Jump to content

Talk:New Zealand national rugby union team/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Controversial tours

Can someone with more knowledge than I put in a discussion about how the All Blacks' tour of South Africa caused a black African boycott of the Olympics? -- Zoe

The 1986(?) Edinburgh Commonwealth Games suffered an African boycott; is that the occasion Zoe is thinking about? Robin Patterson 00:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1976 Olympics suffered an African Boycott in protest of the All Black tour to South Africa of that year. After a lot of hot air, most African teams would have called off the Boycott at the last moment had the then Chairman of the New Zealand Olympic and Commonwealth Games Association, Sir Lance Cross, expressed some sort of regret/disaproval of the tour on behalf of the NZOCGA. He didn't. There was talk of kicking NZ out of the games, but instead the African teams (most of whom had actually arrived in Montreal) boycotted. Hence the much awaited 1500m clash between John Walker and Filbert Bayi of Tanzania never happened. Read Cry of Treason by Tom Newnham for the full story.--Bungle 04:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • I have added my impressions of the times (1960's-1980s) that preceded the boycott. Someone else may be able to provide a better resource than my own eyewitness memory. Perhaps we need a separate article on the 1981 Springbok tour too? - kiwiinapanic
    • We HAVE a page called "1981 Springbok Tour", but it redirects to this article. Such a seminal event in Southern Hemisphere history needs its own page. As one who sat on a motorway, I may be considered to be too biased an "observer". Robin Patterson 00:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • My girlfriend keeps threatening to write an article about the 1981 Springbok tour (although she'd be no less biased than you, Robin!) - I'll tell her that there are voices clamouring for it! —Stormie 00:52, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. isn't "While the 1985 Springbok tour saw major rugby fields ringed in barbed wire for Springbok games, there were no protests as political circumstances had changed" just flat-out wrong? I thought the tour was cancelled after a legal challenge. Also, I think "Also many African Countries boycotted the 1984 Olympics" is wrong too - I think only the Soviet bloc boycotted that year. —Stormie 12:05, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I have started to collect some notes, details and links, which can be found at User:Stormie/1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand, if anyone would like to join in. I haven't attempted to mold these into a coherent article yet, though. —Stormie 03:59, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

I find the Springbok Tours section totally incomprehensible. I don't know the history at all, so as an ignorant reader, I am completely lost. For instance,

Playing the Springboks of South Africa has become a traditional rugby competition. In the 1950s and 1960s, the South African apartheid policies had an impact on touring team selection, with Maori players not being selected for some South African tours. By the 1970s public protests and political pressure forced the New Zealand Rugby Union to either field a non-racial team or not tour. However the Springboks continued to be racially selected. As a result, the Norman Kirk Labour Government prevented the Springboks from touring during the mid 1970s. The Rugby Union protested that politics and sport should not be mixed up.

Firstly, this has way too much passive voice. "Maori players not being selected"... by whom? Then there are phrases like "...forced the New Zealand Rugby Union to either field a non-racial team or not tour"... Huh??? Even overlooking the split infinitive here, I think you need to be a rugby afficionado to really understand this whole section. I'd fix it myself if I had any idea what it all means. --Doradus 15:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I've uplifted the Springbok stuff from the article and moved it to 1981 Springbok Tour, as (although incomplete) it really doesn't belong here. porge 08:09, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

The New Zealand Rugby Football Union (NZRFU) failed to learn their lesson from the debacle of 1976 (where African nations boycotted the Montreal Olympics) and 1981 (the disastrous south African 'Springbok' Rugby tour of New Zealand, which deeply divided the nation to the point of unprecedented civil unrest) and proceeded to announce an All Black tour of South Africa in 1985 during South Africa's state of emergency. Thankfully the NZRFU were challenged in the high court by two lawyers who argued it was not in the NZRFU's charter to tour South Africa in such times of turmoil, they achieved an injunction and the tour was called off. The majority of New Zealanders thru ignorance and/or a sheer love of rugby (in particularly playing against their greatest rivals, the Springboks) supported all tours to and from South Africa during the aparthied regime...as an 11 year old in 1981 I supported the tour by the Springboks purely as a chance to play South Africa but as a far more worldly and enlightened 35 year old in 2005 all I can say is I want to stand up and applaud the anti-tour/anti-aparthied protesters who put their lives in danger by making a stand against racism and oppression. You are the true heroes. Blair Kavanagh, Sydney Australia.


General/detailed team history

Long term should there be a history of the All Blacks here? Records of tours and each match, bios of each player and their record? Thoughts? -- SimonLyall

There definitely should be a history section. Records of games should probably go else where e.g. Tri Nations or be listed on a sub page so as to leave the main article uncluttered. Maybe a brief summary of each years tours can be made. Seeing as there are over one thousand All Blacks, player biographies should really be separate articles. Although brief mention of noteable players can be made. -- Popsracer 05:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Anyone keen to start the [oval] ball rolling - maybe check whether other national teams have been written up, so as to get an idea of workable styles. Maybe NOT mention Tri Nations THIS month! Robin Patterson 00:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
..and don't look to Australia national rugby union team as an example of what an article should be - it's two sentences, a bunch of red links to famous players, and a "see also" section! —Stormie 00:52, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Simon - that is a huge task - records of tours, and of each match, bios of ALL players and their records already exists - Both in the Rugby Museum site, and in the official All Blacks site. Both of these website's are feed out of the same database. Probably best to link to those site's. The data is accurate and uptodate. I should know - it's me who created that database and webpages. --BMR789 08:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

BMR789. The problem is that the Official sites are under restrictive copyright. Who knows what will happen to them in 20 years time, at minimum I would guess the URLs will break. As for linking I note the T&Cs of the stats.allblacks.com site say: "If you wish to link to any part of this Site or a Sub-website, you must obtain our, or the relevant Associate's, prior written consent" . So there may be problems there. SimonLyall 12:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd better write a letter to myself then. --BMR789 13:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Can't hurt, but the webmasters of allblacks.com are on some excellent drugs if they think they can demand that you obtain their consent before linking to their site. --Stormie 23:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go myself. The bulk of the text comes from a 'History of New Zealand rugby' which is available on the internet and no mention of any copyright. Bits from Planet rugby and the 2003 World Cup site have been woven in. There are also a few fragments from the official site but it is quite different from the original text. Please add to it / change it as you see fit.GordyB 11:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming of this article

Why was this article renamed from All Blacks to New Zealand national rugby union team? The current naming convention says "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict..." and to me All Blacks is the most common name. So unless someone has strong objections I'll move it back to All Blacks. Although I see some merit in keeping New Zealand national rugby union team as a redirect. -- Popsracer 05:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with the proposed move+redirect. ("National rugby" ... "Is that the NRL? Or the Sevens?") ("Rugby union" ... "Hey, we never call it that in this country!") - Robin Patterson 00:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I guess the renaming happened to make all the national Rugby teams consistently named - the argument in favour would be that it makes life easier for article-writers (e.g. imagine working on a World Cup article if all the national teams had different naming styles), but a redirect would handle that just as well, so I'm inclined to agree with the "Use the most common name.." school of thought and go for All Blacks. —Stormie 00:52, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Seeing as there has been general support for the move back to All Blacks and no objections, I have made the move. -- Popsracer 01:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And now, two years later Duncharis has moved it back again. I'm putting it back to All Blacks where it belongs. Lisiate 00:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite rightly too. There are naming conventions that need to be followed. All Blacks is a nickname. There is Australia national rugby union team (Wallabies), South Africa national rugby union team (Springboks), Argentina national rugby union team (pumas), etc. This is different. Why? — Dunc|☺ 18:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolute, unmitigated bollocks: This article definitely should be titled "All Blacks", with a redirect from "New Zealand rugby union team":
  • Practical Use: Let's be practical here: how many people using this resource will be searching for "all blacks" and how many people will be searching for "New Zealand national rugby union team"? In percentages, I submit that it would be precisely 100% the former; 0% the latter. To accord with user functionality, the only sensible thing is to title the main article "All Blacks". Note the comment made above (two years ago) about Wikipedia naming conventions which supports this.
  • "All Blacks" is NOT just a nickname: In any case "All Blacks" is the official name of the team, as per the New Zealand Rugby Union, which has taken great pains to protect its trade mark in the name - witness the website, and the two words under the silver fern on the test match all black jersey: "All Blacks".
  • "New Zealand National Rugby Union Team" is a poor description in any case: And if we're getting down to brass tacks, "New Zealand National Rugby Union Team" is neither an official description of any sort, nor an accurate one (for one thing it doesn't differentiate the All Blacks from the Cavaliers, New Zealand A, the U21s, or arguably the NZ Universities or the NZ Maoris for example) - strictly speaking the All Blacks are actually the "New Zealand Rugby Football Union First XV". But no-one - not even the NZRFU - refers to the ABs in those terms. There is only one team called the All Blacks, and everyone knows which team that is. Why not use that as the article title?
  • Existing Naming Conventions should be changed: Not only should this article be changed, but so should the other you cite be titled "Springboks", "Wallabies" and "Pumas" respectively. (and "Azurri" and "les Bleus"). The home nations teams, by contrast, don't have "nicknames", so need to be treated differently. The currently used naming convention makes no sense, as in each case these are not official nor particularly accurate titles (for the same reasons as above). By the same logic, the article about the band who recorded Satisfaction should not be titled "Rolling Stones" but "British invasion Rock 'n' roll band who aped delta blues and had a singer who studied at the London School of Economics". What possible good would that do? ElectricRay 23:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The page was moved again. So I have moved it back to All Blacks for now. It is by far the most common name, and thus, the artivle's title should reflect that. Commentators, publications, websites, media and so on, all use the name All Blacks. It should not be moved to New Zealand national rugby union team purely because all the other nations use that title. This has also been discussed numerous times, so people should just be moving it to New Zealand national rugby union team, because as far as I know, an understanding has been reached that the page should be All Blacks. No on refers to them as New Zealand. All Blacks is by far the most common name. Cvene64 06:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Totaly agree with ElectricRay and Cvene64. I wonder why these people who insist of changing the name of this article haven't also insisted that the British and Irish Lions article be also renamed the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland combination national rugby union team?!? --GringoInChile 13:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a particularly strong desire to change the name but on the who I agree with Duncharis. Anybody searching for 'All Blacks' would automatically redirected to 'New Zealand national rugby union team' in any case. The advantage of 'New Zealand national rugby union team' is that the casual observer will instantly know what the article is about. 99.99% of Kiwis know who the All Blacks are, 99.99% of rugby union fans know who they are but only a minority of the world's population do.GordyB 13:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice try, but that huge majority of the world's population who doesn't know who the all blacks are would be pretty much exactly the same huge majority who didn't know what rugby union was and wouldn't be looking it up in the first place. End the day, "All Blacks" is not only the most widely used label for the team, it's also the team's official name. If there is a redirect from NZ national team, everyone ought to be happy. How on earth this can be even a topic for debate is beyond me. ElectricRay 20:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That's backwards logic. One could just as easily argue that people who know who the All Blacks are have no need to read the article. People read articles on subjects that they are not experts on or know little about. That's the point in reading stuff.GordyB 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My two cents. As we have an article called New Zealand national rugby union team (sevens), should not the New Zealand national rugby union team name preferred by some people actually be New Zealand national rugby union team (All Blacks)? Moriori 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think long names involving brackets make linking articles difficult.GordyB 22:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
How? I had no difficulty linking here to New Zealand national rugby union team (sevens) which already exists. Whatever, I mentioned this purely in regard to naming consistency. Moriori 22:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I just find names involving brackets are often mislinked especially as the words in brackets are sometimes capitalised and sometimes not. I'd rather have All Blacks than a compromise that was difficult to link.GordyB 13:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Nah. This has to stay at All Blacks. Like I said at WP:RU: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?. It's just too bad if a user is looking through the category of national rugby union teams, looking for New Zealand. The scenario is highly unlikely, if anyone (again this is pretty farfetched), had zero-knowledge, but for some reason was looking for the New Zealand national rugby union team, they would type that in, and be redirected to All Blacks. The rationale that the title does not indicate what it is, is a bit silly as well, by this reasoning we should change Harlequin F.C. to Harlequins (the rugby union club)...and so on...The average user would put in All Blacks, not New Zealand national rugby union team, if it were moved, the title would only be serving 1% of its visitors (ala the guy with no knowledge who was looking in Category:National rugby union teams for the New Zealand side). Cvene64 01:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't advocating a particular name, just pointing out inconsistency. If we have New Zealand national rugby union team (sevens) then logically we should have New Zealand national rugby union team (All Blacks) also. But if we have All Blacks then we need ? ? ? ? ? ? too. Insert the name of the NZ sevens team. What is it again? Oh yeah, New Zealand. But we can't have that because it's at New Zealand. What a to do. Moriori 01:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I still prefer the standardised name but as it is just Duncharris and me who seem to do so then I suppose we should just leave it as it is.GordyB 13:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer the standardised naming convention. Argentina's team isn't at los pumas neither is the Aussie team at Qantas Wallabies or Wallabies or SA at Springboks, nor would I support such moves. This article should be at New Zealand national rugby union team. In official programs, the name New Zealand is used, not the all blacks. In the Rugby World Cup, the side that represents New Zealand is officially the New Zealand side, not the all blacks.--Bob 21:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The diference is that the Wallabies and Pumas are equally as well known as Australia and Argentina, whereas NO ONE calls the All Blacks New Zealand. Changing the article's name would be misleading to people who are not rugby fans. Its All Blacks, not New Zealand. The name is legendary.

Lots of people refer to the All Blacks as 'New Zealand'. I've yet to see All Blacks used on a scoreboard or on an official fixture list. Official World Cup websites use 'New Zealand'.GordyB 22:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with GordyB on that point - loads of people, particularly outside NZ, call the team New Zealand, as that is the team's name. When the ABs play Scotland, for example, the match is between Scotland and New Zealand. Clearly 'All Blacks' is very widely used and is one of the team's official names, so people need to be able to reach the article by using either name, but maybe uniform naming across all national teams makes most sense. New Zealand has had a national rugby team since before the term All Blacks was used, and if the team name was sold in future so they were known as The News Corp Sheep-Molesters, it would still be the New Zealand National Rugby Union Team.Hippo43 17:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thought on this topic, which I think is very important. Although I instinctively feel All Blacks should be the name for this page, there is a real difference between the two names - the All Blacks aren't only, as Cvene64 stated, "the New Zealand Rugby Football Union First XV". The All Blacks were [until very recent tours] also the team which played non-international games on tour. Hence Zinzan Brooke, for example, has played 58 times [58 tests] for 'the New Zealand national team', and another 42 for the All Blacks. A quick look at the official All Blacks site [1] shows numerous players who have played several matches for the All Blacks but have never played for the New Zealand national team in an international match.

As the 2 names are not exactly equivalent, I have to agree with GordyB and Duncharris that strictly speaking we should not use All Blacks as the main name for this article.Hippo43 13:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

All national teams used to play tour matches (ie. non-internationals). The Lions still do - see 2005 Lions Tour. There is no difference - it's still the Lions or the All Blacks whether they're playing against Manawatu or Harlequins. The two names are exactly equivalent. Lisiate 23:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The British Lions always used the same name and gave the same kind of cap whether they were playing a provincial team or a test match. NZ / AB did not. Re-read Hippo43's post. I would also add that the name 'All Blacks' isn't exclusively the NZRU's (it goes without saying that THE All Blacks are by far the best known) - In Wales Neath are known as the All Blacks. There are dozens of other minor clubs with this name.
I suggest we vote on it, have an admin seal the result and just leave it at that.GordyB 12:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lisiate, of course you are right that all national teams used to play non-test matches on tour, but you are wrong to imply that it's the same thing to play an international match as to play Harlequins. Playing against Harlequins is not an international match, and the team which plays against Harlequins is not the New Zealand international side. The NZRU explicitly recognises this in recording Tests and non-test matches separately for each All Black.

The 2 names are not exactly equivalent - this article starts with "the All Blacks is the name of New Zealand's international rugby union team". Players such as Chris Tregaskis (described in his official All Blacks bio as "judged to have been of not quite international standard" [2]) are All Blacks, having played non-test matches, but have never played for "New Zealand's international rugby union team". I am fairly sure the likes of Tregaskis would trade all their games against teams like Harlequins for one international match. The 2 terms have slightly different, albeit overlapping, meanings. By all means have a separate article which covers the All Blacks in both senses, or cover the issue in this article, but the naming of this article should be consistent with other countries' international teams.

As has been pointed out before, other international teams officially play against 'New Zealand', not against 'The All Blacks'. A quick look at the IRB's website [3] shows that South Africa played New Zealand, not the All Blacks, last weekend.

I'm not convinced that voting on this is the answer, as weight of numbers shouldn't be the way to get your point of view 'approved' here. As I understand it, verifiablility is more important on Wikipedia. Hippo43 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, Wikipedia is edited by consensus. I don't think there is sufficient consensus for a succesful move but I think that one way or another there should be closure of this issue so we can get on with other things.GordyB 12:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

More on this - the NZRU's own website has the title "Welcome to the official website of the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team" - the New Zealand All Blacks, not the All Blacks. Also, their own results page [4] shows the team's name as New Zealand, so the arguments above that "noone calls them new Zealand" are obviously nonsense.Hippo43 19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think more benefits would come from having it as All Blacks rather than New Zealand. Although it would keep every national page in line, it migh tnot confuse anyone, but it is a way weaker term than the All Blacks. I know you would have to be an idiot not to realise, but personally, if I saw New Zealand national rugby union team, Id be like "...?...Oh, the All Blacks".Narrasawa 10:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you name the page All Blacks shouldn't you also use Springboks and Wallabies for SA and Australia? 'All Blacks' might be uniformly used in New Zealand but not here in England; I know nobody under the age of 40 who calls them the 'All Blacks'. It would be more consistent to call the article New Zealand national rugby union team the same as all the others. The football team is equally nicknamed the All Whites but that isn't the title of that article. Mjefm 23:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want this article to be called 'All Blacks' but there is a better case for doing so than 'Springboks' or 'Wallabies' and certainly 'All Whites'. The name 'All Blacks' is simply much more widely known and used.GordyB 08:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mjefm, don't you think that the fact the name All Black has trickled through culture so much so that it influenced the name of every other NZ sporting team a representation of how much the name is engrained into culture? Also, I don't know where everyone is from, I know two of the guys from the ru project who dont like the current name, GordyB and Grcampbell are (I think, correct me if I'am wrong) from the UK? Like, I just don't think you guys realise how big the name is in Oceania, or the southern hemisphere for that matter. The "nickname" has most definantly superseded New Zealand in general description of the team. You rarely hear them being called New Zealand, and I dont think saying All Blacks is not used on a scoreboard or the rwc site is that relevent - those are official records! This is an encyclepedia...thus...Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?. Guys, we really got to go by that, as opposed to the fact that all other nations have a ...national rugby union team name. And please can we not have an offical vote, as that is all it is, a vote, instead of a rational discussion. I raised good points at Tri Nations, but I dont think they were even read by the admin, and thus the move failed because people had come along and just "voted" instead of responding to what I said. Anyway, I just thinklk there are way more benefits to having it at All Blacks, there is a redirect, so anyone who types in New Zealand is fine, whats the problem? Cvene64 13:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm English, Grcampbell is Scots. I don't like the title but I've lived with it as it is for over two years and so it is not a big deal if I have to continue to do so. Though I have stronger feelings on 'Wallabies' and 'Springboks'.GordyB 13:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I agree with you on that. Argentina, Australia and South Africa should stay where they are. Cvene64 13:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Pregame Ritual

There should be mention to the pregame ritual the All Blacks take part in before each game.

  • There is - it is called the haka. MyNameIsNotBob 06:54, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Though the haka should really be called a prayer not a war dance.
  • There are a number of articles on the Haka on the Internet. The consensus seems to be that the version of the Haka performed by the All Blacks is the "Ka Mate". The Haka seems to be described as a dance that does not involve weapons (so is not a "war dance") and can cover everything from welcome to hostility. I guess a hostile Haka could be seen as a war dance of sorts, but the history and translation of the Ka Mate would suggest that it's much more a thanksgiving, however there is an extremely "loose" translation (based more on tradition than transliteration) which suggests a challenge. Personally, I'd say there are probably better interpretations of it.
For the record, weapons or no, the haka is a war dance. It is performed in front of - and at - the opposition, in the same way it was used by many polynesian people before going into battle, and has the aim of scaring the bejesus out of the opposition/enemy. (Typically, praying doesn't have quite the same effect). This is why one should freely ignore anyone (particularly a New Zealander*) who complains that "insufficient respect" is shown to the haka. It is a war dance. It is ones enemy's prerogative to show or fail to show respect to ones pre-war rituals. In rugby, as in war, if you fail to show sufficiuent respect to your opponent, you find out the hard way - you don't need a hand-wringing liberal to make the point for you. (* I'm a New Zealander, by the way) ElectricRay 23:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Haka seems to have been performed for a very long time by the All Blacks, but different versions may have been used at different times. There's references to some versions using mats and other props, for example, which wouldn't make much sense with the current form. There are apparently criticisms amongst purists that the current dance mixes in other Maori dances and therefore isn't really Haka. Early New Zealand teams seem to have included a lot of Maori, so I think we can assume those were "correct".

Since the article is about the All Blacks and not about the Haka, it wouldn't make sense to put a vast amount of detail in. Anything I've noted above that is personal opinion OR could be considered provocative is inappropriate for the article and is noted here PURELY for the purpose of illustrating the areas of uncertainty. I would like to suggest that the little that is certain be added, though. JD

The place it should be added is Haka of the All Blacks. Kahuroa 03:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I had added "From 1987" to the start of this sentence in the article, but it was removed: Until 2005, the haka performed by the All Blacks had usually been "Ka Mate". I know that the Ka Mate haka was used prior to 1987, but the sentence says "usually been." Prior to 1987 and Wayne "Buck" Shelford, the All Blacks performed many different haka (see Haka of the All Blacks). In 1987, the Ka Mate became the AB "standard" and thus the one "usually" performed before a game. I'd like to put it back in. --Sarfa 22:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Zealand_national_rugby_union_team/Archive_1&oldid=343015284"