9200:F92F:44B8:F4B1:622C (talk) 09:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, help a clueless American out here: There is some intense rivalry or something between fans of Australian-rules football and rugby, right? There must be for such an esoteric and, frankly, minor article to inspire the issues seen here: the excessive level of detail, the repeated personal attacks, the threats to "unload" on critics, the near-tendentious tagbombing, and the overall abuse of process. This article appears to inspire a level of disagreement among a small handful thimbleful of editors more-suited to, say, the Arab-Israeli conflict than to a notional line in the Outback. Is this line somehow representative of efforts by one set of sports rules to invade the territory of the other or is there something else happening? Either way, continuing in this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality by multiple editors will only result in article protection and, possibly, sanctions. That won't help anyone. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I can only speak from my perspective, and this is my perspective alone as a mostly soccer supporter that also watches a fair amount of rugby, and occasionally pays attention to union rules for important test matches and the World Cup. There is no rivalry to speak of between soccer (football) loving fans in Australia, in fact many of them make an effort to watch either AFL or Rugby League/Union. To most soccer (football) fans this is a big deal about nothing. Unfortunately the AFL/Rugby supporters like to live with a Chicken Little syndrome as if the sky will fall in if people realise what a big deal Soccer can be. They also like to decry little kids playing "soccer" because they believe they must stamp out the enemy cause at its root. The entire point of articles such as this one (and the many other articles that pro AFL and Rugby supporters just wont leave alone) is to rib "soccer" supporters.

It's like they aren't aware that the predominate audience on Wikipedia worldwide are "soccer" fans. But they continue to fight the small battle even though there's no way they will win the war. They're scared of the foreseeable outcome where all kids come out of the shadows and actually start playing "soccer" instead.

This is just some ego issue that still goes on among some people who support rugby/AFL in Australia, in fact there is a book written about this matter excuse my language for just a second its called "sheilas wogs and poofters." Ironically despite the equal importance of the beliefs of Johnny Warren (akin to Ron Barassi) there is no need for a Wikipedia article about "sheilas wogs and poofters." Sorry for the uncouth language while I'm speaking "Australian" I'm not meaning to offend anyone here. I'm not sure such an article would stand under its exact title on Wikipedia for very long though.

TLDR: A great man called Johnny Warren (OBE) once also stated that "soccer" would be the biggest team sport in Australia.

I've come here on my own, as a bystander, mostly annoyed at the usual lack of credible sources to support articles such as these on contentious issues on Wikipedia. Frankly its disturbing. As someone who has written for long enough to be able to conduct their own legitimate "original research" it just pains me to see the lack of academic integrity on Wikipedia.

--2001:8003:645C:9200:D50F:4A82:35C1:6D21 (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please keep comments here on topic. Nothing in your comments has anything to do with this article, which is about a cultural curiosity identified 40 years ago. Definitely has nothing at all to do with what sport is best or biggest. Your comments are reminiscent of the arguments that used to be made at the Football in Australia article. Feel free to write the article about Warren's book, although it is already mentioned in both his article and Soccer in Australia. The-Pope (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Cultural curiosity or otherwise if you cannot substantiate your claims they should be challenged and deleted. I also don't see Ron Barassi with an OBE either. The only curiosity in this discussion is for Victorians, South Australians and West Australians. The vast majority of Australia's population does not give a stuff who Ron Barassi is or where his magic marker went. Substantiate your claims, remove them or have them deleted. Really is as simple as that. --2001:8003:645C:9200:4A5:4376:D8B9:949F (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I've been bold and dumped anything based on sources that don't mention the "Barassi Line". That material is fine in our articles on the various codes, but it is synthesised if used here, and thus we can't include it. --Pete (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and your bold edits --2001:8003:645C:9200:4A5:4376:D8B9:949F (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the two of you should start hacking up the article without establishing some kind of consensus for what should be done with the article first. Spinrad (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies upon Verifiability. Consensus does not come into account if you cannot verify your claims. Either find suitable sources or the content you have created will be challenged and eventually deleted. The burden of verifiability (if you read the instructions I've linked above) is placed on the person who wants to add the content not those who wish to remove it. --2001:8003:645C:9200:4A5:4376:D8B9:949F (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about 'verifiability'. I said that sweeping changes to the article probably shouldn't be made without a broader consensus, not just two people patting each other on the back. Spinrad (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Just like you're not saying anything about socks either. Wikipedia has a policy about bold editing. This article has stood as it is long enough for me to come along and notice that it lacks verifiable sources as per the discussion above. There has been plenty of time for editors between then and when this article was written looking through the edit diffs for someone to add verifiable sources. As it was it was far too long and relied upon too many spurious claims. On the weight of numbers the majority of people in the northern states don't seem to care who Ron Barassi and his line is (or was). I've already stated most soccer fans don't care either because they have their own bellwether point. So you have a sport which is supported in the minority population, trying to infer some kind of answer for an inferiority complex, without the evidence to support it.

All of the above is checkmate if you ask me. --2001:8003:645C:9200:4A5:4376:D8B9:949F (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is about a hypothetical line that delineates where Rubgy is popular vs. Australian rules; I don't know where you're getting this stuff about soccer and inferiority complexes but it's got me pretty confused. You should also probably look up the population of NSW+QLD, it's not an overwhelming majority at all. Lastly calling checkmate is pretty inappropriate, talk pages are supposed to be for discussion on how to improve the article, it's not a competition. Spinrad (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't really been involved on this page before but I saw the huge amount of the article that was taken out today. I reverted the edits because it seemed like there hadn't been a consensus made yet on the talk page in spite of all the discussion, so I didn't think it was right for someone to make such a big change to the article.

Also about the soccer thing, I have no idea why that's been brought into it. While it's true soccer is growing and I believe it's now the biggest code in Tasmania, across most of Australia it's second to either rugby or Aussie rules in most people's minds, depending on which side of the Barassi Line they live on. Just because many soccer fans might find the Barassi Line irrelevant, doesn't mean it's not a big deal to the rest of us. In general it's been a big issue for the AFL to try to expand north of the line. The article definitely needs more references but to mention the state of all codes concerned on the opposite side of the line is basically necessary considering that's what the whole article is about. Just because a source doesn't say "Barassi Line" doesn't mean it's not relevant. TripleRoryFan (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Football is irrelevant here, except insofar as it dwarfs both Rules and Rugby. This is an article about thge Barasssi Line, and if we use sources that don't even discuss it to support most of the article, then it is synthesis. Simple as that. We cannot synthesise content. We MUST have sources. If we cannot find sources to support the material I boldly deleted, then it will have to go. WP:BRD is working just fine; we are now discussing the problem identified. Let's not have any edit-warring, and work towards understanding how this article can be improved. --Pete (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It may dwarf Aussie rules and rugby on a global scale, but not by a long shot within Australia. TripleRoryFan (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful if you were to inform yourself on the matter? This is why we need sources, rather than making stuff up. --Pete (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I was talking about within particular states, as you'd know if you read my original comment. Those statistics do not include a breakdown of each sport by state, so it's meaningless to what I'm talking about. Secondly, if you look at attendances at professional sporting events, which I think is a much better measure of how popular a sport is, half of the AFL matches in Adelaide are sellouts at Adelaide Oval in spite of the city being divided between two teams, whereas the largest crowd at a soccer match in South Australia's history is only 25,000, half the number that will go to a big footy match. I'm not making anything up, and it's disingenuous to imply that soccer "dwarfs" Aussie rules in South Australia when if anything it's the other way around. The situation is similar in both Melbourne and Perth. TripleRoryFan (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You don't supply any sources to back up your off-the-cuff statements. The simple fact is that, according to the ABS, football dwarfs both Rules and Rugby. You have a better source for statistics than the ABS, maybe? --Pete (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You are quoting participation statistics. Kicking a ball around the park with the kids is not the same thing as an industry involving thousands of spectators and millions of dollars featuring the state's best athletes. I don't know why soccer supporters need to keep putting in their two cents into this article. Mdw0 (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any better source? Clearly not. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

How about the Australian Bureau of Statistics? [1] says "The three most popular sports attended by South Australians in the 12 months prior to interview were Australian Rules football (31%), motor sports (14%) and horse racing (8%). Only 5% of South Australians attended outdoor cricket and only 4% attended a game of outdoor soccer. Australian Rules football was also the most attended sport in South Australia in 1995 and 1999. Sports attendance for the total Australian population also reflected the popularity of Australian Rules football, with 16% of the population attending the sport at least once in the 12 months prior to interview." The ABS makes it clear that, though more people in Australia play soccer recreationally, Aussie rules is easily the most attended sport in South Australia, which is exactly what I said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TripleRoryFan (talk • contribs) 02:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. That's as bad as making stuff up. I've gone through the article, and despite 2000's demand that we treat the audience as 5 year olds, I'm not going to cite that the sky is blue. I have removed some of the hard to reference/prove "they did this because" bits, and removed some repetition. I even managed to add a ref from Sheilas, wogs and poofters. But remember this is about the line, back then, and what's happened since. Not the populatity, not the participation, not even the TV ratings. One area that may need expanding, is the effective move of Canberra from the south-west side as it was in the 70s, to the north east side, as it is now with the Brumbies and Raiders. So please, lets have constructive editing, not overly eager tagging or deleting. The-Pope (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That page is not a Wikipedia policy. You will cite that the sky is blue (or any words to those effects) if you want them on this page. You should be more concerned about Missuses of BRD for filibustering purposes or to stop change. --2001:8003:645C:9200:DC9D:6010:5848:49B3 (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

To those who wish to continue along these lines please read WP:PROVEIT and think about the fact this article has existed since 2009. Failure to provide the burden of evidence will lead to the material being challenged and deleted. --2001:8003:645C:9200:DC9D:6010:5848:49B3 (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. You were reverted, and the reverting editor pointed out that you removed x amount of sources, therefore WP:PROVEIT does not apply. Yet, you claim that you didn't remove x amount of sources when the evidence is in the diff. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You must discuss changes first. You also cannot remove OR tags until the problems have been suitably addressed. If you want to discuss why this is the case here might be as good a place as any. --2001:8003:645C:9200:DC9D:6010:5848:49B3 (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this[2] would be a better place to discuss it. I can assure you that edits like this[3] are not helping your cause. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 21:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Invoking 3RR without getting the facts correct or following the instructions is counterproductive. Edit-warring over big slabs of text, likewise. I think the main problem here is that some editors think that this artical is a sportsfield, and that kicking and running all over will win the game. Let me put it this way. If a source does not mention the phrase "Barassi Line", it is all but useless for this particular article, because the content is then synthesised, meaning that it is made up by the editors instead of being produced by a reliable source. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk here anymore since it's turning into circular arguments on issues tangential to the actual content of the page, but I did want to say that just because a source doesn't use the phrase "Barassi Line", doesn't mean the source isn't talking about the cultural divide, which is what the article is about. The article is not about the phrase "Barassi Line" and its use, it's about the concept of the cultural divide between the southern and western states, who favour Aussie rules over rugby, and the northeastern states, who favour rugby over Aussie rules. The phrase "Buildings and architecture of Bristol" doesn't have to be in every single source used for Buildings and architecture of Bristol if it's obvious that the sources are talking about something relevant.TripleRoryFan (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, but most of the article isn't about the "cultural divide". Look at the sources. Just where is the reference to the "Barrassi Line" or anything remotely similiar in this one? It's quite irrelevant, as is most of the article. You want to inform our readers about sports teams, use the team article or the code article, but not this one. --Pete (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems you have a particular problem will the relevance of expansion teams in this article, so perhaps I can help with that. I would suggest that exposure of the difficulties teams experience when operating in non-traditional areas illustrates the existence and effects of the cultural divide. It is highly relevant as a clear example of how that culture operates in the real world. Of course expansion teams have difficulties establishing themselves all over the world, with only around 50% having any substantial success in their first decade. However, the nature of sporting markets in Australia, represented by the Barassi line means those expansion teams' very existence is under threat, as shown by the death of the Western Force in your example citation.Using an example to illustrate a theory or principal isn't synthesis or original research, but I do think it could be written more clearly in the article. I'll have a go at fixing the text a little later, after these more major issues with the existence of the article itself has died down. Mdw0 (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. Find sources that mention the line or the cultural divide or whatever. Otherwise it's synthesis, no matter how much any editor cares - or in my case, doesn't - about specific teams. --Pete (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

You have made an incorrect assertion about the nature of synthesis. Not every single citation goes to the relevance of the entire article, but can be used to quote statistics, or to show what happened when, as an example of a principal. Of course, the principal itself must be clearly referenced as well. I agree that some of this article does have a whiff of synthesis about it, but I think that's mainly due to unclear writing, not because of irrelevance or original research. What is particularly lacking is any clear explanation of the link between national exposure and television revenue which has fuelled the desire to cross the Barassi Line and fight the cultural divide. I don't think it can be argued that the divide which is illustrated by the Barassi Line doesn't exist or isn't significant enough to have a Wikipedia article about it. The divide is relevant, and examples are plentiful. Would you have the same problem with the article if it was called Sporting Culture Divide Between Aussie Rules and Rugby League/Rugby Union? Mdw0 (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The article name is fine and the divide's existence and history are adequately sourced. What is synthesis is the commentary on various clubs in various states. The sources used in support do not mention the line nor any reference to a cultural divide. Whoever put in this material is joining dots that the source creator did not. That is synthesis. The example given above is typical. The relevance is synthesised by the WP editor, rather than being explicitly stated by the source. --Pete (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I've semi'd the page for a month. The article can no doubt be improved, but it seems pretty clear that the IP is not engaging in good faith and is being disruptive across multiple IP addresses in the last month. Jenks24 (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! It would certainly help if whoever it was created an account. User:GoodDay suggests above that it is an editor evading a ban. Perhaps this could be looked into. --Pete (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A range block will likely be the only solution. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

And so it was. See here. Let's hope this cools things down a little, and perhaps generates an apology or two. --Pete (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"Cultural divide" does not imply the Barassi Line. Really, you want me to believe that when we could be talking about the cultural divide established by soccer and rugby, or any other sport for that matter? Unless a source cites explicitly what it represents it cannot be assumed. I hate to treat people here like first year university students but that kind of assumption of facts would get your entire argument thrown out academically speaking as it should on Wikipedia.

As to protecting this article, really... please take the time to read Wikipedia:HUMAN. Actually its bad faith to assume that I am being disruptive. This matter about my identity has already been fully established. I would appreciate if all involved cease and desist with frivolous sock investigations. --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The article involves the why and the when of the line, not just the what. If there is a reference that shows the line is an illustration of certain statistics, then any other reference that describes those statistics is automatically relevant. Any example of the effects of a market on either side of the line must be relevant, even if it doesn't mention the line by name. That is why we have written articles, in Wikipedia, not just lists of citations. Any citation that says A is affected by B C and D means citations that examine B C and D don't need to explicitly mention A to be relevant. That isn't synthesis or assumed facts, its a direct logical link proven by the first citation. If the first citation says the Barassi line illustrates the nature of sporting markets on clubs,then any citation that also illustrates the same market on the same clubs must contain relevant material without directly mentioning the line because the article is about more than just the name of the line.58.167.99.226 (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Improving the article

Considering that bold removals of unsourced material merely led to edit-warring and disruption, rather than progress through discussion, I've begun to take things a piece at a time.

1. The opening paragraph in "League structures and expansions" is completely unsourced. Maybe it's accurate, maybe not, but we need to source our material so our readers can be sure. I've marked it as "citation needed".

2. "The first professional club to cross the Barassi Line was the Victorian Football League's South Melbourne Football Club, which relocated to Sydney and became the Sydney Swans in 1982." The statement is only partially sourced, as the article cited does not mention the "Barassi Line" or anything similar at all. Yes, the South Melbourne team relocated to Sydney, but the writer of the article doesn't seem to think that the "Barassi Line" was worth mentioning, unlike whichever editor wrote the copy. We need a source! Again, marked as "citation needed".

Can we make some progress on these two points, please? --Pete (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't have much time to answer these, but neither complaint is valid in my opinion.

1. is close to a sky is blue statement. Facts exist that prior to the 1970s, every state/city ran its own league, without any national leagues. "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Which part of "Primarily due to the distances involved, the leagues of Australian rules football and rugby league were all originally based around suburban competitions, not inter-city national leagues as is the case in many other countries" is doubtful? The "due to the distances involved"? The "many other countries"? This isn't a BLP. The citation bar IS lower here.
2. You've been told this before, but every source does not need to mention the words "Barassi line". You love quoting WP:SYNTH but I'm yet to see anything that is actually Synthisis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." What synthetic conclusion is reached by the cited fact that South Melbourne was the first club to move to the other side of the Line? IMO none, it just states a fact.

Anyway, I'm off to watch the footy. Have fun. The-Pope (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

1. If it's universally acknowledged, then you'll have no trouble finding a source, will you?

2. It's a matter of notability. The author of that article doesn't see fit to mention the Barassi Line, and this is an article about the Barassi Line. I suggest that this is because it's not important to the article.

Perhaps you can't see the problem, perhaps you are too close to the subject and it is part of your being. For you, the "Barassi Line" is a "sky is blue" thing, as you note. Not so much for others, perhaps, and this is a project aimed at informing those who do not know. Nevertheless, thank you for your input. --Pete (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

He never said the Barassi Line is a sky is blue matter, he was referring to a specific piece of information within the article. Stop putting words in other people's mouths. TripleRoryFan (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Blue sky is not a Wikipedia policy anyhow. You may think that the sky is blue but this is Wikipedia, so you do need to prove that the sky is blue even if you think its obvious. As I said regarding the five year old policy above, we all come from different levels of knowledge and understanding. We also come from different regions far and wide. Believe it or not, Wikipedia is an international website. What seems to be true and obvious to you may not be obvious to others. Most notably in our international friend who came here to comment about the Rugby League/AFL issues. If it really is that easy then it should be easy to find a source. --2001:8003:645C:9200:6064:7DA3:B2F:26D7 (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

You may wish to take your own advice, TripleRoryFan! I'm not referring to the Barassi Line, which as I've noted above, is adequately sourced and reasonably notable. At any rate, this article has survived a couple of deletion attempts and I'm not proposing another.

As noted, the opening paragraph in "League structures and expansions" is completely unsourced. The-Pope seems to think that this is "the sky is blue" material and doesn't need to be sourced. I disagree. A reader coming to this article with limited knowledge of Australian football codes would have no basis for assessing the truth or otherwise of that paragraph, would they? They wouldn't look at it and say, well, duh, every Canadian knows all that! --Pete (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

My edit/revert was done, because the IP appeared to be an evading sock. As for the content dispute? I'll leave it up to the Australians :) GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

On that note, you wouldn't regard basic knowledge of Australian football codes and leagues as self-evident would you? Just the same way that you might have a fair understanding of the Stanley Cup, but few Australians would. Wikipedia is a global affair, and it's an error to think that the only readers of articles are those who have a good grounding in the topic. --Pete (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I put no words in your mouth. "For you, the "Barassi Line" is a "sky is blue" thing, as you note." Your words. Not mine. TripleRoryFan (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't refactor my contributions here. You might usefully read WP:INDENT. Your point taken, but I'm now requesting input on the material mentioned in this thread. Do you have any response on this? --Pete (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This is twice now in recent moths I've survived either being called a sock or meat puppet, really now I am a human not something that is found in your top draw. To be honest, I could not care less who Pete is or where he comes from. Coming back to this article, yes we do need to cite that the sky is blue. Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. You don't really know where your audience is coming from. I'm sorry I bogged this article down myself, but forgive me if I'm wrong, with serious BRD discussions such as the one above there is generally supposed to be some kind of discussion on this talk page, much of which didn't seem to be happening. In which case we revert until there is a consensus. --2001:8003:645C:9200:6064:7DA3:B2F:26D7 (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing and original research

A fundamental problem with this article is the lack of sources. Regardless of whether something may be true or not, if it is unsourced, then it is original research. Presumably, some editor wrote down their best attempt at accuracy, looked up facts and figures, and believes it's all fine. Maybe it is, but for Wikipedia's purposes, all material needs sources. Frankly, I've got very little interest in football, so it would be really helpful if those who know what they are talking about put on their Wikipedia editor hats and fill in the sources we need, rather than blustering that it isn't necessary because "everyone knows that".

Fair warning. A lot of the content of this article is currently unsourced, and after looking through the history here, has been unsourced for years. I'm going to come back sooner rather than later, and if there are no sources, it goes in the bin, and anybody restoring unsourced material is going to have to answer to the wider community.

Likewise the issue of synthesis. Some facts, such as team names, years they won premierships or whatever, are just facts. But this is an article about the "Barassi Line" and if you are making some point about a league or a club or a city with respect to this supposed cultural divide, then find someone who is a reliable source who makes that point. Don't assume that just because Fact A is true and adequately sourced, and Fact B likewise, then Fact A + Fact B = Fact C and doesn't need to be either true or sourced. We don't require our readers to be experts in the field or logicians or philosophers or analysts who can extrapolate from incomplete material. We lay out the situation, we present information in a neutral fashion, and we tell people where we got our material from, so they can go look it up for themselves and find out more.

As an extreme example, go check the article on Wikipedia. This is us talking about ourselves, but we use exterior sources. So even if you think you are the world's foremost authority on football codes in Australia, go find a source that isn't yourself. That's the way we do things. OK? --Pete (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

As an addendum to the above, I've noted the use of theses as sources. By themselves they are better than websites, the news or media. However, they don't go through the same vetting process for accuracy and are only really checked and then graded on the merrit of the work that lies within it. We really have no idea what grade they received, so we can't really say much about their veracity other than the fact that they were most likely checked for veracity by an editor and supervisor. It would be preferable if sources came from academic journals or books. In a pinch repeated facts in newspapers and theses can be used until a better source is found. Theses are great for establishing new ground but must be taken for what they are. --2001:8003:6433:D300:CD89:45ED:B5CC:3D9A (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Occasionally you will find an article that has been pruned back to the stump, with a lot of the references deleted along with the supposedly extraneous material. This article used to be more comprehensive, with more references, but also a lot more unreferenced crap. I don't think it synthesises in the way you've described. If a reference says A is B, and another one says B is C, then you don't need every single citation to specifically say C is A in order to have information about C being in the article about A. That's not synthesis, its a proven link using two clear sources. It might be original research to make that connection, but its not synthesis. I think the article is failing to make its point if you think the success or failure of expansion clubs in non traditional areas are just facts and not relevant to the nature of the sporting markets described by the Barassi Line. That means a rewrite of the section rather than just deletion. Mdw0 58.167.99.226 (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I propose removing the original research tag - this seems to have been dealt with back in 2017.Newystats (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Using a primary source to make a leap of faith

Can somebody please tell me how the statement "Other major team sports in Australia, such as cricket, basketball, netball, field hockey and soccer have less variation in their popularity by location." is supported by reference?

It looks like the reader has to connect the dots for themselves, and that is synthesis. It also looks to me like someone has found the ABS site and thought that they'd just chuck some numbers into the lede - as opposed to the body - and hope for the best. If our wording truly reflects the situation, then surely there's someone out of the thousands of sports journalists filling acres of newsprint that has actually stated this? Asking our readers to wade through a table of raw numbers is a big ask. --Pete (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

You've managed to choose one of the best sourced bits of this article to complain about. The sentence you quote is exceptionally well supported by the data. Are you seriously saying this source is no good because there isn't a summary for people who can't read a spreadsheet? Raw numbers from statistical surveys are valid sources. The ability to read numbers and statistics is not 'connecting the dots' any more than reading text. It is not magic and its not used to infer something that isn't there. It is NOT synthesis. In fact I'm starting to wonder if you even know what synthesis means, and you just like throwing it around as an accusation at an article you don't like/understand. And since when did sports journalists become the definitive source for a sports article over and above data from the ABS? This data shows with no extraneous commentary, that the rugby codes attract dramatically more spectators in NSW and Queensland, and dramatically less spectators in the other states, and its saying the reverse is true for Aussie Rules. Are you saying the statistics are bogus, or are you just saying you don't understand the table? I'd hate to see how you go with the sources for some of the Wikipedia articles on high level maths or physics.Mdw0 (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could give me an example of the latter and I'll show you what I mean by synthesis. I'm using it in the sense that Wikipedia does. Have you actually checked this? --Pete (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says synthesis is using material from different sources to imply a conclusion which isn't ever stated by the sources themselves. It is a type of original research, but it is quite rare. What is more common is editors just writing away without having sources. This article's problem is the latter, flat out OR, not synthesis. For example, the same data table that you've mentioned above is used to reference the sentence in the opening section which says media coverage and participation rates are skewed in the different markets. That sentence should have sources which define all those parameters, but the one source that is there only mentions spectators. This isn't synthesis because synthesis means making a connection between different data sets, not from no data at all. I think the key source that is missing, the one you think is basically lacking, is one that explicitly states that the markets that the two football codes operate in is different, and that trying to expand into a hostile market to achieve national exposure is difficult and has proven so. A source that says this would link everything in the article. If I find it, I'll put it in. Until then, the original research banner should stay. But that in no way implies that the entire article is no good or that it shouldn't detail what the line means for leagues and clubs, which is what you've been esposing. However, when there is a big banner at the top of the article indicating original research, it is redundant to add additional little ones all through the article, and they should be removed. Does it mean you want two sources at that point? Or just that you really, really want one?Mdw0 (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Synthesis is more than the narrow definition you give above. Our policy also warns against synthesising statements from within one source, you'll agree? The source I'm referring to here is the spreadsheet giving raw figures for various sports within Australia. I have no beef with the figures provided by the ABS, but I cannot see how this supports the statement "Other major team sports in Australia … have less variation in their popularity by location" without requiring the reader to perform some mathematical calculations or to make a guess. The levels of variation are not stated in the figures we are given. And how would these levels and their differences be calculated? Linear regression, maybe? Are we expecting our readers to work out standard deviations? What is the precise method you are using? Perhaps it would be helpful if you could show your workings. --Pete (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue here is original research and crystal ball theory, I flagged all of this and then someone came in and swept it away because I'm apparently "not a hooman..." This article needs to be paired back to dealing with whatever the concept is and shifted away from all the clairvoyants that have dropped in here over the years. If the concept is the Barassi Line then keep it to that, if you want to create a new article about the divisive nature of rugby, soccer, and AFL, then make a new article with sources. In fact I've got a better idea to use the existing one and merge what is relevant into the aforementioned article.

I still raise questions about the use of a thesis by itself without any way to verify the quality of said thesis in relation to the current situation. This source needs to be supported by a more reliable one from a peer reviewed journal article or book. Further to this all unsourced material must eventually be sourced in this article or it can be challenged and deleted. It doesn't matter if you think its obvious or otherwise, this is in an international encyclopedia.

--2001:8003:6433:D300:6067:9DA0:5992:2DE (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Pete, do you seriously need to be told that two is more than one? Now that really is 'sky is blue' territory. I think you're being deliberately obtuse if you look at the totally different numbers for Aussie Rules and Rugby League for Queensland and NSW versus South Australia and Victoria, and compare it with the static numbers for cricket and soccer and say there's no difference. If you don't understand the source, then why have you assumed its synthesis?Mdw0 (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is not just that there is a line, it is also about what the line divides. Most of the crystal ball stuff has been deleted. Any article about comparative sporting popularity will be controversial and visions of one sport or another invading the territory and hearts and minds of other sports will attract zealots. You can't expect an article that shows a separation of tribes to ignore what those tribes do. I don't think this article is above the deletion of unsourced material, but why wreck an interesting article when it just needs referencing help? It's a lot easier to point out flaws than do the hard work of fixing something.Mdw0 (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll agree that the figures back up the claim - given a bit of mathematics - but the fact remains that the statement about "levels of variation" is inadequately sourced for Wikipedia. You say it is "sky is blue" territory, but you don't even provide the simple arithmetic that this implies, apart from saying that "two is more than one", which must be an attempt at humour, given that neither number is found in the source data. Could you, please, show me how you are calculating the levels of variance for each sport? --Pete (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Given that I'm seeing nothing but handwaving, and no substantive argument that the source actually contains "levels of variation" data that we can use to back up our statement, I'm removing it. Not only that, but it doesn't mention the "Barassi Line", which supposedly cuts through the granular level of data supplied. --Pete (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia not "football banter Australia." Articles here should be encyclopedic in nature. If you want a page for AFL banter you might try this one. --2001:8003:6433:D300:8092:1BE9:AEDF:3CD2 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Location

The line runs from the Northern Territory-Queensland border, south through Birdsville, Queensland, through southern New South Wales north of the Riverina, through Canberra and on to the Pacific Ocean at Cape Howe on the border of New South Wales and Victoria.

Birdsville is on the northern border of SA, straight south of the little island depicted off Queensland's northwestern corner. It's nowhere near the line depicted on this map. What's correct: the textual description or the map? Nyttend backup (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

What's correct is the word "imaginary" in the first sentence. A straight line is never going to reflect the reality accurately. I'm sure there used to be more words in the article to this effect. I suspect they disappeared in some attempts at gutting the article by an editor who would rather it didn't exist at all. He removed masses of useful, explanatory text on the basis that it wasn't explicitly sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

If the difference between map and text is acceptable, I don't see why we need so much text. What about The line follows QLD's western borders, drops southeast through western NSW, and ends at the Pacific Ocean at Cape Howe on the border of New South Wales and Victoria? Because this has fewer details, it feels less "formal" and less precise. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A good suggestion. My only concern is the impression of precision it might give. Including a word something word "roughly" or "approximately" might help. HiLo48 (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for things that you and/or your friends made up at the pub.

This is really pub talk, I have therefore recommended it for speedy deletion as it serves no encyclopaediac purpose. Wikipedia is not for things you and your mates made up at the pub. --120.22.186.12 (talk) 08:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll see that it is a term created by an academic, and has been used semi-regularly in the decades since. It's not just made up by your mates in a pub. The-Pope (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure you understand how universities work my friend. Lots of things are created by academics every day. It doesn't mean that they hold any relevance what so ever. I hate to tell you this, but, literally no one outside of the AFL fan base would have any real knowledge about who Ron Barassi is or why he was important, nor about some lecture a guy held once which literally hundreds of academics hold every day across universities in Australia. An expelled communist sympathiser is not the bellwether standard for academics either. I'm not sure being a student of Manning Clark (who had little professed interest in the broader history of Australia beyond it's European history) makes for a compelling case for Turner's relevance either.The "lecture" he delivered (in his annual Barassi memorial) on Australian Rules football, was one where he was wearing a Richmond beanie carrying a can of beer, a meat pie and tomato sauce. I hardly think it is a seminal lecture that is relevant to Australian history.

For the record I can find no reference to any conversation about the Barassi Line within the entirety of every reference library in the world. Surely if it were that important there would be a link to it somewhere here. But there is none that would suggest his conversation amongst "his mates and fellow Tigers fans and their mates" was relevant to anyone but himself... --120.153.7.148 (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

A broader search of the Barassi Memorial lecture shows content being held at exactly TWO universities. Exactly one of them being held outside of Victoria... here. WOW truely indeed INCREDIBLY exceptionally relevant! --120.153.7.148 (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

120, look at the map. You are missing the point of the concept and the article, which is to make it look like AFL is the only game in town. Important stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs) 01:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is relevant to a bunch of drongos at the pub where in fact Australia probably has one of the most diverse football cultures of any country in the world, from Rugby League, to American football, and football (soccer) in between all being played or watched every single day of the year by someone in Australia making this nonsense in this article counterfactual and counterintelectual.

However...perhaps that IS the point... To display the nonsense that goes on between rugby league and AFL drongos who don't have the intellectual ability to understand that more than one type of football can be enjoyed in this country? In which case this article should be edited as such to reflect that very point. --120.22.34.217 (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It's probably worth recording that this IP editor is posting from an address in the same range as a now blocked editor whose thread I have deleted below. HiLo48 (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

...and that an IP Editor from the same range has now twice replaced the above comment with an abusive remark. I'm not a fan of range blocks, especially when it would have to be a broad one as in this case. Ongoing attention will probably be enough. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Puzzled by two things.

Firstly, how an Edit summary of 22 words, close the maximum number one would ever sensibly use, can be described as "No explanation," and that it triggered someone to suggest it was not written in a civil manner.

Secondly, and more seriously, when Ian Turner first described the line, he could have simply run it along the border between NSW and Victoria, but he didn't. He very explicitly placed the entirety of the Riverina on the Aussie Rules side of the line. Anyone who knows anything about that region knows he was correct. Being closer to Melbourne than Sydney, Victorian broad gauge train lines ran into that area. Produce and people travelled to Melbourne, rather than Sydney. Socially and culturally the region was much more influenced by Victoria than by the rest of NSW. If you travel there, you will see OLD Aussie Rules grounds in every town. Many old VFL and AFL stars have come from the region, for over a century. Yet now we have a new addition to the article, telling us "that Australian rules had successfully moved the Barassi Line northward into the border-straddling region of Murray in NSW, and was advancing it in the adjacent Riverina". This addition to our article is telling us that the Aussie Rules side of the line has only recently expanded to include an area that it has ALWAYS included. Sorry, folks, but there's a logic problem there.

Interestingly, the study the cited news article draws on is from the Wikidata Fellowship.

I find the claim in this addition unhelpful. (Hope that's civil enough.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone has added content and providsd a source. That is what we do here. Perhaps you could gain consensus before unilaterally removing sourced material without any reason beyond your own opinion? I'm all ears. --Pete (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

We are now at the D (Discuss) phase of WP:BRD. There is no problem. Please discuss my second point above. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You aren't kistening. Merely restating your own opinion doesn't address the problem. We use WP:NPOV to present different views. Maybe you feel that there is only one valid viewpoint - your own - and that contrary views must be somehow wrong because they are expressed by another human being. That's not how Wikipedia works. This whole article is pretty bloody thin on sourcing and now you wnat to throw away a useful addition??? --Pete (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not the topic. I have suggested there is a problem with the addition. If you don't want to discuss that, just skip this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You aren't the topic but your behaviour is problematic. Let's get a few more editorsa looking at this and see what the consensus is. I feel that the article needs more sources. Ones that actually mention this so-called Barassi line, I mean, instead of just republishing team stats and stuff in a confected manner. --Pete (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Please start your own section to discuss that. Can you see the problem I described with the recent addition? HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I care nothing for sports. I care about Wikipedia. How about you discuss the problem I identified re WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? If consensus for your actions is a problem for you, surely that just underscores my concern? --Pete (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

My concern was about the logic of the article, because I too care about Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you won't address the concerns I raised, why bother entering into discussion at all? Point me to wikipolicy instead of trying to convince me by waving your hands around. Why don't you simply do that? --Pete (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I began this section to discuss a logic problem with the article. Can you see the problem I described with the recent addition? HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you won't address the concerns I raised, why bother entering into discussion at all? ... Pete, HiLo48 started the discussion and you've mostly brushed off their concern as an opinion/the issue as being down to a lack of sources (I don't think going down the "No, you tell me what I want to know first" path is fair, and per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, it shouldn't be up to them to achieve consensus). There appears to be conflicting information with the new source, so while the article might be in need of more/better sources, that might not mean that this is it, at least when it comes to this issue; I agree with Chipmunkdavis' point below that other bits of information could be pulled from the source, but probably not this contested part. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Jeez, just put the line in the Torres Strait, thus fulfilling the purpose of the concept and article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs) 05:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Not a useful contribution. HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you think if the "line" bisected/trisected/quartered the country, would anyone have noticed? Or instead of a geographical metric, it was a population one and came out close to even, would anyone have bothered to codify it?. The purpose of this concept is merely so one "team" can lord it over the others, pure peacockery. Pointless article, the scope of each sport belongs on their respective pages. Local Potentate (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Off topic. Can you see the problem I described with the recent addition? HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

For reference. The author of the article cited is Dr Hunter Fujak, author of Code Wars, and probably the foremost expert on this topic. --Pete (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you see the problem I described with the recent addition? HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm unsure why this article seems to be generating such heat. The sentence in dispute seems illogical; the repeated pasting of responses instead of improving the sourcing I don't understand. I will note that the whole article seems to have a significant problem with original research, being that most of the sources have nothing to do with the subject, which seems part of the cause of this specific dispute. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the problem is mainly due to the name. There is a real topic here, the boundary between areas where Rugby League is the dominant code and that where Australian football is the dominant code. It's something worth attempting to describe. Ian Tuner chose to name it after an Aussie Rules player, and that seems to provoke negative reactions from Rugby League fans (Or anti Aussie Rules fans?). I kinda wish he hadn't given it the name he did. We also have sourcing issues overall. But neither of those is the issue I raised here. Why is it so hard to get people to concentrate on one issue? Discuss the overall sourcing issue somewhere else please. Discuss the recent addition here. And do it without attacking one of the codes of football. HiLo48 (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You might consider opening up an RFC on this at WP:SPORTS or another WikiProject of your choosing. Having more editors' input, can help break possible log-jams. GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I've had a look at the source, it does seem to describe a shift. However, it does this without describing a past situation and reads as assuming the NSW-VIC border is the expected border that the situation it found is compared against. I think there may be useful info to pull from that source, but not the current inclusion. CMD (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that the article would include the mapping and show the original line but not really go into detail, simply saying that it's advancing in the Riverina region. The information as it was added to this article also reads that the region produces a very high number of elite athletes per capita, but it only says this about Wagga Wagga. I think that the information should be removed until we decide which parts to keep, if at all. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion above, thanks for the input. My concern is that this source that HiLo want gone and tossed in the incinerator is by a noted authority on this exact issue - we could probably replace the whole sorry article with excerpts from his authoritative "Code Wars" - and yet HiLo doesn't address the sourcing, just his own particular interpretation. How is one editor a better authority than someone who dominates the field? If Dr Fujak is wrong, find a reliable source saying so. If he is right, where's the problem? --Pete (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I also recommend exclusion of the sentence in question. While the reference itself looks mostly good, the sentence in question is dubious for reasons already stated - I.e. the original definition of the line from 1978 (as stated in the same reference) puts the Murray and Riverina on the Australian rules side of the line, and the assertion that Australian football is 'advancing north into the Murray/Riverina' is vague at best, wrong at worst, and definitely self-contradictory. The rest of the reference has some rather good insights which would help to improve this article (which, as others have said, is of quite poor standard); but the specific statement in question should be excluded based on a critical review of the reference. Aspirex (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Aspirex's approach, for what it's worth. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that's as good a consensus as we're going to get for such a fringe topic. --Pete (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I have now included the source in question near the beginning of the article to at least justify the fact of the existence of the "line". As Aspirex suggests, perhaps other useful content can also now be drawn from it, so long as we avoid its confusing description of what's happening in the Murray River/Riverina region. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)