Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Today's obsessed, ideological vandal is...

...User:Portillo, who has in the past couple of days, changed the articles for hundreds of Australian clubs and players to say that they play football, rather than soccer. I have politely asked him to stop and discuss his intentions here. His only response was to immediately delete my posts from his Talk page, with no discussion at all.

Rather than take this straight to AN/I, a place I find delivers anything but justice a lot of the time, I was hoping for some support from others who post here. Maybe a soccer fan or two could tell Portillo that, even if you agree with his goal, his approach is quite inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I don't remember you opposing this inappropriate approach from Portillo. And when I approached you on your talk page on various topics you delete my posts from your talk page here and here. Double standards? Maybe some bias from you HiLo?--2nyte (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I at least humoured you with discussion before deleting the discussions containing your posts. A smart editor would surely have noticed the difference. It's perfectly normal for me to clean up my Talk page by removing old discussions from time to time. As for Portillo's decision to previously change in the opposite direction, I can't explain such inconsistent behaviour. Can you? Anyway, the issue now is the hundred's of articles now changed against consensus by Portillo. Your thoughts on that? (Rather than attacking me.) You may ideologically agree with him, but you know it's not an acceptable way to do things on Wikipedia. So what will you do about it? HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, my thought, rather, my opinion is for you to ignore Portillo and Macktheknifeau for the time being, as I have ignored your 'pro-soccer' edits on various articles (especially Western Sydney Wanderers FC). I think all we should be doling is seeking a resolution for the football/soccer argument, and a real resolution (you know what I mean by that HiLo); if the 'pro-soccer' is to succeed in this argument then all that will result is many editors receiving blocks for 'vandalism' and 'bad faith edits'; this is not true resolution and you HiLo must be the first to accept it.--2nyte (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There is resolution! At this point in time, consensus on Wikipedia simply IS pro-soccer for Australia. There have been multiple formal discussions here seeking to change the name to football for Australian articles. All have failed. That's the status quo. That means that nobody should be changing any article from saying soccer to saying football. Consensus and multiple RfCs have decreed otherwise. That some soccer fans think it's OK to persistently ignore and confront consensus simply tells me that they're not terribly rational, ethical or polite people when it comes to discussing their favourite sport here. And yes, that includes you. HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, yes I agree (as I mentioned above) that no one should be changing soccer to football, but also no one should be changing football to soccer either. A decision was made, and now that decision is being argued against; as it has been since August 2013. Resolve the current football/soccer argument before making such edits. And please HiLo, try to compromise; soccer is no compromise, soccer is no true resolution.--2nyte (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

So, formal consensus at Wikipedia is not resolution, eh? It seems you have a very big problem. Maybe this is the wrong place for you. HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the wikipedia community is asking for change. Since August 2013 I have argued for change. The problem is some just choose ignore it. Some choose not to compromise.--2nyte (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. There's a handful of soccer fans, mostly from Sydney and one from Brisbane to my knowledge, obsessively pushing an impractical POV against consensus. Those editors tend to accuse those who disagree of being part of an evil AFL cartel, or similar, and claim in depth knowledge of cultural and linguistic behaviours in places they've never been. They ignore good evidence presented to them, and the fact that this article has to be meaningful for all Australians, many of whom only ever use "soccer" to describe the game. They allege that "soccer" is an unacceptable word, but can't explain how soccer fans and players in half the country use the term to describe themselves and the game they love and play. That's not the same as "the wikipedia community is asking for change". HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well then, there is a handful of fans asking for change and rightfully so. A change that is unbiased, factual, current and notable for the sport in Australia. The sport has undergone change and some choose ignore it. I do not.

You say the sport is/has been commonly known as "soccer", so I comprised and said we should add that in the opening of this article [1].

You say the change from "soccer to "football" is ambiguous, so I compromised [2].

You say "soccer fans and players in half the country use the term to describe themselves and the game" - please provide sources to prove that because Football Federation Victoria, Football Federation Tasmania, Football Federation South Australia and Football West counter your argument.--2nyte (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. It's all been said. Many times. No new arguments. So no change. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And User:Portillo is still at it. Against multiple requests. How do we stop him? HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the day, not a single source has been provided that says football is the common name for the sport in Australia. Australian football barrack ears need to put up and score a goal by shooting into HiLo48's net the penalty shot for the win which is a source doing that. Come on! Score! Score! Score! Score a goal on HiLo48. Prove him an idiot, a know nothing Victorian rules barracker who thinks you need four posts for true footy. Source = Goal! Demo monstrance your for for the pedia and it's policies by scoring on him!--LauraHale (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks Laura. Made my day. Anyway, this has now been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824#User:Portillo and football (soccer). HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignore good evidence? LOL, if I wasn't on holidays right now I'd actually state this a bit more obviously... The simple fact of the matter is that your claim, HiLo48 that you can state whatever you like as "facts" goes counter to the core of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Furthermore your anecdotes ≠ evidence! I have already been over this with you. You are being highly incompetent and are clearly pushing a POV argument. As per above, I have also stated that half the football viewing audience calling the sport soccer because of the Barassi line is nonsense when less than half of Australia's football code viewing audience lives in states that are on the west/south side of that line and the split based on actual viewing audience figures is roughly closer to 58% (Rugby codes) 42% (AFL). You cannot use this as your argument, seriously, because if anything 1) it demarcates that the rugby side of the line actually has a larger total audience and 2) the whole concept of this nonsense has little to do with the sport of "soccer," which if we look at the evidence it has been considered a marginalised sport played by foreigners from pretty much day dot. The concept that this has anything to do with Ron Barassi, Ian Turner, or some line in the sand really is nothing more than a POV argument that is factually incongruent with reality. As for the whole silly naming dispute this was resolved by the FFA in 2005 that the sport be referred to as football, if we are going to run an encyclopaedia here then certain users need to get with the times rather than being POV pushers --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing new there. Just the usual personal attacks ("highly incompetent", etc) and an apparent failure to understand realities of the complex Australian sports demographic. And you completely failed to address the topic of this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No I addressed it and your argument and what I stated was relevant to the point. I have have already raised with you and others on the matter of don't drink the consensus kool-aid and maintain my position regardless. I'm not getting into the details of Vandalism purely because I have a view on the matter that is consistent against vandalism. Consensus is consensus in so far as actually making disruptive edits even if you don't agree. Portillo should desist from vandalising this page while referring as per above. There are better ways to address the matter than vandalising the article itself. Regarding competence, see WP:COMPETENCE. Your views lack competence on the grounds of a biased concept that has relatively minimal relevance to the sport of soccer in Australia while also ignoring evidence surrounding the ongoing shift towards football at all levels of club and governmental administration in this country. You also continue to ignore the official name for the sport in Australia. If we are to be considered to be editors of an encyclopaedia your views are incongruent with the ongoing changes to the sport in this country --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with the point of the thread. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome. However I do have a hint for next time you go down this path. IF you're going to address someone in a discussion I suggest you address them by name rather than locality. Addressing people by their locality does not do help your cause and merely promotes your systematic bias that is abundantly clear every time you peddle that POV argument regarding the Barassi line. --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Off topic again. Try somewhere else. On second thoughts, no please don't. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not off topic when you mentioned myself above in reference to a SPECIFIC editor from a SPECIFIC location. This only further highlights your lack of competence when you cannot commit to supporting an argument that you created by mentioning SPECIFIC people in this discussion. Overall your meat puppetry in this talk page is far from amusing and overall it shows a specific lack of competence to engage in a discussion that meets a NPOV. --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This thread is about Portillo's unacceptable behaviour. I have raised no other topics. HiLo48 (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

While you thought you might have been smart, you have specifically implicated by reference to their location, a number of editors that are otherwise irrelevant to this discussion if it was supposed to be about Portillo. I suggest you rethink what you say next time so as not to implicate uninvolved editors in your personal crusade.

For those interested refer as above ...There's a handful of soccer fans, mostly from Sydney and one from Brisbane to my knowledge, obsessively pushing an impractical POV against consensus --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That was a constructive response to an off-topic remark made by somebody else. This issue is now being dealt with at AN/I. I'll stop here now. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"Soccer" is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia

We seem to have three options on the table - football, association football and soccer.

Despite some strange denials, football is going to be ambiguous to most Australians, no matter how it's linked to something else. In fact, one could argue that for those on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line it's not ambiguous at all. It means only Aussie Rules.

Association football is that mysterious term which definitely means the round ball game, but nobody actually uses it to describe the game in Australia, and most wouldn't know what it meant without looking it up. I'm a mature aged sports nut, with an interest in soccer going back over half a century, and I had to look up association football when I first saw it used in Wikipedia. Obviously not universally understood. Not a good option.

OK, time for some evidence...

I have been doing some research at school websites. School is where kids learn their "common" language. Check out this. It's typical of the language used in schools. The school plays football and soccer. Obviously football means Aussie Rules. Also out of many suitable examples (I found none unsuitable), I point editors at a couple of websites for more soccer oriented schools, here and here. Now, the former is a Greek school, so it has a strong commitment to soccer. The latter is in a high immigrant part of Melbourne, an area where soccer is very popular. What's worth noting is the name of the round ball game. Soccer every time.

Australia's biggest selling daily newspaper, Melbourne's Herald Sun, still uses "soccer" in its print edition. I could normally point you at the table of contents of the web copy of their print edition, but they must be in holiday mode at present. All sport is under the simple heading of "SPORT". Maybe wait until next week when games are underway again after the break. I think we all know that Melbourne's other daily, The Age, uses soccer. See the index bar here.

I also Googled "soccer club" in all the states on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line. I found many, many examples of clubs with that as part of their name, in every state, even as far north as Wagga Wagga in NSW. I won't list them here, but I've saved dozens of URLs if people really want to see them.

Soccer is obviously a name many Australians, including many fans and players of the game, are very comfortable with, making it their choice for the name of their club and the name they use for the sport in daily discourse.

Some here want to reject soccer for a range of reasons. Some say it's offensive. Well, it's obviously not offensive to all the above mentioned fans and players. To say their language is offensive is just silly, and possibly offensive in itself. Others point out that the national body changed the formal name to football a few years ago. Yes, it did, but obviously not everyone has followed their lead, including many fans and players.

So, back to evidence. Can anyone provide a current reliable source that tells us that soccer is an unsuitable name? If not, it's by far the best of the three options in my first paragraph above.

So where's that mysterious source telling us that soccer is unsuitable today? HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well then I guess you're abstaining from the vote above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orestes1984 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR, this includes any analysis or synthesis of published material . The perfectly acceptable section above did not ask for comments, it simply asked you to state a position here support or object. There are editors here that are trying to seek a consensus towards moving forward about what to do next who are trying to handle this in a civil and polite manner rather than Civil POV pushing which includes pushing marginalised viewes or pushing views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or giving undue weight to fringe theories without providing reliable sources to substantiate the fringe theory that the Barassi line deliniates the soccer/football boundary when the article itself contains no such evidence and there is very little evidence out there to substantiate that it actually does.

There is a global consensus on association football to disambiguate the term "football" and besides, some editors that are also part of project AFL such as User:Jenks24 here in Australia there has been little issue with the change on other former "soccer" countries page articles such as association football in New Zealand. I'm not sure what the problem is here, I can assume under any changes made the term soccer will not be leaving this article, and that a redirect would be in place for those who searched for soccer in Australia. This really only affects the updated and current official name of the sport, there is not much left here to object to for any other reason purely than a POV argument. All I see from all of this is a bunch of meat puppetry going on, on behalf of Project AFL.

Please refrain from passive aggressive argumentation which is getting us exactly nowhere and as per WP:MEAT Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate.--Orestes1984 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The ONLY reason the unknown name "association football" is being proposed is because some editors here won't accept the quite popular and ONLY non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia, "soccer". That unwillingness to accept the name "soccer" seems to be a pure POV position, not supported by any current, reliable source. Where is the source telling us that "soccer" is an unsuitable choice today? HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have already sourced the official name which you conveniently continue to ignore for your own reasons much like the drive by commentary from your fellow AFL editors in New Zealand of all the places, seriously? Project AFL it would appear would like to wage a global editorial campaign to have the word football struck from all "soccer" related articles on Wikipedia. Including in countries where there football code is irrelevant at best and at the most a fringe sport played by expatriates.

There is also a consensus that affects Wikipedia globally where if there is more than one sport known as football, football adopts the term association football. It is really not that hard to understand. The official name is football, the majority of the media that represents the sport call it football, 58% of the viewing public is on the opposite side of your fringe theory line which makes AFL the minority in that regard. The only thing that stops us adopting the word football is a minority of POV pushers who just can't accept that even New Zealand of all the places can use the word football because of Project AFL. Project AFL wants to be coddled and have exclusive rights to the word football. Sorry HiLo48 it doesn't work like that --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the attacks. You obviously don't have a source teeling us that "soccer" is an unacceptable name. So, can you point us at the policy that says "...if there is more than one sport known as football, football adopts the term association football"? (LOL, can you see how stupidly that sentence reads, absolutely proving the ambiguity of the name "football"?)

see the page on association football, I don't have time to explain things. There are no personal attacks here excepting your own, once again, I am pointing out the issue here that Project AFL has been running an ongoing campaign against the use of football, on an international level, as I have shown this is occurring in countries where Australian Rules have little to no significance, or established relevance to claiming the name football, where if anything the only football codes in New Zealand of particular interest are the rugby codes. This is beyond ridiculous as is the maintenance of fringe theory articles purely for the purpose of claiming a one up in this debate. I already went to the lengths of cleaning up the majority of extraordinary claims that were in that article previously. Unless you can substantiate why soccer should remain the name here rather than a platitude of association football you should desist from this line of argument --Orestes1984 (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss the points I am making, rather than an alleged malicious campaign against soccer. If I go anywhere in Australia and say "soccer", everyone will immediately know precisely what I mean. If I go anywhere in Australia and say "football", people will either assume I mean Aussie Rules in one half of the country, or ask "Which football?" in the other half. If I go anywhere in Australia and say "association football", almost everyone will say "What?" "Soccer" is the ideal solution, unless you can provide a really good current source proving that it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I've already provided a peer reviewed journal article that states the current official name for the sport as adopted in the period between 2004-2005 is football which you continue to conveniently ignore. You are being tendentious, it is not up to me to find an article that the sport should be called soccer, that is up to you. As I have said if you want to prove me wrong, do it through linguistics and prove your fringe theory about the Barassi line correct. Find me some articles that go against the well established position that football is where it is positioned in Australian culture because it has been seen as a foreign sport, nationally. If you would like to claim it is because of a magical fairy line in the sand then do it and put the editing effort into this article and desist from this nonsense on this talk page. No one will object, if you can substantiate. You should know this given that you are degree qualified. I'm assuming you are not just a VET teacher --Orestes1984 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Are you deliberately misrepresenting me, or...? In my very first post in this thread I acknowledged the formal name change by the FFA (9th paragrah, if you want to check), so please stop accusing me of ignoring it. And I am not asking you to provide a source that says we CAN name the game "soccer", I'm saying that it's the obvious common name and YOU need to provide a source that says we CAN'T. The desire of some to not use the name "soccer" is the only reason the generally unknown name "association football" has been suggested. "Soccer" is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. Unless you can provide that current, reliable source showing why we cannot use "soccer", it's the obvious choice. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I obviously don't think much of your claims. I have substantiated why we cannot, it's blindingly obvious that soccer is a non-word in terms of describing the sport as it is currently being played. The term does not exist in any officiating body for the sport at any level. The referred terminology for the sport is football NOT soccer. It really doesn't need to go any deeper than that. You must establish the case after all levels of officiation have called the game football, why it CAN be called soccer. The weight of balance of historical correctness is on your shoulders to establish why it SHOULD be called soccer in this day and age when the term has been discarded from the code itself by its governing bodies in this country. It's not good enough to just say, "well that's what my mate calls it so fair play" --Orestes1984 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

But it IS called "soccer", by an awful lot of people. That was the point of my first post and the research behind it. To all those people it's obviously not a "non-word". It's THE word used to describe the game. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So establish the case that all those people living on your side of the fairy line are calling it soccer, do it in the article and stop arguing --Orestes1984 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing to establish in the article. The name is in the title. Because some here disagreed, persistently and repeatedly, I presented this detailed case here on the Talk page. I know it won't please you, but it hasn't been refuted. Only a current reliable source telling us why we cannot use "soccer" could do that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've already told you why we cannot use soccer, purely from a historical perspective it is the incorrect terminology for the sport according to the official name, IF we are running an encyclopaedia we must represent the historical facts of the matter correctly. It's not about what you call it or your mate calls it, the governing bodies who run the sport call it football. There are other football codes out there, so the only solution that is viable is to call it association football in line with every other association football page on Wikipedia in these circumstances AND the Australian national team. That's right you had better tell Project AFL to get over there to fix that up as well --Orestes1984 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Do have a look at the last RfC. It was agreed, in the interests of good will, to not change the name of the national team article. And I don't believe there's a Wikipedia policy that says "official" name (whatever that means) trumps common name. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe it states "Official English names are candidates for what to call the article, because somebody presumably uses them. They should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used". You're the one that wants to keep the "common name" so quit wasting my time here and prove that it is the common name. It seems you like to talk a lot, but rarely edit anything with supporting evidence to prove your point.

Furthermore, for someone who complains about ambiguity in the once sense you sure are creating a lot of ambiguity by splitting the sport in two. On the one hand, you've got the Australian national association football team, on the other hand you've got soccer in Australia. You might even say you're contradicting your very own argument by supporting this page staying where it is, creating a lot of fuss over nothing and being a hypocrite, purely for the purpose of splitting the sport in half on Wikipedia --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing new there. Even the abuse is becoming repetitive. I suggest you drop it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me make this as simple for Orestes as possible. As I have already explained several times on this matter before, Wikipedia's article name policy is that article names use the subject's COMMON NAME when that is different from the official name. As the sport's common name in Australia is still "soccer" ~ and the word "football" has long been used by other sports in Australia ~ all of Orestes' arguments about the sport's official name are, therefore, completely invalid and irrelevant. Afterwriting (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of talk that this is the case yet no one is willing to substantiate, for someone who likes to engage in copy editing pedantry it shouldn't be too hard to actually substantiate the case, or really is it? I see a lot of people linking to essays rather than the official policy on the matter which the facts are you must substantiate if this is your claim --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There are various official Wikipedia pages which include information on this issue.

THIS ONE on "article titles" ~ and THIS ONE on "official names" ~ may be the most definitive on the subject.

The introduction to the second page says:

"New editors often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, this name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.

Wikipedia:Article titles is the relevant official policy and reads in part:

Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.

In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be.

I suggest that you read these official Wikipedia pages and familiarise yourself with their information. Afterwriting (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

All of the above is irrelevant, I suggest if you want to do anything you substantiate the case as to why soccer is the common name, once again more talk, more rhetoric, little evidence from a reliable source that states that soccer is the currently accepted common name for the sport in Australia --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Are your comments a pathetic joke?! These official policies are entirely relevant. You have just proven your complete inability to understand and follow Wikipedia's clear policies on the matter. Your own opinions on this matter are entirely without merit. If you seriously think that "football" is the common name for the sport in Australia ~ and unambiguous ~ then you are seriously ignorant and out of touch with reality. Afterwriting (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hence the effort I put into collecting the evidence for this thread, all up there in the first post. Even a Melbourne Greek school, that doesn't have Aussie Rules in its sports program at all, uses the name "soccer". Orestes, you really have to accept some realities here that don't fit what you want the world to be. I HAVE provided evidence. Please accept it. You're welcome, of course, to check other school websites in the Aussie Rules part of Australia yourself. Please share any that call the round ball game "football". (You won't find any calling it "association football"!) I'm always happy to learn new things. HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a dispute, it's a simple matter of agenda here which is not my own. If it really is so easy to claim then find a citation --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence has been provided. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Soccer" is the "gentleman's name for the sport"

And "football" is the commoners' name for it,

See here. (Right near the end.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

How is this information relevant to the article?--2nyte (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, just doing some research and wandering through some documents. Thoughts I'd share some fun and/or interesting ones. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.--2nyte (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

And here is a Commonwealth Government article effectively describing the Barassi Line. (Though they missed the Riverina.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

And, rather tellingly, this "barrassi line" is not mentioned anywhere.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, how is this information relevant to the article? The linked article debunks your Barassi Line theory, stating "Football (soccer) is recognised by many to be the first sport in Australia to establish a truly national competition", meaning not restricted by region, unlike AFL and NRL. Also the first article was posted on Feb 1, 2001 and the second on Jan 10, 2004. Since that time the Australian sporting landscape has dramatically changed.--2nyte (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the soccer landscape has changed. The other sports haven't changed much. The Barassi Line is still there. I have no idea what you mean when you say the article debunks my Barassi Line theory. Do you pay much attention to any sports other than soccer? HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The Barassi Line has nothing to do with soccer in Australia. It has zero to do with soccer. The Barassi Line is purely about where rugby league is played versus where Australian rules is played. The only possible universe where Barassi Line is debunked by soccer is if some one is arguing "Australian rules is the exact same sport as soccer." Barassi Line is not a linguistic concept of where the term football is used. It is about the relative REGIONAL popularity of these TWO codes as they compete with each other. @2nyte:, which sport are you arguing soccer is as it related to the Barassi Line? Rugby league or Australian rules? --LauraHale (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting link[3] from HiLo48 as it states Soccer is now formally known as 'football' in Australia, in line with international usage. its uses Football(soccer) for clarity Gnangarra 12:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There's not really any question about what the formal name is. :) The debate is only about what the common name is. I am a bit lost about what is being referred to as the "Barassi line argument", though. - Bilby (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The argument is the same as Mumbai and Uluru more sources for old names but the new name is what is being used and has been the dominant name to describe the sport for a reasonable period of time. Gnangarra 13:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be the same if there was already a big rock called Uluru when the name was changed, that was just as popular. :) What makes this difficult is the ambiguity "football" causes, such that it may not be the dominate name in all states. So we either a) go for a formal name that creates ambiguity and isn't always the common name; b) go for a common name that isn't the formal name, and which the formal body is trying to move away from; or c) go for an international name which is barely used in Australia. At any rate, the issues haven't changed. Maybe "Association football in Australia" will win enough support to let us move on. - Bilby (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of editors that are trying to mainain a fringe theory here that the Barassi line, a concept which according to them divides Rugby and Australian Rules football, is also applicable to "soccer." I have tried to also remove this from the names for Association Football article on the grounds of relevance, but am currently tied up in a BRD over that. Frankly, BRD is not something that has to be officially be followed, but unlike some others here I am actually willing to and have a proven track record of compromise in my actual article editing.

There is very little evidence out there that the Barassi line has anything to do with soccer, other than indirectly. In fact from the research I've done on the matter "soccer" has been seen as a football code that has been played by foreigners and migrants pretty much as long as there has been recorded history on the matter, those who wish to continue along that path should really read Wikipedia:Fringe theories and come up with a solid evidence based position to support this linguistic divide in Australia or desist from that line of reasoning. They should particularly look at this bit A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. IF the Barassi line has any relevance to the name of association football or "soccer" in Australia it must be substantiated as any other claims aside from that are fringe theory. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost by that, as clearly soccer is played nationally. My best guess to what you are referring, if I understand things correctly, is that the argument at issue is HiLo's one that says states where Australian rules is traditionally played used "football" to refer to Australian rules football. Thus in those states there has been a resistance to moving to calling soccer "football", as the term already had a different meaning. Is that what the "Barassi line" argument is about? If so, it doesn't appear to be a fringe theory. The use of "Barassi line" to distinguish the Australian rules football states may not be used often in the relevant sources, but the situation seems reasonable. Or are we referring to a different argument? - Bilby (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much the crux of this ongoing debate, Hilo seems to suggest that in states where AFL is dominant, football has been and continues to be used pretty much exclusively to refer to Australian Rules football because of the Barassi line at least in the direct sense. The line I take which is reasonably well supported is that "soccer" is in its current position as its been traditionally a sport considered to be played by those on the outside of Australia's football culture divides which has very little if anything to do with it being a result of the Barassi line. If anything, the marginilsation of "soccer" has had an indirect effect on both sides of the line where "soccer" has been pushed to the margins of society where it has been played by "sheilas, wogs and poofters" [sic]. It still is if we look at the recent media about "soccer" fans that has been getting fairly broad coverage. This has been the case, it would appear, since the 1800s according to what I've read and that's both in Sydney (Wanderers) and Melbourne (Victory) where it would appear to be continuing. Pretty telling that it has nothing to do with the Barassi line, but general acrimony towards the sport on both sides of the fence.

In terms purely of anecdote and nothing more, I have played "soccer" since way back 20 odd years ago, even then while we played "soccer" in Queensland the discussion was relevant that the game was "football" elsewhere and rightfully "football" (soccer). Also from an anecdotal context this has always been the case among most "migrants" of which I might also be considered (for the purposes of "soccer") even though I was born here full well knew that the international game was "football" even those of my extended family who originate from Melbourne like a large percentage of Australians of Greek descent.

While at orginisation and club level it may have been soccer, I have a fairly dim view that it has anything to do with the Barassi line, and from what I've read I'd loosely suggest that it was if anything more to do with the broader historical context and the establishment of other "football" codes before "soccer" really gained any traction with the wave of migration of predominately Southern European migrants after World War II. Football was already rugby in the northern most states of New South Wales and Queensland, and AFL elsewhere but this is not the Barassi line this is just an Australian context of wherever so it happened that a code simply became dominant historically while "soccer" was an outsiders sport. The Barassi line simply does not explain away the nation wide hostility towards the sport of "soccer" nor does it adequately explain the issues with the name "soccer" in Australia. "Soccer" is, or was depending on which way you look at it "soccer" purely because it never got the traction to become football in any part of Australia. It has very little directly to do with any artificial lines in the sand and if anything it has more to do with not being "Australian" enough.

I had used references that supported this assertion in my most recent edits of the history of the sport, but for the majority it would seem they've been removed. I'm not sure why other than the fact that they're behind a paywall, but as per the rules on sourcing, just because it is hard to access does not make it any less acceptable as a source --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We're actually getting somewhere here. Unfortunately, it's obvious that some here don't like the concept of the Barassi Line. Feel free to challenge the existence of the article if you wish, but right now it exists, and I find it a handy term to describe the division of Australia into parts where Rugby League AND Union are more popular, and where Aussie Rules is more popular. My point is that in the Aussie Rules part, "football' has meant only one thing for 150 years. In the other part, "football" already had multiple meanings. Adding an extra meaning for football was always going to be easier where people were used to multiple meanings, but not where it only meant one thing. That, combined with the fact that "football" is the common name for Aussie Rules in that part of Australia, means that "soccer" is the common name of the round ball game there. And "soccer" carries no negative connotations there. It IS the name of the game, for virtually everybody. (Including gentlemen - see the title of this thread.) And the game is thriving. There is nothing wrong with "soccer". Yes, the Barassi Line thing is an indirect connection. I've never tried to claim otherwise. I'm not trying to prove anything here, or convince anyone of anything. I'm just describing a very relevant reality in a part of Australia where most of those seeking change don't live. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, so in the Aussie Rules part of the country, "football" has only meant Australian rules football. How would you explain the use of "football" by hundreds of association football clubs, and the use of "football" by Football Federation Victoria, Football Federation Tasmania, Football Federation South Australia and Football West? Surely these recent changes represent a change in the sporting landscape / culture / or language. As you said, the game is thriving, and the sport has the highest participation and supporter rates in those states out of the football codes.--2nyte (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The clubs and association were told to change by the national body. Many did. Surely what's more notable is the number that haven't changed. That so many are willing to defy a national instruction is telling. (Have any not changed to "football" in Sydney?) And even with all those clubs that have changed their official name in the Aussie Rules domain, I can assure you that the fans and players still call it "soccer" in day to day conversation. Not sure about the highest participation claim. Certainly true at a junior level, but figures at a senior level are hard to come by. Not arguing about it though. It may well be true. Just advising caution in claiming it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Clubs and associations were not told to change their names to "Football", that was decided by the individual clubs and associations themselves. The only such incident in the sport was by Soccer Australia in the 90's, when clubs were required to change their names and badges to remove any ethnic ties the clubs had.--2nyte (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I noticed a pretty powerful campaign to get rid of the name "soccer". What was it? "Old soccer, new football" or something like that? And a lot of clubs in my neck of the woods have ignored it. So that was a serious question. How has the conversion rate been in Sydney? HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, the "old soccer, new football" slogan was a marketing campaign by FFA to gain public awareness of the "rebranding" of the sport. There was never a push by FFA for clubs or state federations to use "Football", they were never told to change their names, they just decided to do so on their own merits.--2nyte (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. How has the conversion rate been in Sydney? It's a genuine question. I know the situation in Melbourne, but not Sydney, and I'm curious. HiLo48 (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, if you are asking how many clubs have changed their name from Soccer Club to Football Club in Sydney then I don't know the answer, though I do know that all of the high-profile (top division) clubs have changed to "football", and I know many hundreds outside NSW, as well as many Victorian clubs have changed to "football"; again, these recent changes represent a change in the sporting landscape, culture, and language in Australia. On the other hand, maybe a good question would be how many association football clubs have changed their name in recent time from Football Club to Soccer Club? I would suspect none.--2nyte (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Almost certainly true. But what gets me is that there's a handful of you here so determined to not allow "soccer" to be used that you will accept a name nobody knows, "association football", while many clubs all over the country, along with their fans and players, are perfectly happy to use the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common name of "soccer". I truly don't understand your position. HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, it is an academic position. We are forming an encyclopedia, so how should we present this sport to not only Australian readers, but to readers who know nothing about the culture, the language and the sporting landscape in this country. What is the best way to present the sport to all these people without bias. I do agree that "soccer" is currently the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the sport. Though it is not the only current name for the sport, and unlike "football" or "association football" it's specific usage has been 'called off'. The title Association football in Australia is the best title simply because it doesn't have the restriction that "soccer and "football" have. It is a completely unbiased and very common name for the sport on wikipedia; and that's what we should be seeking.--2nyte (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"Soccer" is used by an awful lot of Australians. I don't think many people around the world will be confused by our usage of it. It works for America. Your term "called off" is unconvincing. Clearly, soccer fans themselves do not have a common view on the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the sport is moving away from the term "soccer", as are many media outlets in Australia (based in NSW or otherwise), and the article itself explains a move away from the term "soccer" in Australia. It would then seem confusing to many - biased to others - that we would continue to name this article Soccer in Australia when Association football in Australia is a perfectly acceptable, maybe even better fit title.--2nyte (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How can a name that nobody understands at first sight be "perfectly acceptable"? (And how on earth did Wikipedia decide to use it at all?) HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, do you think readers (that don't study biology) actually understand every word in the opening paragraph of Mycobacterium at first sight? Of course they wouldn't and we don't write article for people to understand every word at first sight. Soccer in Australia would be redirected and the term "association football" would be explained in the first line, as it is in the Association football article.--2nyte (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Mycobacterium is a complex scientific article, with few alternatives to the proper scientific language. Soccer in Australia isn't. You still don't really seem to have an answer to "Why not use soccer?", apart from "I don't like it". A lot of other people do, including fans, players and club officials. HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you still think the use of "soccer" is still acceptable on wikipedia. - The governing body change its name. The state federations independently changed their names. Hundreds of clubs independently changed their names. Media (not all regional, but all national) refer to the sport as "football". If you read this article, your conclusion would be that the sport is called "football". Many people still call the game "soccer" (and that is fine), but on wikipedia there are only two outcomes we can draw from: those are, 1) Football, 2) Not Soccer.--2nyte (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The claim that soccer has the highest participation rate is a bit misleading - Australian rules has a higher participation rate in SA, WA, NT, Victoria and Tasmania. (Also, if you look at attendance, rather than participation, the attendance rates are much lower than the other codes in all states). It isn't a core issue, but it helps explain why the term "football" can mean different things in different states, due to the different dominate codes. - Bilby (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"I find it [the barassi line] a handy term to describe the division of Australia into parts where Rugby League AND Union are more popular"

Maybe it is, but until we get some solid evidence supporting the case it affects all sports in Australia it's a minor theory at best and at worst it falls under Wikipedia:Fringe theories. As I've stated it doesn't go broadly enough or deeply enough to explain a lot of things, which would appear to be glossed over, it doesn't explain the national agenda both AFL and Rugby Leauge in particular (of the rugby codes) have against the "soccer" code. It doesn't explain the history of the establishment of the game, as I've said, "soccer" until fairly recently has failed to gain any real traction in terms of broad public interest, and so never was established as the dominant code anywhere in Australia. You could argue that, that this is still the case, it would appear the average A-League fan has little interest in the international game, and furthermore that there is only narrow interest in the success of the Australian national team much in the same way there is only narrow interest in the northern most states in the success of the Swans/Lions in the AFL.

Anyway, the "Barassi line" or any such concept does not in terms of historical evidence explain away enough the situation which has led the sport of soccer to where it is now and furthermore as with that other article I see no point in inserting things into articles that could at best be described under Wikipedia:Fringe theories to come up with answers as to why it is the case that a sport for the majority played by the population of 3 states should have exclusive rights to the term football in any way shape or form, including a hands off policy on association football.

I've found it hard to find any real evidence from sources that the Barassi line actually delineates the term football in any state in terms of a soccer/AFL/rugby divide, if anything historically football is not soccer because it failed to gain any sort of prominence on Australia's sporting landscape. If anything you could argue for this case, but trying to explain it on a linguistic concept that does not exist in the sport of "soccer" really is pushing a heavy object up hill. Anyway, the point remains, it's football now which cannot be explained away, the obvious and open compromise is the use of association football with a redirect from this page to association football in Australia. This divisiveness to a non-threatening concept really must stop, or this article really is not worth maintaining. The use of I statements should also be refrained from --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the sources you have used in the past, Rosenberg (2009) p248, mentions the Barassi line when highlighting the regional distinctions between football codes. It then discusses the "football wars" in terms of the use of the word "football". I am a bit confused as to why you refer to the Barassi line as a fringe theory - it isn't a theory, but just a term used to identify the traditional Australian football-playing regions from the regions that have traditionally supported other codes. - Bilby (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and Orestes is quite right in observing that the AFL and NRL will do anything in their power to limit the growth of soccer. That's how business works. And at that level, it's a business at least as much as it's a sport. And surely the only reason you want to use the effectively unknown name "association football" is because you won't use the much more common, universally understood, unambiguous name of "soccer". I keep trying to emphasise that there's nothing negative about it anywhere these days. A lot of players and fans use "soccer", as do many clubs. If you can show me that there is a problem with it, I may begin to see things from your perspective. So, show us the source that says that "soccer" is a bad name today. HiLo48 (talk)

Anecdotally soccer is and always has been an anachronism, a commonly understood anachronism but an anachronism none the less, there's also the many links to the word and what ended up happening when the NSL and soccer Australia collapsed which should be reason enough for any well minded "soccer" fan to support football and the FFA, in the end it was about taking the spirit of the game where it was envisaged by people like Johnny Warren and Frank Lowy, how well this has been achieved is an obvious matter of dispute. Anyway, a friendly conversation with someone who supports the world game proper will highlight this, as opposed to fans of "new football" (general) aka the A-Leauge. I'm not sure it needs much further explanation. If you have a long winded conversation with a "migrant" Australian you'll soon get a pretty good explanation as to why it just doesn't sit well. Anyway, I can't be bothered pushing this any further at this stage, so I'm going to sit on it for now. Sometimes it's best just to walk away.

As the general debate usually ends, its "Soccer" for the general public unwashed who don't understand the nuances and details of the game in Australia for the game played in Australia and football for those who support the game in Australia as well as watch the international code. You go off and sit in that corner over there -> I'll sit in that corner over here <- Really though it's simply just about growing up about things and that's where the anachronism stems from --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please come to a "soccer club" (there are plenty of them), or a school, where "football" means "Aussie Rules", and tell them they're using an anachronism for the name of the game. That's a really stupid claim. It's worse when you declare that such people are not "well minded" or "grown up". You're back on the path of insulting people. Be careful, or I will report you this time. I'm getting very sick of your approach. HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling something an anachronism isn't an insult unless you choose to take it that way, it just is what it is, soccer is a well recognised anachronism of the sport at an international level in just about every country that calls the game football or a language/dialect spelling of football, you're out on your own if you wish to disagree with me on that one. There was also no reference to Australian Rules in my comment above, I am talking about "soccer" and we should remain on topic rather than having a blow up about a subject matter I didn't even touch. If you also consider "growing up" an insult I suggest you merely stay away from the game because they're not my words. It's the general perception held by "soccer" analysts and people of historical notability to the sport such as Les Murray, Johnny Warren, Frank Lowy as well as the current administrative body, the FFA has stated that the sport needed to grow up and part of that was "new football." To be insulted by the comments above shows a lack of understanding of the position of "soccer" in Australia, and particularly the last 10 years of the game in this country. It also really puts you out there as an Australian Rules supporter, that's not an insult either, but a perspective. Please do not take a trip to England, you may be easily insulted by someone over there who calls you a stupid git for using the word soccer. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling anyone stupid, or not grown up, or not "well minded" for using the language the way it's been used for 150 years where they live IS an insult. You need to stop now. HiLo48 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As per above you are missing the concept and understanding of how the word football is used internationally, I would also seriously reconsider any AN/I reports as "nothing good ever comes from that place" and with the way you have been throwing mud at me you're just as likely to get a sanction. This has already been explained above. If you want to ignore the friendly advice from an administrator above you are more than welcome to go there though. But, I'll say one last thing... This place seem to mean a hell of a lot more to you than it does to me, so I'd watch it if I were you --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you've called me and others stupid, not grown up, and not "well minded" for the way we use the language, and you're accusing me of throwing mud at you. Please go on. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you have simply interpreted this in the wrong way. You are looking for a reason to be upset about the decision the orginisation that controls the sport in Australia made that it is "new football" and that its about time we all moved on. They also stated obviously it would take some longers than others. On the issue of being a stupid git, I did not call you a stupid git, I merely stated that if you went somewhere abroad you may be easily offended by someone who may call you a stupid git for using the word soccer. This is not an insult but a matter of cut and dry facts. --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't be offended. Just further convinced that (some?) soccer fans are not very polite people. And I'm not upset that the FFA decided to change the name to football. I just don't think they realised or properly thought through how such a change was going to work where the word "football" is so ingrained with another meaning. They obviously marketed their idea successfully to you, but you don't live in the problematic area of Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Some British folks are just plain offensive as a matter of course, some "migrant" Australians are just as much so, I digress, Australia has never felt what it is to have a real conflict in their country, or a real reason to not be polite to people in general. If you lived under the Nazi government in Greece, or the military dictatorship, or in a former yugoslavic state you would think most people in general were contemptible idiots 90% of the time.

There is also simply the fact of misinterpretation between having an offensive opinion on a matter vs. having a spirited opinion about something some Australians can have about as much emotional feeling as a bag of cement. That being the case, what can often be seen as offensive behaviour by some members of Australia's multicultural society, can often be seen as nothing more than a spirited debate and at some point this all ends, we both call each other wankers (loosely translated) and we simply move on in a more "normal" conversation. The social movement towards causes that are either just or against those which are unjust is practically non-existent in this country and sometimes when people don't speak up they get exactly what they deserve. For as long as we're all Australians living in a multicultural society we must realise not all of us live the dream of VB and XXXX ads while singing come on Aussie come on, and I come from the land down under at the same time while listening to John Williamson. I invite you to take a trip down to Carlton, or Lygon street, or St Kilda wherever there is a large ethnic population even further out and actually sample what the culture is like out there.--Orestes1984 (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

come on, stop being like that bag of cement --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

POV regarding gender

I added the pov tag because a quick read through indicates that the article does not encompass both women's and men's soccer as one would expect in an article with a general name such as this one is. The links that sound general take you to a men's team. Women's soccer is put in one section. That seems very outdated. I realize that the title has been under discussion over a period of time so I'm not unilaterally moving it but instead tagging it to show that the bias needs to be addressed. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on Talk:Australia national association football team about gender equality in article names. Anyway, about this article. When I cleaned-up the article a few months ago, I moved most of the women's information to Women's soccer in Australia, I didn't think there was any bias in doing so, though as a result the article became solely about the men's game. To make it more inclusive of the women's game I clearly stated 'Men's national teams' in that section and I added some representation of the women's game in the specific section with a Main link to Women's soccer in Australia. The women's game has grown separately to that of the men's, and it still does - maybe that should be included in the article. But again, I don't think there's any bias.--2nyte (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

An article with this general title needs to be inclusive of all aspects of soccer in Australia and not focus on men's soccer or the highest levels, and then have the other aspects of soccer appear as add-ons. Otherwise it seems as if the men's game is the "normal" game and the rest are alternatives. This is framing the content in a way that does not make a judgement about which kinds of participation in the sport are more important to be covered. Instead the content is driven by discussing the full range of ways that soccer is experienced. Being able to print one stand alone article that discusses the full range of soccer in Australia should be our goal. To accomplish this I think the article needs some tweaking. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The women's article already existed, I only wanted to expand it, and in doing so I removed the content specific to the women's game. I did add the women's section which has specific content to the women's game though otherwise I didn't think it a good idea to duplicate the information from Women's soccer in Australia to this article. This article still contains general information on the game (not specific to a gender).--2nyte (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there 2nyte, I'll be happy to work with you to create a general comprehensive standalone article about Soccer in Australia. IMO, soccer/football is one of the most important topics for Wikipedia to have a comprehensive general article because it is an important global topic and there is a high probability that the article it will be included in print books and an abridged offline Wikipedia as well as being read online. So whether the reader is looking at a general online article or one that is more focused, it is important to have a good overview of an important topic like soccer/football. Right now the way the article is organized it is primarily about the development of the men's game in Australia that led to the top national teams with much less mention of the other ways that soccer is commonly experienced in Australia. The good news is that Wikipedia is a work in progress and no one expects perfection today. But it would be really great if we can get this article up to feature article quality since it is an important topic. To do that now, it will need to be much more comprehensive. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but in terms of gender and Women's soccer in Australia. I would rather not duplicate the information on this article. What would be the better option, merging it with this article or continuing to develop the women's article similar to Women's football in England and Football in England?--2nyte (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I see this article as a comprehensive general article so it will give a general overview of all aspect of the sport of soccer in Australia. This would include a general high level discussion of each aspect of soccer, including women's soccer, woven throughout the article as appropriate. Some of this will overlap a bit with the women's soccer article, but not as detailed. This will largely depend on the need for the article to be written in a manner that gives the reader a broad understanding of the topic. Remember, the women's soccer article exists to be more detailed about women's soccer. Additionally, a section on Women's soccer in this article could be included to give a summary of the topic if weaving the information throughout the article leaves some gaps in coverage. Or we want to draw the readers attention to subtopics like Women's soccer, or youth soccer. The content of this article is intended to include a broad range of information in one article so that it can be be stand alone article about the broader topic. Does that make sense? Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the article to this version before the system purge of wome by @2nyte:. The version that was here could be renamed Men's soccer in Australia without a problem. --LauraHale (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

LauraHale, please don't make careless edits like that. I spent many hours rewriting the article, adding references and content. I am welcoming of further edits but please do not 'restore' the page as you did.--2nyte (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

FloNight is clearly correct. Readers coming to an article on "Soccer in Australia" are entitled to expect that it will include proper coverage of both men's and women's soccer. They are both within the article's scope, which is set by the title. If the article is to focus on men's soccer, then it should be titled "Men's soccer in Australia". Neljack (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading this page due to a little issue at WP:ANI, but am pausing to confirm that the comments by FloNight are entirely correct. It does not matter what a local consensus has decided because an article on Soccer in Australia simply must be generic. It does not have to be fixed immediately, but it does need to be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is a disgrace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Please discuss the article rather than the users. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What a sad and sorry advertisement for Wikipedia and coöperative editing. --Pete (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh, tell me about it! And I thought Americans referring to "football" as this instead of this drives non-Americans nuts! Lol, I guess it is just as heated for Aussies too, not just us Yankees. Dwscomet (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys, there are certain users here that have a previous track record that speak for themselves, I am not one of them, I have never had as many issues with cooperation as I have had until I ran into a certain couple of users who patrol this page. --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A group of meatpuppets who don't even like football have vowed to create false consensus in favour of keeping the official names of three sports on Wikipedia while stopping the fourth major sport (Football) from using its official name to appease those people who come mostly from one city of Australia who prefer a quaint sport truly popular only in that one city. Until they accept that all four sports should use their official names, there will continue to be issues. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"Only popular in Melbourne and nowhere else" Regardless of the side of the argument you are on I don't think we should be promoting falsehoods like that. Spinrad (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me. I said only "truly popular only in that one city". No-one could possibly deny that the AFL is only massively popular in one city, Melbourne, considering that city provides 50% of the clubs in the highest level competition worldwide, and until relatively recently (on a timescale since the creation of the league), provided 100% of them.Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct, AFL has a proven interest at the highest competitive level with teams in a national competition in three states. Historically there is little proven interest in the sport outside of the areas of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, or internationally. None the less anyone without their own biases would note the Australia wide attempts by some members of the rugby and AFL community to denigrate soccer at every given opportunity and no one should put it beyond them bringing their own biases here. If I refer to my own editing here names for association football it should be seen that I've done nothing more recently than attempted to clean up this mess. How this has gotten this far is well and truly beyond me. --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this talk page is a disgrace. And I have been one of the culprits. But you really cannot take Orestes' comments above at all seriously. These are just further examples of his repeated inability to recognise the major unconstructive contribution he has made to this mess. His comments about others and his feigned innocence are risible. All he ever seems to want to do is blame other editors, distort and misrepresent their comments and then proclaim how good his intentions are while accusing other editors of "persecuting" him when his own frequently erroneous and abusive comments are challenged. He has also been treated favourably by an administrator who shares his opinions and who should know better. A neutral administrator should have taken appropriate action about his behaviour weeks ago. Enough is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere above did I state I was "innocent" or being "victimised" the words feigned innocence are your own and beyond what is actually being stated here. Your own abusive language and personal attacks at times have been reprehensible, there are no innocent parties here, so I wouldn't even begin to claim you're better than anyone else here. I am merely taking up defense of a position where other users have sat on the sideline and put up with the nonsense from yourself Hack, and HiLo48, sometimes that kind of confrontation to the status quo can be a little challenging to deal with. My intentions are clear as above, that is all I am saying, you are reading what you want to see in this where there is nothing to be seen beyond what I have stated. If anything I have brought this kind of disrepute in discussion with yourself and the aforementioned parties simply to address your true character, which is what stands out every time my intelligence and integrity is challenged by yourself, Hack, HiLo and the rest of your tag team, the fact you believe that this should be resolved purely in your favor is entirely incomprehensible. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, Orestes, enough is enough. You have been repeatedly and excessively offensive and abusive to myself and other editors. You have also repeatedly accused other editors of "persecution" and played the victim card. That is an undeniable fact. You constantly see the chip in someone else's eye while failing to notice the beam stuck in your own. Responsibility for the conflict between you and other editors on this page and elsewhere is overwhelmingly due to your behaviour. The sooner you realise this the better it will be for everyone. Afterwriting (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hows about no, your own behaviour needs looking at and the consistent and ongoing use of four letter words by HiLo48 should have seen him blocked ages ago, your actions are a little better but not by much, if you want to throw personal attacks at myself I will not simply stand down. You are not an authority to yourself here either, so I wouldn't try that role. User interaction history is not in your favour here, so I would strongly consider you take a good hard look in the mirror before you continue hounding me about not falling into line. The facts are, wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and I do not have to agree with your position, nor do I have to fall in line with consensus here. If you do not like me, that's fine, stay behind your line in the sand. Nowhere in the rules does it say we have to be friends in order to edit here... Every time you have a disagreement with me you paint this horrible picture which is exaggerated beyond belief. I'll give you something Afterwriting, you'd make a good politician. Not only have you created a good smear campaign here, you've also dragged administrators into it. Well done... --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Usual self-pitying comments ~ "tag team", "smear campaign", "personal vendetta", "hounding", "persecution". Your list of provocative and false accusations against me and other editors who challenge your opinions continues to expand. Very sad. Afterwriting (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Except no it's not and I didn't say I was being persecuted, get your facts straight. There is nothing going on here other than your own dramitisation of the events because you would wish to label me with a non-existent persecution complex. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In South Australia I was born, in South Australia and Cape Horn. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the talk page is really that big of a problem. The fact that the name of the page has remained stable despite all the disagreements here is a positive sign of Wikipedia's collaborative editing. -- Chuq (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think its time we archive the last 6 discussions on this page and get on with the business of what to do next --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The disagreements are the problem here. The name of the page itself, not so much. It's not as if this was a highly-politicised or religious topic, where editors are inclined to kick heads. It sets a bad example for newer editors to see folk who should be setting the example acting so poorly. Hatting or archiving non-productive sections would be a start - like immediately cleaning up graffiti tags. Keep the personal warfare invisible and leave the talk page for useful editing discussion. You know, like 99.9% of Wikipedia talk pages which are boring in the extreme. --Pete (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed these insults serve no purpose other than to make us all look like children, something I shouldn't have been drawn into in the first place, but it's a bit hard not to with charges of "incompetence" and being called a "moron." That kind of language is clearly unnecessary, and charges of lack of wikipedia competence should not be something that should be used where the same claims can be returned to the user that first threw them out. Lets start by sorting this mess out and returning to the discussion on where to take things from here. It would be wise if someone would archive the last 6 discussions here. The real questions to be answered are 6 discussions up. --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Just quietly, but do you think you are helping keep things cool? Maybe dialling things back a notch might help. Your voice is important, of course, but maybe counting to a hundred before responding. I always find that a moment of stillness and quiet helps focus my thoughts. --Pete (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Orestes has taken the battle elsewhere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Please discuss the article rather than the editors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

To Names for association football.

I don't want an Edit war. Can other editors please try to help sort this out? HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is very good evidence that Orestes also edits soccer articles under at least one other user name as well as anonymously as an IP editor. See my talk page for some information about this. Afterwriting (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I had seen the IP editing, using exactly the same style as Orestes. Hadn't picked up "Danausi". Not sure about that one. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Some of "Danausi's" edits have the same idiosyncratic writing style as Orestes as well as the same kind of comments worded very similarly. Too similar, I believe, to be purely coincidental. Last time I checked, however, that account seems to have been abandoned. Afterwriting (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, what exactly is wrong with this edit? I see no problem.--2nyte (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Fairly significant changes without discussion. Something along those lines could have been OK, but to do it unilaterally, without discussion, in the current climate, was purely confrontational. You will note that when asked to discuss it, he simply abused. Not smart. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my editing, I have removed the reference to broad claims, irrelevant material and weasel words what HiLo48 is asking for is nothing short of support in a round of meat puppetry. If you would like to continue this I am more than welcome and willing to go to AN/I on grounds of harassment. You have refused to discuss and have used expletives in your edit summary. There are grounds enough there alone... --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What utter nonsense. Just about everything to do with your editing is a problem. You don't seem to have a clue ~ and you have already revealed yourself as a sockpuppet. Afterwriting (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL... This is my only account on Wikipedia, your claims are baseless, and you are being verbally abusive here as well AGAIN. This counts as nothing other than grounds for harassment. There are no grounds here for confrontation other than in the thoughts held be HiLo48. Furthermore, discussing matters surrounding a separate article on this page are nothing more than silly. Furthermore, I was never asked to discuss the matter on the specific article page. If you wanted to discuss then I would be more than willing to discuss on the appropriate page which is Talk:Names_for_association_football or at a stretch my user page, Hilo didn't bother to engage on either front before unilaterally reverting. --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Pull the other one ~ it has bells on it! There is very good evidence indicating sockpuppetry by you on soccer articles. And you have also repeatedly shown yourself to be incapable of intelligent discussion as your silly dismissal of Wikipedia's policies on article titles as "irrelevant" amply demonstrated. You are just another repeatedly contentious editor with a personal agenda who pushes the agenda against all evidence and logic. Your criticisms of HiLo are also remarkable examples of hypocrisy. Afterwriting (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I will reiterate that this is my only registered account on wikipedia, your accusation otherwise is nothing short of harassment, particularly when you fail to substantiate your claims. This thread in particular is nothing short of wikipedia:hounding where I am being asked to discuss changes being made on a separate page. This is not User talk:Orestes1984 or Talk:Names_for_association_football. The claims you've raised about Wikipedia:Official names are irrelevant as that's not what I am discussing. I was merely asking for a substantiation in the page that the common name is soccer and have been nothing short of harassed. I am dealing with a user here who has repeatedly been engaged in battles that display nothing short of incivility and your character defamation is nothing short of harassment. If you want to continue with this do it, at AN/I I've had enough of this. --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your repeated hypocrisy and ridiculous comments are quite remarkable. Who the hell do you think you are?! Do you think we have nothing better to do than to keep putting up with your continuous nonsensical "arguments" and contentious editing? I've certainly had enough of your crap! Afterwriting (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Raise the issue on AN/I if you have one otherwise desist from your harassment --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

More of your hypocritical crap! Afterwriting (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to clear these kinds of incidents up, if you have an agenda to put forward do it at AN/I --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The only "agenda" I have is to try and prevent people misusing Wikipedia for their own silly little agendas. You just don't get it! Afterwriting (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A friendly reminder that purposely tracking a user for reasons such as the above can be construed as wikipedia:hounding. I would desist before you get too far along your little agenda here as this thread is evidence alone of wikipedia:hounding and WP:MEAT . If you have an ongoing issue with me, be brave and raise the issue at AN/I. This is not the place to resolve it. I am not simply just going to follow your directives by your "who do you think you are" harassment. If you have substance in your claims then raise an issue at AN/I --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

When all else fails you resort to these silly games. You still don't get it! Afterwriting (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There are no silly games going on here you do not have rights under WP:OWN to that other article, neither yourself or Hilo raised an issue in the appropriate manner either on my talk page or on the talk page of the specific article. There was no agenda involved in my edits, this is nothing short of wikipedia:hounding. If you have a serious issue with me then raise it at AN/I or desist you are playing the ball in the wrong court and you have failed to even discuss with myself in the appropriate places before you made any of these wild accusations. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your comments, as usual, are both absurd and hypocritical BS. You will need to be a lot more clever if you want to fool me with your little games. You won't achieve anything except further wasting everyone's time. Afterwriting (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If it is a game then call me out raise the matter at the appropriate place, otherwise please desist from your abusive language. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yawn!!! Snore!!! (Can someone please wake me up when Orestes finally stops all of his boring hypocrisy.) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Afterwriting (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK then we're obviously good then and the previous changes on the other page I made can be reverted back to. There was no agenda involved other the preposterous ones raised in Hilo48s head, there was no need to discuss and if there was a need to discuss then it should have been done appropriately either on the article page itself or on my talk page. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD says you can Boldly make such changes without discussion if you really, in good faith, believe them to be justified, then someone else who disagrees with that view can Revert, then you MUST Discuss. Discuss doesn't mean "Accuse those you disagree with of being stupid and part of an evil conspiracy". HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well said! Afterwriting (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

BRD also says that you must discuss, a concept that you failed to address before getting all the way down this path and flaring up issues that could fall under WP:MEAT AND furthermore it also says BRD must not be used simply to revert edits that you disagree with. Anyway, I'm about sick of THIS issue and the ongoing harassment and user space harassment which is unjustified. NEXT TIME, use the correct talk page if you wish to discuss, THIS is not it and do not create threads that could be construed as WP:MEAT simply to support your pro AFL agenda --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.