Jump to content

Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Disengage

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)

Everybody needs to disengage with the personal attacks, this is getting beyond where any resolution can be obtained without WP:ARBCOM intervention which will result in editors being topic banned, or even enjoying holidays that is neither good for the article nor the subject matter. I have offered to frame an RFC after 26th but I can as easily frame an arbcom case as well. PLease discuss the subject but keep the opinions of others out of the discussions. Gnangarra 02:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That post contains unhelpful generalisation. You said "Everybody needs to disengage with the personal attacks". I don't believe I've been making personal attacks. I did a lot of research into the use of the name "soccer", carefully prepared a comprehensive and informative post about it, and was roundly abused by Orestes. I don't know how many warnings he can get without real sanction. I have a quiz question: When is a warning not a warning? When it's followed by further behaviour of the kind the editor was warned about, then followed by another warning, then followed by further behaviour of the kind the editor was warned about, then followed by another warning, then followed by further behaviour of the kind the editor was warned about, then followed by another warning, then followed by further behaviour of the kind the editor was warned about, then followed by another warning, then followed by further behaviour of the kind the editor was warned about, then followed by another warning, then..... Please note the repeated allegation in the post immediately above this thread about my "pro-AFL agenda". This allegation has been made dozens of times by Orestes, about several of us here. Is it not enough evidence on its own of behaviour deserving sanction? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. It is disgraceful that appropriate action by an administrator wasn't taken against Orestes much earlier. This could have spared us all a lot of grief. I have seen some ridiculous and immature behaviour on Wikipedia over the years but Orestes probably takes the cake. Virtually everything he has attacked other editors about is a much more accurate description of his own behaviour. And yet I get the administrator warnings for "personal attacks" instead of him ~ giving him "permission" to think he is in the right and encouraging him to be even more abusive. This is farcical. We should not have to tolerate such behaviour by an editor who clearly lacks the needed competence to contribute with intelligence or maturity. Afterwriting (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a very shallow and insulting approach from Gnangarra. This a geographically complicated issue. All but one of those arguing against soccer come from Sydney and Brisbane, all on the non-Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line. It's obvious they don't know how the language works on the other side. Each time I try to explain it, at least one of these editors abuses me, and the people living on the other side of the line. Any wise administrator who had a good look at at least some of the broader history would have made a fairer comment than that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
ok these must be erroneous [1] [2], Comment on content, not on the contributor please chose your language more carefully in the future because that is not what I've been reading and understanding with your comments. Gnangarra 13:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The first of those links is me highlighting the fact that a user was creating massive disruption on hundreds of soccer articles. He was not communicating at all with other editors, and still hasn't! He was probably led astray by the bullshit editors like Orestes1984 have been posting. It needed to be stopped quickly. I believe he is incompetent, but he's still here! (Did YOU do anything about him?) No apologies from me on that one. The second link is one from Afterwriting. I could try to say something, but I'll leave it to him. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
You should also "choose your language more carefully in the future". Your highly inadequate and inconsistent behaviour as an administrator has only helped to fuel matters. You should pay more attention to justified criticism of how you have mishandled things. Afterwriting (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
If I may pleas comment?
Simply the fact that "Orestes has taken the battle elsewhere" should be seen for what it is. Hilo was using this page to establish a case for meat puppetry and nothing else and in terms of administration he should consider himself very lucky not to be sanctioned for such a statement. I have been as abused, if not more so and had my "competence" challenged by both Afterwiting as well as Hilo and verbally threatened with "who do you think you are" type comments merely for stating my opinion and going against a consensus which I believe is false, I have also been followed by a number of users. One in particular, Bidgee, who was not even originally a part of this discussion, I have an ongoing assumption also that my edits are also monitored by Afterwriting purely for the purposes of harassment. This is ridiculous on both sides of the argument. I do believe Hilo in particular needs to step away from the keyboard as he already has a track record of incivility towards other users particularly on football (broadly) related pages. The fact Hilo is trying to paint me alone out as being uncivil does not help his cause --Orestes1984 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Your latest comments only serve to demonstrate your lack of personal insight into your own offensive and disruptive behaviour. You are principally responsible for this saga. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and begin to recognise how your negative comments about others apply to yourself. Enough is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Disengage and look at your own behaviour in a mirror, I'm sick of these kinds of incredulous statements purely being directed towards me. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:30, 8 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.


Regional Variation: there should be no blanket rule

HiLo argues that "football" cannot be used since in AFL states that only means AFL. He's spent a great deal of time using the (irrelevant, in my opinion) Barassi Line to explain why "football" cannot be used Australia-wide. Fine, that's an argument for another day. But in non-AFL states, "football" (and particularly "association football") are commonly accepted and largely unambiguous terms for the sport. As such, it makes little sense to prohibit Western Sydney Wanderers or Sydney FC being called "football clubs" in their respective articles. I think it is quite frankly ridiculous to say that Sydney FC shouldn't be called a "football club" just because someone in Geelong, or Perth, might find this confusing. These clubs are teams for *Sydney*- not all Australia, not Victoria. If you think it's confusing, then don't call A-League teams in AFL states "football clubs." Go ahead and call them "soccer clubs." But in Sydney, the potential for confusing AFL fans in other states is absolutely irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a repeatedly achieved consensus on this. You have produced no new evidence. Please stop Edit warring at Sydney FC. I will treat future such changes as vandalism, and look towards reporting you for your behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Now you're just refusing to answer the argument. Explain to me why the common meaning of "football" in Geelong or Melbourne is at all relevant to the name of association football in New South Wales. In Sydney- which is where Sydney FC and the Wanderers play -association football is commonly and regularly known as "football." *Your* name for the sport is irrelevant- what should matter is the name of the sport in the region that the club is playing in. So- once again, explain to me why the name for association football in Geelong is relevant to an article about a football club in Sydney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Apologies if you're confused by the fact that it has been archived from this page, but see Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3#Requested move again for the most recent formal move discussion. Please don't continue arguing it here without new evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
NO, the other discussion area is irrelevant. I'm not talking about the name for association football in Australia. I am talking about the name for Association football in *SYDNEY*. Answer my question- Why does the name for Association Football in Geelong have any bearing on a club from Sydney, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Three minutes is not long enough for you to have read that thread. No point discussing this further until you do. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Far out- I read it before I started this! Answer my question or you obviously have no justifiable response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
OK. I'll humour you briefly. Sydney FC plays in a national league. It would be silly to have different teams in that league listed as playing different sports. I don't believe there's a precedent anywhere in Wikipedia. "Soccer" is the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game across all of Australia. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
"Listed as playing different sports?"
You're kidding right? Association football and soccer are the same sport, just different names. The Socceroos play in international competitions- and internationally "football" is the most common word for the sport -and yet I recall you spending a great deal of time attempting to change the Socceroos' wikipedia page to "Australian national soccer team." Clearly you don't actually think that all teams should use the same name for a sport if they're in the same competition. You only use that argument when it suits you.144.132.236.205 (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you intend to grace me with a reply, HiLo? I want recourse to reason but you simply seem focused on pushing your on agenda of calling the sport "soccer" regardless of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
When did I attempt to change the Socceroos' Wikipedia page to "Australian national soccer team"? I would not have done that. You clearly have not read all the preceding discussions. It was agreed that we would not change the national team and internationally oriented articles, and I have not attempted to. And to answer your core question, it would be just silly to have different names for the game being played by members of the same league. I know you are going to disagree with that. That's fine. This is a discussion page and differning views are welcomed. But please stop lacing your responses with attack style language. I am not pushing an agenda. This has nothing to do with anyone being an AFL fan. I've played more soccer than Aussie Rules. It's all about the name more than half of Australians use for Aussie Rules and for the round ball game. In Aussie Rules territory, even people who hate Aussie Rules call it "football". This has all been said before. Using these facts as attack points is foolish, and shows bad faith. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is where you tried to change it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia_national_association_football_team#Soccer.3F_Has_it_become_a_non-word.3F Moving on, I don't see the problem with having different names for the sport in the league, especially considering that is the reality of the situation- Sydneysiders call the game football, Melburnians call the game soccer. If we're happy to call the game "football" in England and "soccer" in America, then we should be equally happy to call it "football" in New South Wales and "soccer" in Victoria. We don't have to decide which one of them is "more correct" and then adopt a blanket rule- there is no reason why we can't refer to the sport as "soccer" in Melbourne-related articles and "association football" or "football" in Sydney-related articles.
I am a member of Sydney FC and I have been since the club was founded. I am also a member of the Sydney Swans, for even longer. I honestly think it's misguided and unfair for my A-League club to be told the name of the sport it plays by some Aussie Rules fans from south of the border. 144.132.236.205 (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, you got that allegation about me completely wrong. Here are my precise words:
"I have no intention of trying to change the name of this article away from "...association football...". That's fine with me."
I await your apology. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I apologise :D But you still haven't responded to the bulk of my post, so I'll paste it here:
"Moving on, I don't see the problem with having different names for the sport in the league, especially considering that is the reality of the situation- Sydneysiders call the game football, Melburnians call the game soccer. If we're happy to call the game "football" in England and "soccer" in America, then we should be equally happy to call it "football" in New South Wales and "soccer" in Victoria. We don't have to decide which one of them is "more correct" and then adopt a blanket rule- there is no reason why we can't refer to the sport as "soccer" in Melbourne-related articles and "association football" or "football" in Sydney-related articles. I am a member of Sydney FC and I have been since the club was founded. I am also a member of the Sydney Swans, for even longer. I honestly think it's misguided and unfair for my A-League club to be told the name of the sport it plays by some Aussie Rules fans from south of the border." 144.132.236.205 (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Simple response. I disagree with you. And it's silly to say you are "to be told the name of the sport it plays by some Aussie Rules fans from south of the border". Isn't that effectively what the Sydney based administrators of soccer did when they decreed that the name of the sport throughout Australia would be "football"? At least you have the wisdom, something those administrators didn't appear to display, to see that the name "football" really is already taken in Aussie Rules territory and unlikely to ever become the common name for the round ball game there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a silly comparison to make. Having random AFL fans tell me what to call my sport is entirely different from having the governing body of my sport tell me what to call my sport. Go to an A-League game- even in Melbourne -and the vast majority of football fans refer to it as "football." You still haven't explained why we can differentiate the name of the sport between England and America but not between New South Wales and Victoria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about "random AFL fans" telling you anything. Among other things, it's about me, and many others who know the situation, telling you that "football" means only one thing to most people in Aussie Rules territory. It means Aussie Rules. And it's the most common name for that game in that area. Even people who hate Aussie Rules call it "football". Soccer players call it "football". And all of those people call the round ball game "soccer". So please drop the "AFL fans" nonsense. That's alleging bias where none exists. On your other point, Wikipedia is unlikely to treat two states of one country like two entirely different countries. Of relevance there is the fact that a lot of non-soccer fans in NSW still call the game "soccer". And I'll try this one with you. Nobody else with your perspective is able to answer it. What's wrong with "soccer"? Don't tell me about the "official" change. That doesn't answer the question. I ask this knowing that all my soccer playing friends very happily call the game exactly that, "soccer". My suburb has a soccer club. It's a normal word around these parts. No negative associations. So, what's wrong with "soccer"? HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Media, governing bodies and clubs have dropped the usage of "soccer" in preference to "football". It's plane and simple. it's not personal opinion, it is fact, "soccer" has been dropped everywhere in Australia to an extent.--2nyte (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question, what's wrong with "soccer"? And without quantification or other specifics those claims are meaningless anyway. You even felt the need yourself to qualify your own claim with "to an extent". What's wrong with "soccer"? HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
For the record, people can call the sport what they like, but in an encyclopedia I think football is the more appropriate name. The problem I- and the majority of football fans -have with the name "soccer" is that it is anachronistic. In fact it is often pejorative. Maybe not in your case, but many non-football fans use that name as a pejorative, without doubt. Ultimately, people use the proper names of all the other sports but then refer to ours by a nickname. It's debasing. Many non-football fans take glee in refusing to use the sport's proper name. If you haven't read Johnny Warren's book 'Sheilas, Wogs and Poofters' I recommend that you do. The fact is, "soccer" as a name will always have negative connotations for most football fans. It is an (often hurtful) reminder of an inglorious and unfair past.
So essentially, call it what you like in conversation. But this whole thread shows just how much association football fans care about the name of their sport. It's strange that non-football fans such as yourself are equally obsessed by the name of a sport that you don't follow yourselves. Clearly, there is controversy about the name of the sport. Clearly, a lot of people care. The only obvious solution is a compromise whereby the title becomes "Association football in Australia" with an opening line including the words "commonly referred to as football or soccer" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
And that post displays the shallow bullshit that epitomises soccer=football campaigners. It completely ignores what I've said about language usage in half of Australia. It's a pointless post. Show me a good current source that says thee's anything wrong with soccer NOW. And I say again, ALL my soccer playing friends call it "soccer", so what are you saying about them? HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

And I'm retiring from this repetitive nonsense for the moment, unless something really demands attention. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

We came to a pretty quick consensus as soon as I mentioned the word filibustering on that other article page HiLo48? It's just a shame that there is so many needless RFCs going on here, because the same situation probably wont work on this page. As I said this really isn't that painful and I wouldn't want to raise an an AN/I on this and/or other pages, because that's the way I see it, but I may have to if pages are consistently reverted just because you disagree with the terminology, particularly on an "association football" page. I have proven repeatedly that I edit in good faith, it's about time others were treated with the same dignity and respect. I am willing to wear one on the chin and raise this at AN/I if it does mean resolving the issue of filibustering. If it means kicking the can a bit further down the road so we can deal with this in a sensible manner, so be it, so I wouldn't tempt me to do it. Its about time we leave pages alone that clearly reference football, association football, or whatever in the article itself, and likewise AFL folks stay on their side of the line (NB: not referencing Ron Barassi). If you can't edit in good faith then clearly you are not competent to be here on this page. As per examples, It is bad faith to consistently revert edits to flagrantly incorrect article versions as you did Names_for_association_football. You have consistently railroaded and blockaded other editors from making changes to this and other soccer related articles purely because of a POV agenda, it's about time somebody actually said something. --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
In my experience, most people in NSW and QLD that I have spoken to use "football" in reference to rugby league rather than association football. Spinrad (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter, there is a group of editors that won't be happy with anything but soccer who think the whole of Australia needs to be coddled. They think people will confuse a game played with four goal posts and oblong ball on an oval with a game played with two goal posts, a cross bar with non extending posts and a round ball on a rectangular field. This has already been to AN/I where the user HiLo48 thought they could get rid of me, but that's not the point. AN/I cannot be used to resolve this matter, despite the fact that user HiLo48 believes that every user who disagrees must be subordinate to the users views... Or in direct quote "give up the fight." As HiLo48 should know though AN/I is not the place to resolve naming disputes such as this one... Nothing can change here until we have a change of consensus, or arbitration on the matter and no single user has to change their world views because of a set of rfcs that have occurred here.
As I said above, it really is a shame that this has to go through so many pointless rfcs... No one here is happy, but there is nothing we can do about it, this is an issue that will be irreconcilably unresolved simply because certain people need to coddled, and cannot even accept a broadly accepted Wikipedia wide compromise of association football. It really is more than a little bit silly... It is actually completely offensive and borderline derogatory when users such as HiLo48 call this all "shallow minded bullshit." Furthermore, that kind of language will be the same type of language that will see HiLo48 back at AN/I with another case to answer for with regards to his consistent and ongoing personal attacks against every user that does not subordinate to his own short sighted and reactionary viewpoint purely because the user lives in Melbourne. As far as I can see that argument has nothing at all to do with the contents of what should be an encyclopaedia that is both current and relevant, and everything to do with what is simply a POV agenda. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Orestes, you just said "HiLo48 should know though AN/I is not the place to resolve naming disputes such as this one". I explicitly said in my opening post at that AN/I thread "This discussion must not turn into one on what the game should be called." It was intended to be entirely about your behaviour. My thoughts on your lack of manners, comprehension and competence are now further reinforced. I know you will probably fail to understand this post. It is primarily intended to show others how bad an editor you are. Those who want to present a serious case about changing the name of the game here should be doing all they can to get rid of you. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The way you phrased your discussion on AN/I made it anything but the case, this was not about me, but your shallow minded personal vendetta to get rid of anyone who doesn't believe in your version of the "facts" otherwise it would not have been about "giving up the fight" and before you say anything, those are your words not mine. I have bared witness to this on more than one occasion, what's worse is that you really are a cunning individual in the way you go about doing this. Now that is the truth. You continue to throw around issues of competence and yet you have shown consistently that you cannot edit within the lines of facts to save your life. Your consistent questioning of my intelligence is actually beyond being uncivil and is nothing more than a personal attack. You were reminded on AN/I to look at your own behaviour, do not turn this around and throw it back at me again... Your behaviour is completely and utterly atrocious and I have never ran into an editor that is more poorly mannered and impossible to work with than yourself, do yourself a favor and just walk away while you have some dignity, I'm over replying to your nonsense. --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Absolute rubbish. I go out of my way to choose explicit words saying it was not about the name of the game, and you insist that I really meant it to be about the name of the game. How much clearer can I be? You really are incompetent. How much longer can you be allowed to post here? HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I know it's easier said than done, but when dealing with incompetent editors there really isn't much point trying to have intelligent discussions with them. They simply, unsurprisingly, cannot understand or recognise just how incompetent they actually are and the negative effects they have on others. Attempting sensible discussion is nearly always more trouble than it's worth and a waste of time and energy. They usually have trouble expressing themselves with logic as well as emotional objectivity and common sense and prefer to keep provoking others and then blaming them for the resulting conflict. So it's generally best to try and ignore them until they find something else to focus their negative behaviour on. Afterwriting (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry HiLo48 I have no case to answer, as the administrators have stated, you have a history of throwing around this language and have been called out for it on more than one occasion with lengthy bans as a result. I will no longer put up with this, call me incompetent again and you will run the risk of going back up on AN/I for another round of incivility charges. Next time it will be me doing it so you cannot back away before a throwing stick hits you in the head... desist immediately or I will have no other option --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I dare you to take a case to AN/I claiming that when HiLo said "X" he really meant "Y". Laughable. Do try discussing the subject rather than me, honestly and rationally, accepting information from others that fills gaps in your own knowledge. HiLo48 (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

About time we talked about the name again

Looking at the !vote on consensus for a name change, there look to be more for Football or Association football than Soccer. Time for a formal discussion? --Pete (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is to update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and have it as standard on Australian wikipedia articles.--2nyte (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
What is the actual reason for a name-change? So far I haven't seen any solid reasons for a name-change, just ideology and opinions. Spinrad (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Change in usage. Mass media calls the game football or association football nowadays, the official bodies and clubs go the same way. The only people calling it soccer seem to be those not involved in the sport. --Pete (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I've only seen "football" used in a couple of newspapers and their websites (and only in the sport sections) it isn't a universal thing from what I can see. I've never heard anything other than "soccer" used in TV media either. Involvement in the sport may be too difficult to define to make it a relevant argument. Spinrad (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
No offence, Spinrad, but do you really think that anecdotal opinions of a couple of editors are a good basis for this? How about we assemble some reliable sources? Perhaps the sport sections of major newspapers would be an excellent place to start. --Pete (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that anecdotal opinions of a couple of editors is a good basis for this, which is why I asked about actual reasons in the first place. Spinrad (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. That's why I mentioned sports pages of major newspapers. Something everyone may easily check. The Australian, for example: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/football --Pete (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned a while back. NewsBank lists 23,766 articles in the Australian press during 2013 which used the term "soccer". While we can debate the extent to which the term may be becoming less common, it continues to be extensively employed. I don't think the use of football or soccer in mainstream media is going to help decide this, given that both terms are being used, and I doubt that there is data available to let us know which is being used the most. - Bilby (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to know how many uses of "soccer" were actually for "Socceroo". Though I agree with you last point, I don't think this should be decided with statistics. We know "soccer" and "football" are prevalently used to refer to the round ball game, though the usage of "soccer" is lessening and the usage of "football" is only increasing. That alone draws a pretty solid conclusion.--2nyte (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Just as a point of interest, searching for soccer and excluding socceroos gives 21,535 articles in 2013, when limited to Australian press. - Bilby (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Spinrad, on your first post: What is the actual reason for a name-change?. The fact is that many hundreds of clubs all over Australia have independently changed their names from Soccer Club to Football Club, all governing bodies have done so as well. As the sport has risen in popularity over the years, media (most notably national media) have adopted the usage of football in reference to the sport. That is not "ideology and opinions", that is fact. We would do well to follow, using the terms "association football" and "football".--2nyte (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Last I checked Wikipedia generally prefers common names to official names. So I don't see why any name-change should even be considered until it can be proven without a shadow of doubt that "football" or "association football" is the most commonly used name for the sport in Australia. Spinrad (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
That was the point of my last post; that the usage of "soccer" has lessened and the usage of "football" has increased in recent time. I would even boldly state that a majority of clubs have dropped the usage of "soccer" and same with national media. If this is true I see the need to use the terms "association football" and "football".--2nyte (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has come down to something very simple.
In Australia common name can not (or should not) apply to the term "football". Specific to this discussion, in Australia association football is commonly know as both football and soccer. As Bilby mentioned above, "I doubt that there is data available to let us know which is being used the most" - we should not expect this to come down to 40% "Football"/60% "Soccer" - such statistics simply do not exist.
Again, this discussion has come down to something very simple: On a national scale the usage of "soccer" has declined and the usage of "football" has increased in reference to association football - that is what is spearheading the argument, and if we are to continue referring association football as "soccer", then that statement must be proven false. If that statement is deemed true, then we should drop the usage of "soccer".--2nyte (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't see a single thing in the guidelines that recommends a change of article name on account of an apparent uptick in the use of a different name. Spinrad (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Now, now! It really comes down to how we editors interpret the sources available to us. There is definitely a surge of interest in the roundball game in recent years, presumably due to our participation in the FIFA World Cup and the changing demographics of the population. Whatever it is, there is a corresponding surge in support for Association Football as the "correct", "official" name for the sport. Just looking at the media, the names of the clubs, the various bodies, it's undeniable. Call it an "uptick" if you will, but I see that as denial, an attempt to sway opinion without reference to facts. In all honestly, can we see the change in media sites replacing "Soccer" with "Football" in their sports coverage as "just an uptick"? --Pete (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone using or advocating for using "Association Football" as the sports name. "Football" sure, but we can't really use "Football in Australia" for the article name. Also the media is not some silver-bullet for justifying a name-change because they are small, closed organisations of people that don't necessarily reflect the general public. You just can't use a handful of media outlets using "football" (usually only in said sport's section) as evidence that it has become the most common name for the sport in Australia. Spinrad (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Superbowl in America, hyperbole in Australia. Let's look at the evidence. I posted the link to "The Australian" above. The heading of "Football" under "Sports" leads to what used to be called soccer.
It's the same everywhere - any media outlet serving an Australia-wide audience, chances are very good that they use "Football" in preference to "Soccer": http://www.theguardian.com/au is a recent example. Now, maybe you see mass media in Australia as a closed shop, but consider that there is fierce competition between the outlets for the market share that drives their revenue, and that audience votes with its feet. Media here - as everywhere else but in dictatorships - are driven by their audiences. Niche markets will differ, of course, but national audiences overwhelmingly prefer football to soccer. --Pete (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The Guardian isn't a great example because it uses "soccer" on its Australian page which then links to an international page for the sport which remains static no matter which edition you view it on. Also as I said before the media is pretty much irrelevant to the argument.Spinrad (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. I see the mass media as woven directly into the popular culture. In a free market, the people reflect the media they consume, and the media takes its material from the population. You differ. Fine. --Pete (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree, the media takes its position based on what people are doing, clearly people are happy to understand that football means soccer. For the duration of the World Cup, as the premier dominant football tournament played out through Australia's sporting media millions of people will be hearing the term football. It's been this way for at least 8 years now... We can say for at least a fortnight every 4 years association football becomes the dominant football code in Australia. It has to a fairly significant extent rubbed of on the broader sporting landscape. It is now time we adopt the Wikipedia wide policy of using Association Football, and use football as the word for the sport in the article. A disambiguation can be placed at the start of the article. No one will be confused... --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI and goodbye

There is a discussion taking place at ANI, the very likely decision of which is that I will be topic-banned from all articles relating to association football. Apparently my presence here is seen by the community as disruptive. I have some grumbles about the process, but I'll take that up with a higher league, as it were.

The immediate result is that discussion here will have to take place without my helpful contributions. I would hold this page up as an exact model of what consensus is not, and it seems that my disruptive behaviour may be holding things back. May you all find consensus, happiness and tranquility. Thanks for the pleasure of your stimulating company over the last few months. I've learnt a lot about football culture. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To each his own opinion is entitled Pete, I don't see that your contributions above directly infringe upon your IBAN but I did see this happening from a mile away when you opened up the discussion above. Unfortunately, it seems like it's too close to everything else that is going on and the long drawn out arguments elsewhere that WILL NOT be discussed here as it's completely inappropriate to both parties. Unfortunately you have an IBAN because of this and this I must say I abhore process where someone can be silenced like that and that I've been down similar pathways myself, but this is how Wikipedia works, in fact it's how systems work, and you've done wrong in the past so it's now easy to get caught back up in that net
It reminds me of the pettiness of when I was in high school, and the way AN/I plays out which is much the same... You try to avoid it at all costs, but eventually you'll get hit in the head with a boomerang as you're already on notice as a "trouble maker." Whatever that means, once you're affixed with that label it's almost impossible to get rid of it. Sorry you couldn't stick around.... --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
For some reason I'm still able to post here. Not for much longer, I guess.
I thought we were getting somewhere in the threads I started, looking at sources, dealing with facts. Other threads just went round and round in circles and acrimony. On that point, may I suggest NOT engaging with editors who view things in personal terms? Nobody gets anywhere that way and it's just a big time-waster. Follow the logos, follow the thread of the discussion, be prepared to change your mind when shown to be wrong. I called the game Soccer for decades, but I can't deny that the newspapers and the TV networks have switched to Football. I don't need to quibble when the facts are presented calmly and lucidly. I just accept the new reality.
Don't worry about me. I'm a big boy now and whatever happens I'll find a way to accept it and be happy. No point being all upset and stress-filled over trivia. In the big scheme of our own lives, the name of the game isn't what it's all about. In a couple of years time it'll be like looking back on arguments about VHS and Beta, and we'll laugh at how we wasted time on such rubbish. The Football tide is flowing in and one by one the Soccer sandcastles are crumbling.
Perhaps one way forward is to create a section in the article dealing with the name. List the media outlets that use each name. List the official bodies likewise. Be fair. Use reliable sources. After a while even the most dogmatic will have to accept the facts when presented calmly and clearly. It's like accepting the final score in a match; one might be a lifelong supporter of a particular team, but if the other side is carrying away the trophy and singing their victory song as they march to the sunny side of the stadium and overflow the crossbenches, one accepts the bitter truth. --Pete (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What does "common name" really mean for this topic?

There seems no doubt that "football" is the common name for the round ball game among its hard core Australian fans who live outside Aussie Rules territory. I believe that describes all those who come here arguing that it is "THE common name" these days. But that cannot be our definition of common name.

The article title uses the name "Australia", so for starters, we have to consider the whole country.

We must also consider usage among non-hard core fans of the game. They are in Australia too, and until Australia falls out of the World Cup later this year (hope it's not too early), will be talking about the game more and more. We almost all become at least soft core fans during that time.

This means that we must look at the name all Australians in all parts of Australia use for the game.

We need to look at what the media does all over the country, not just "nationally", which in fact has little effect on the local stage. The ABC, for example, might use "football" on its single website for the whole country, but it uses "soccer" in its Melbourne studios, and, I would strongly suspect, in its Hobart, Adelaide, Perth, Broome, Wagga and Darwin studios. (And many other places.) Other TV networks (apart from SBS) do the same. The country's biggest selling daily newspaper uses "soccer" in its print edition. Other newspapers in Aussie Rules territory do the same.

I have already provided evidence. A month ago up above, at 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC), in the thread titled "Soccer is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia" I provided considerable evidence for the point I am making. It wasn't just restricted to where I live. I looked at other states too. I think other editors need to become certain about how things are in parts of Australia where they don't live before they again make sweeping claims about the common name.

Just repeating, my main point is that the common name has to be based on the name all Australians in all parts of Australia use for the game, not just the usage seen by its hard core fans in part of the country. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, you speak of "the name all Australians in all parts of Australia use for the game", yet you're examples are regionally specific. As is being discussed above, we have to go past the region verse region mentality. On a national scale the usage of "soccer" is in decline and the usage of "football" is increasing in reference to the round ball game; this is evident in national media and within the game itself.--2nyte (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
To be more precise, the usage of "soccer" HAS declined and the usage of "football" HAS increased, in part of the country, and by some people. We cannot predict the future, so we cannot really even describe it as still changing. Yes, my examples ARE region specific, but I've already acknowledged that serious fans in your part of the world do use "football". I'm saying that it's the other places and the other people we must look at. My main point is that "national" usage as claimed by many here is not representative of the whole country. And I strongly submit that we must look at the whole country. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't think decisions should be made on Wikipedia based on things in the future we can't predict. Also I can confirm that Hobart's ABC studios use "soccer" exclusively, as do the other networks. Spinrad (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad we're in agreement but I used present tense, not future tense.--2nyte (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and I explained the problem with that. While you may know roughly what has happened up until some recent time, you cannot know what is happening right now across the country. Past tense is the only valid one. HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
If we need to look at anything it will be what the national broadcasters of the game are doing, in this case the licensing agreements are with SBS and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, Fox Sports I suspect which will be the other major player during the world cup will also be using football nationally. The print media then falls under that as a dwindling market. That isn't an attack, it's a simple look at the reality of what is going on regarding print based media.
We also seem to have an ongoing tense issue simply to insert agendas that could be covered under WP:Weasel certain words like "partial" as if reference to partially completed, period which is not the case at all seen here names for association football. As to what the country calls it, there is a lot more to this that is historical in nature, I won't get into that argument here again as it simply will not be acknowledged. I suspect, when we look at what it is called during the World Cup due to the current television and radio licensing agreements in Australia you're going to be hearing a lot about football as will the majority of people tuning in. For the duration of the World Cup football will be the dominant term as SBS and Fox Sports is where the majority of viewership and listenership will simply be getting their information from on the world cup.
Pushing the print media perspective is not going to get you anywhere... During the previous world cup "soccer" attracted the highest listener/viewership out of any football code in Australia, which can be categorically proven as a fact. Millions of people heard the words football repeatedly, day in and day out and not once did I ever see anyone running around like the sky was falling in the same way people do here. IF the World Cup is anything to go by then the name for the spo here should be football, it really is as simple as that. Millions of people simply accepted that football was the term being used, at least as far as the duration of the tournament. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The frequency of "football" potentially increasing over a period of two weeks this year is a pretty bad reason for a move. In fact at this point you don't even seem to be debating why the article name should be changed, but rather why the general public should stop using "soccer" and start using "football". Spinrad (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The frequency of the usage of football for soccer will indeed be increasing as it has done and as it will continue to do so pretty much since around 2004, when all of these changes began to happen, our relative success in recent years of qualifying for the World Cup 3 times in a row is just a catalyst for this. But, at least every 4 years soccer does become the dominant football code, we can look at these facts in terms of raw viewership numbers. What that has to do with overall word usage is the fact that it has spawned a catalyst for ongoing attention to soccer (football) in this country.
The World Cup and Australia's predominately successful move to the AFC illustrates that there is more than a general interest in what the Socceroos are doing on an international level where the game is considered to be football. The broad national consensus for the usage of the word football in terms of national media as addressed above would appear to be football, the ABC, SBS, Nine, Seven, and Foxtel would all appear to have football as the dominant usage word in their style guides. This would appear to also be the case on every major network except channel 10. Using print media as an example is a pretty bad one primarily because print media is dying out anyway. We should look at digital media, analogue radio and the web. We've got a fair indication that most of the web based presence for the major networks are using football, most television based networks are using football, and the radio where football is predominately broadcast on the ABC and SBS are using football, either predominately or interchangeably.
The changes are occurring and it is fairly wide spread association football is a widely spread and accepted wikipedia category, and there is also a portal for association football. It's about time we got over this and accepted a widely held Wikipedia wide compromise of using association football where we cannot use what looks to have become the common name for the sport at least as far as the media is concerned. --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Orestes, you have not discussed the actual topic, which is by what process do we determine the common name for Australia. And to say "The frequency of the usage of football for soccer will indeed be increasing..." is pointless WP:SPECULATION and nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. Oh, and can we drop this ridiculous nonsense that TV networks are using "football"? Apart from SBS, it's just not true. The types of prgorams where the name of the game will be mentioned are produced locally (news, sport, etc) and the word used is the common one for each particular area. You have been told by two other editors in this very thread that in Hobart and Melbourne it's "soccer". Claiming otherwise is incredibly bad manners. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The national television networks are using "football" - SBS, ABC, Fox Sports, Sky News - they are all nationally represented and they all predominately refer to association football as "football". So in terms of on a national scale, in recent time the common name for association football has become "football".--2nyte (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Fox Sports and Sky News have a negligible market share and the ABC doesn't really seem to use "football" in its studios anyway, not that corporate policy is proof of common usage by society. Spinrad (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
HiLo once again you demonstrate your inability to think outside of the box you've put yourself in and we've returned to your commentary that everyone who disagrees with you is a "wishful thinker" a "moron" or something similar. I've been sorely tempted to start an RFC/U about this behaviour, it's just not acceptable. I'm sick of it and your behaviour that started all this nonsense not only with me but with everyone else. Please stop this needlessly derisive behaviour. You have been called out as childish by a number of administrators here when it comes to resolving disagreements with other editors.
By what process do we determine the common name of the sport?
One example is by what the media is doing at a national level and you have been given examples of this by another user here that the predominance of style in terms of web presences is football and furthermore that the two main broadcasting networks in Australia call the sport football. Your claim about it being apart from SBS is just not true, apart from SBS there is also Fox Sports, and Channel 9's Wide World of Sports as notable examples of national coverage I can think of off the top of my head that use the term football. From a national perspective this simply has been increasing and has been doing so since right about 2004, this is not wishful thinking.
Another way is to look at all those people, sporting clubs, etc, that have decided voluntarily to adopt the word football, even in your home state of Victoria for the game being played... They don't have to but they do, while here in Queensland my local club has been renamed the Coolum Football Club. They've been around since 1975 and don't have to mandatorily change anything but they did anyway.
The other way is to look at what people are doing on the street, unfortunately despite your own "wishful thinking" we don't have a survey of linguistics that identifies that any one sport in any state has a predominant word usage of football that refers to any one sport, historicity tells us that this was the case at one point in time, but the modern landscape and influences of rugby league, union, and AFL across Australia have muddied the waters without looking at soccer on top of that, therefore we must look at what the current evidence based position is on the matter.
Until we have an evidence based position we can only go with what we know and that is that there are many sports called football, so the Wikipedia wide catch all category applies of association football. --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
2nyte and Orestes, you are both wrong about the ABC. The free to air commercial networks use the common name in each state, so it's "soccer" in Vic, Tas, SA, WA, NT and the Riverina. (Fox and Sky are irrelevant.) In repeatedly saying otherwise about the big networks you are claiming to know better than other editors who actually live there, and I'm pretty sure neither of you have ever been. It's not a sensible position to take. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines seem to recommend avoiding name-changes unless there are very good, objective reasons to do so. So far no reason has been provided that isn't a matter of personal opinion or corporate media policy. Spinrad (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Spinrad, "very good, objective reasons"? - hundreds of clubs have independently changed their names, all organising bodies have independently changed their names and national media has independently adopted the usage of "football". Those is the best reason for name-changes. What more do you expect? A petition logged to Wikipedia from the Australian population? As was said above, "people reflect the media they consume", and the national media for "all Australians in all parts of Australia" has adopted "football" in preference to a long-standing historic usage of "soccer". That is completely objective and it must be represented on wikipedia.--2nyte (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Clubs changing their names doesn't really prove that "football" has become the most common name for the sport in Australia. Again corporate media policy isn't really an argument, not to mention the media's use of "football" is patchy at best outside of the internet. Doubly not to mention that many of the "national" media outlets mentioned above have tiny market shares at best. Spinrad (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "We need to look at what the media does all over the country" and what the media does all over the country is "patchy at best" I think we can agree, and I stated further, it's getting worse which is why we have to look at the digital/analogue landscape of the national television and radio broadcasters SBS, the ABC, and Foxtel to find out what their respective style guides state. Predominately, this is football. As far as most of the other national broadcasters excluding 10, the dominant term seems to be football as well, seriously, watch Channel 9s general broadcast outside of the AFL Footy show, you have Wide World of Sports where football is used, I heard a bunch of cricketers talking about the football where they were referencing the round ball game on this years Ashes coverage, we see it in Channel 7's coverage. In general media outside of specific local news the use of the term football has more traction than those opposing wish to give it credit. The catch all category however where the case is that there is more than one code known as football is association football. It really is not that difficult, soccer in Australia would become a redirect and nobody except the die hard AFL and rugby supporters opposing would lose any sleep --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong about the ABC and commercial networks. SBS and Fox have a direct commercial arrangement with soccer, so they are not taking an independent position. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Anecdotal examples of traction aren't really a good basis for an article name change. We've also really got to get past the (wrong) idea that the media is some kind of arbiter of sports names in Australia. "Association Football" probably shouldn't even be a catch all category in the first place, since it's neither common or official in Australia, so that's another shaky argument at best. Spinrad (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the media could count as part of the evidence, but that evidence is not what Orestes and 2nyte claim it is anyway. As for what the clubs do, that's insider behaviour, and clearly only a minority of Australians. We must consider what Australians everywhere, fans or not, do. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Lets face it HiLo, not to be rude or anything but... everyone who disagrees with you is wrong...I'm not asking you to comment on the above discussion but look at the links how am I "wrong?" How am I wrong when the most prominent all sports program on Channel 9 uses the term "football" to refer to soccer? What your local news broadcaster, not sure if you watch NBN, Prime, or whatever, but eitherway, what they do... It's actually kinda irrelevant, because that is a very small world perspective... You do know they call it "local" news for a reason right? --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
All those local stations that use "soccer" are going to add up though. Also as I said before what the media chooses to call a sport is not guaranteed to be representative of what a majority of a population calls said sport. We don't really know if it's even intended to be representative in the first place. Spinrad (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've suggested that someone find a linguistics study in the past, of which there isn't very many to put this all to bed, but HiLo seems to find it an afront that there is even such a discussion going on, or that such a concept should even be sourced. Let us be frank, we all know what Wikipedia says about unsourced information. "It may be challenged and deleted," personal anecdotes are not what this is about. We've all got more than a few to substantiate our own "personal" opinion. However, personal opinions violate NPOV and are seen as original research.... On two grounds, that's just not cricket. IF we ever want to resolve this then we need some research based linguistics studies from a credible source into how the word football is used in Australia at present, not 100 years ago, not 50 years ago, but what is actually going on now --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I provided multifarious sources a month ago, at 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC), in the thread titled "Soccer is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia". I have many more. HiLo48 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
There are four major sporting codes in Australia. Three use their official names. One is forced to use a nickname because of the AFL project meatpuppets creating false consensus. There would be no 'ambiguity' on Wikipedia should the fourth code be allowed to use the official name for the sport, because none of the other sports share that name. If there is 'ambiguity' that is a failure to correct report or use the right name in any article and should be fixed to point at the right sport. Rugby Union. Rugby League. Australian Rules. Football. I do find it interesting that people want to use the WP Common guideline as a reason to not use football, when I could just as easily use that same guideline to request that all use of Australian Rules on Wikipedia be changed to AFL since QLD & NSW (which are a majority of the country in terms of population and media) use AFL and not Australian Rules to describe the sport. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Mack, the only case of meatpuppetry in the last RM was from you, recruiting Soccer supporters via Twitter, which you admitted to. Jevansen (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it's also important to point out that the use of "football" to mean "Aussie Rules" in the Aussie Rules part of country is not just a fan or "AFL Project" thing. It's everybody. Even people who hate the game call it "football". It's universal. Which is very different from the situation with the name in the other part of the country. Some use it for the round ball game. Some for rugby league. And even some for rugby union. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
To almost all our readers in the Aussie Rules part of the country "football" almost exclusively means Aussie Rules. So it's worse than ambiguous. It means something quite different from what you want it to mean. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Very good point... Why do we not simply go over to the AFL page and create a false consensus that AFL is the only non-ambiguous name for the sport of Australia Rules Football? We are in the majority here in the north and that is the only name we know it by. The reality is that the majority of us here do not even care remotely enough to be threatened by another sport using the term football or a derivative there of such as association football... Do you see how ridiculous this all is HiLo? You're getting wound up, time and time again and have been told off by more than a few administrators for being childish, immature, and just plain impossible to work with and you've dragged me down to your own level. Over what really? An article on Wikipedia for a sport that you actually in reality, probably do not even care about in the same way as the majority of people who will read this article. Is it really worth all of the drama you have created over the last year at least to maintain a position that is simply causing everyone here to be more than a little annoyed? --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
A consensus isn't false just because you disagree with it and level of extracurricular interest in a subject is a personal matter that doesn't add or subtract weight to anyone's arguments on Wikipedia. You keep bringing up HiLo48 being told-off by admins and I don't see why this has anything to do with the name of the article. He has been behaving just fine in this section of the talk page anyway. Also I find it extremely unlikely that "football" is the only name for the sport used "in the north". Spinrad (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not. League fans call their game "football", and use "soccer" for the round ball game. And "football" means Aussie Rules in the Riverina. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say football was the only name used in the north... I can say for the majority, AFL is the only common unambiguous name for Australian Rules football in the north though.... YET... Neither myself or anyone else cares enough to push that agenda, on every single AFL talk page out there. Clearly from an unbiased perspective there are OTHER issues going on here as to why those in the south have decided that they don't want to accept the wikipedia wide catch all category of association football
This is all despite the fact that we have the majority population of Australia here north of the ACT/NSW border.... I have the same right here to say "AFL is the only common unambiguous name in the majority of Australia's population for that sport played for the majority in Victoria." It's funny that... I don't go there, I have no need to go there... I don't go there because it's silly, pointless, and unnecessarily antagonistic as are the last eight, count them, eight, discussions on this talk page.
Extracurricular interest or not it's not about that.... I'm not saying anyone is stupid, not you not HiLo48, but this whole issue going on this take page and every other soccer related articles talk page IS stupid and I'm calling it for what it is. --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


"Association football" is clearly not a common name. But that's not the point of this thread. It is to clarify by what criteria we decide on a common name. HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
"Association football" is the default name for the sport on wikipedia (much like "Australian rules football" is for Australian football), and in the current circumstance it is the best name for this article.--2nyte (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
But "Australian rules football" obviously IS a common name for Aussie Rules. All Australians will instantly know what it means. Not so for "Association football". Most Australians wouldn't have a clue what it means. I certainly didn't until I began working on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
"Three use their official names. One is forced to use a nickname". Um, no Mack, 2 use official names, 2 use common names. Australian Football is the official name of the sport known here as Australian rules football, because we accept the official name is ambiguous on a national and global scale. The-Pope (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether people have an understanding of what association football is, a redirect will fix that, and editing this article in such a way to represent what it is will clarify it for anyone who is confused. It really is that simple, but to break it down into tiny little chunks for HiLo here about how the human brain works
1. types in soccer in Australia...
2. hmm redirect "wonder what that is... could it be soccer?"
3. Association football, otherwise known as football or soccer...
4. Lightbulb moment, "Eureka! The round peg goes in the round hole"
5. No more confusion.
How is that hard at all? As they say "problem Solvered." --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
But completely unnecessary. There's nothing wrong with "soccer". No redirect needed. And you've gone off topic again. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Once again... There's nothing wrong... provided HiLo48 agrees with it... You are not a force unto yourself here --Orestes1984 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Nothing to do with what I think. It's what I observe. I've just started work at a new school, one with a strong Italian flavour. Naturally there's a lot of the round ball game played here. A big part of the school's internal website is a section all about their, wait for it.... "Soccer Tour to Italy". Everyone in this part of the world is comfortable with the name "soccer". So it's not just my opinion. That's why I did all the research behind my earlier post up above, at 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC), in the thread called "Soccer is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia". "Soccer" works here. It's practical. No embarrassment. No confusion. (Apart from when we do encounter people trying to call it "football", because THAT'S confusing.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? "Everyone" according to [who?] furthering the point being driven home here about "everyone." According to "everyone" living in the majority of Australia, AFL is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood name for Australian Rules Football in the majority of Australia if I were to say Australian football, I could very well be talking about an Australia version of soccer. Do you see the problem with "everyone" here now yet? Now As I said previously... I don't want to go there... I have no intent of going there... HOWEVER, I do on the other hand have trouble with your persistence to consistently revert good faith edits to largely incorrect content, or simply just to revert problems rather than fixing them... The later is just lazy editing. I do also have trouble with the fact that you just don't seem to get the whole picture on this issue... It's rather polemic, I can understand your lack of desire to go into it, but on the other side of the coin, competence is required if you want to be here, and part of competence IS understanding the subject matter at hand and why certain editors here find the term soccer either outdated, abhorrent or both. Just because you find soccer is OK to "everyone" in your microcosm does not mean "everyone" else does. I also see a lot of issues going on here that could be interpreted as falling under WP:WEASEL much like other polemic issues, but I really don't see why this should be the case, it IS just a game... --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's obvious that some find "soccer" outdated. Unfortunately, if it's still the only non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia, that's just bad luck. The non-outdated name is "football", and that's too ambiguous. As for finding it "abhorrent", please provide evidence that your feelings are any different from WP:IDONTLIKEIT? HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
"Sheilas" "Wogs" "poofters" connotations to girly men who play "wogball" what's not to love about "soccer" or the persistent media outcry, most recently both in Melbourne and Sydney about "soccer hooliganism" really this isn't an insult at all and I have no intention of making it one, but part of the key issue about having competence in a certain subject area is being able to understand all the facets of what is going on. Clearly you do not understand all of what is going on here and the polemic nature of "soccer" in Australia which is why you continue to get other editors backs up, I'm not sure if you're doing this on purpose or whether you really are not competent to edit in this space. It's OK to admit where you are not otherwise competent to edit and desist from doing so, or to come back when you have a better understanding of what is going on. --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
What? I have no idea what that post means, apart from again demonstrating that you don't like the name "soccer". That counts for nothing here. I've presented many sources showing that many people who love the game are very happy with that name. Your opinion hardly cancels them out.
But anyway, you've moved off topic again. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a lot more than simply "I do not like it." Let me break this down into simple english we all can understand. The use of the word soccer leads to hostilities and animosity, and strong worded tirades on both sides of the fence here purely because of its historical context. There are many strongly worded examples I have used in the statement above, it continues. Soccer continues to be associated with "ethnic tension" in this country directly, most recently both in Sydney and in Melbourne. This whole thing with the FFA using foothall was to a large extent to stop this nonsense, and your persistence of dragging it back to this without understanding absolutely everything involved in the situation is doing nothing more but adding fuel to the fire. That is a lot more than "I don't like it." Contextual knowledge is required before you're fully competent to edit in this area HiLo48, it's not beyond you either. --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the first I've heard of the word "soccer" causing hostilities, I thought the FFA using "football" was just a marketing thing. Also I'll second HiLo48 in that it's getting harder and harder to figure out what point you are trying to make. Spinrad (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not the name that causes the hostilities. It's idiot fans. (Note that I am not saying that all fans are idiots.) And perhaps a game where the excitement comes in such short bursts, and where fans get segregated, so they only meet each other elsewhere. But that's WAY off topic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Soccer historically has always been associated with minority groups and it is representative in it's culture. Part of "old soccer, new football" was steering the governing body and the league at the time out of that quagmire, new football was supposed to be exactly that which is why old soccer had such a bad reputation. New football brought with it new clubs (predominately) that were not tied to old ethnic rivalries. In a lot of ways we only have ourselves to blame for it and why it copped names such as "wogball", which I find extremely offensive as with any derivative of that word. The analogy is similar to Nick Gianopolis, I don't find it humorous in any way shape or form to take such a racially charged word like "wog" and denigrate yourself like that. Likewise, I don't take the cultural connotations that come with old soccer with much good light either. The FFA moved to football and this was one of the reasons, it was an escape from this quagmire, those who hold onto it just drag us back into it, unknowingly or otherwise and that's the thing. I'm sure you mean well, but you might not understand the deep seated issues that come with soccer in this country, and for those who grew up outside of the ethnic confines that come with "soccer" in this country probably never will unless they take their blinkers off. Please do not dismiss this simply because you do not understand it. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There's something I've noticed. I try hard to post about the word "soccer". You seem to post an awful lot about me. HiLo48 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Your name keeps coming up because it seems at times you don't take into account that there could be some logic in what other people are saying and resort back to "we call it soccer where I'm from, so that's OK and nevermind what others might call it." It seems at times you are dismissive when you are given an understanding of some of the other factors in why the sport is now known as football. When it comes to a naming dispute like this, you really have to take into account everything is going on and sometimes I think you might not have a full understanding of the historical context. It's not your fault, you didn't grow up in that part of Australia, you don't live as I do on this side of the ethnic divide, and you will never see Australia through my eyes, or through the eyes of anyone else in that position. This isn't off topic... It all boils down to what the common name is here HiLo, and it's simple...
You say there is nothing wrong with soccer, everyone understands what it is, I will give you a conceded pass on the second, in other words a D+/C- what I wont give you is the first one, when you won't actually stop to consider all the factors in coming to your understanding of what IS wrong with soccer... Particularly when you can spend a little longer actually wrapping your head around it rather than simply saying "there's nothing wrong with soccer, it's unambiguous."
Claiming ignorance to the problems of soccer (and don't twist that into a personal attack) does not get you around the facts of what is wrong with it. I live it, I breath it, I grew up in the culture, you didn't. You talk about the Barassi Line, I talk about the ethnic divide.... It is something that is very real in this country you must understand before you even bother getting into talking soccer. --Orestes1984 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe there WAS a problem with the name "soccer". Is there still? (Evidence please.) Look at the enthusiasm with which the FFA now embraces the Socceroos name. Check out the website. It's everywhere. I am considerably older and much better travelled within Australia than you, and probably more aware of past issues, but we need to talk about the present. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The evidence with old soccer was seen roughly a month ago in the streets of Melbourne and Sydney, it's seen with some elements of the supporters of Melbourne Victory, and Sydney Wanderers and with teams like Sydney Olympic and South Melbourne continuing to push the agenda of being admitted into the A-League... the Meedya in Australia take these things consistently and run with "soccer hooliganism," "ethic/racial tension," and the ongoing debate that "sockahhh" is an inappropriate sport to be played in Australia, then you have people like Kevin Sheedy and Eddie McGuire run off at the first opportunity to grab a sound byte about how bad sockah is again, it happens without failure which is everything that is wrong with the term soccer... --Orestes1984 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
"Old Soccer" as you're explaining it seems like a concept unrelated to FFA's attempt at changing the sports name in Australia. I still don't see how the name "soccer" actually has anything to do with the aforementioned ethnic tensions or how his proves that "Football" is the common name for the sport in Australia. Spinrad (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes Orestes, please be realistic. How can violence by and between stupid fans have anything to do with the name? That really demands evidence. If the name was a problem, there would be violence at every game in Melbourne, and there isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, OK, the we don't like it is a predominant reason, but it's explainable and furthermore, this was one among many reasons for the changes that occurred in 2004. That is, it was to remove the constant troll bait that the meedya has in this country to consistently refer to "soccer hooliganism" and "ethnic tension" which is associated with the general term "soccer" this is a very real reality. Actually the strict enforcement of "new football" during the first 5 years of the A-League where officials were quite strict on nonsense was also a part of this. Unfortunately it's quite hard to put a cat back in the bag once it has gotten out of one.
One of my other reasonings for pushing for a name resolution that is anything but soccer apart from it being historically incorrect, is the fact that it is inherently divisive and you've witnessed this yourself in the last few years being here. You may not realise why you're getting peoples backs up, but a lot of it refers to this. I am reasonable enough to recognise what the consensus is here and to discuss it in a reasonable way, I'm just highlighting what is going wrong here.
No one likes soccer on one side of the fence, and a number of users other than myself have stated openly it feels like it is being pushed upon this article, I have suggested an alternative which is a Wikipedia wide category. I can state that while soccer is a common name, it's ability to cause inflammatory debates does not make it a practical long term solution to this problem and it's not just me. You seem to have run into a number of editors that feel the same or similar about the term "soccer" in Australia. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. It's clear now. Your opposition is a classical case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But even a very intense feeling of WP:IDONTLIKEIT carries no weight here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
You are very dificult to work with, that does not illustrate my thoughts at all, and yet you are bound by such black and white understandings of how the world works in your head that you cannot see the many differentiations of grey going on here.... I have expressed a lot of evidence here, you can go through the archives on SBS and trawl away at the shitfest that was played out on live TV around 2004 and how "soccer" was held ransom. It all happened, and it all expresses why none of us particularly like soccer or the bullshit that is involved with soccer. It seems you're still not competent enough to understand the finer details of what's going on here and as soon as I desist from this simply because you do not get the point you are going to get someone elses back up.
HiLo, if I may offer you just a little bit of helpful personal advice and a life lesson... The world is very often not as black and white as you see things and neither is this, in fact this whole shit show illustrates over a number of years exactly why it is not, you need to really understand what is going on and to be able to put yourself in the shoes of both parties before you add your two cents worth to things in life.... This is a good case where a little bit more of an understanding would do you the world of good. Now don't get your back up either, because that's about as politely as I'm going to put it. --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
If it's really so bad a word, how come half the country lives perfectly happily with it? HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


If you were dealing with someone who was enforcing rules, claiming ignorance would not get you very far, if it were a police officer you'd get yourself arrested, ignorance is not a defence. Being deliberately ignorant of the facts does not get you very far with me either.... How come half of the United States accepted segregation until the federal government decided it was unacceptable? If half of Australia decided to jump off a cliff would you be perfectly happy with it as a norm? --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Nothing new there. Just more insults and pointless, irrelevant, attempted analogies. 20:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
You're not comparing the use of the word "soccer" to segregation now are you? And regarding your previous comment, I've always thought of Wikipedia as being fairly black and white on most subjects. Spinrad (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
And I had to laugh when I saw the US brought into this discussion. I assume we're all aware that the game is called Soccer in the United States. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)



Just to illustrate the reality of the situation, I took a picture yesterday of the way the PE teachers organise the balls at my very soccer oriented school. How the PE teachers organise the balls at my school
(Sorry about the quality. It was a dark spot.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No one wants to see your soccer balls here, and no one wants to see your dismissive attitude here HiLo, as I have stated repeatedly you are not above everyone else here, so come off your high horse. As far as segregation goes, we're not playing an ignorance game about the history of this country here are we? Lets see now, Aboriginals, white Australia policy, ethnic divisiveness... Soccer being one particular side of that divisiveness.... Yeah... If I wanted to tally inflame this debate you would not have a leg to stand on regarding "segregation" and this country. I do not want to nor do I have any intention of going there though other than to use it as a loosely fitting analogy which will simply be ignored again by certain editors here to prove my point --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right about one thing. It's definitely a loosely fitting analogy. As for "No one wants to see your soccer balls...", it's obvious that you don't want anyone to see them, but it's quite possible others are actually interested. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
You have ignored my position and skirted what I was saying to come up with your own perspective once again and this is largely the problem with your editing manners --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Haven't ignored your position at all. It's clear that your position on the name "soccer" is "I don't like it" which, of course, means nothings here. Your feeling don't matter. And you also have strong thoughts on racial/ethnic issues. I suspect we would pretty much agree on the latter. Australia doesn't have a great history on that front. But it's completely irrelevant to a discussion on the common name of the round ball game today. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a lot more to my position simply than "I do not like it," I have attempted to put this into context in a way that would be understandable. Unfortunately you don't seem to understand where I'm coming from, that's fine, I'm pretty much done trying to get that through to you. You're simply not going to get it --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I repeat the fundamental point that if the problem with the name "soccer" really was so serious, it wouldn't be in such common use by players and fans of the game in the areas where Aussie Rules is the major code. It simply cannot be as big a problem for most people as you seem to think it is. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The fact that it is a problem at all should wave a red flag here, however you seem to be stating "I don't see a problem where I live, so it's not a problem for everyone" This at best is highly ignorant of others thoughts and feelings at worst it shows a major lack of competence and should flag a reason why you should stay away from this page. I'm really not going to bother anymore. I'm just going to sit back and watch with popcorn next time you get in a shitfight with someone else over this, because it IS a problem that is simply not going to go away. I'm done with this... --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It's obviously a problem for you, but you seem incapable of explaining why. A whole bunch of people don't see it as a problem, and all the reasons you give for it being a problem to you would also apply to many of those people. Can you explain that. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have explained in numerous ways, you simply do not listen... I cannot help you if you are deaf to the problems that are going on here. I am done communicating with you... Consider this my self imposed right not to interact with you any further.... --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

First game in Australia debate

I think the constant reference to the Paramatta Wanderers game is a bit silly when the Hobart Cricketers game and the Qld Asylum game both clearly preclude it. While the exact nature of the Qld Asylum game is a little unclear, the Hobart one played under 'English Association rules' to me would seem very clearly to be Association rules one year prior to the Wanderers game. --TinTin (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Precede! --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Orestes1984, do you mean proceed? Anyway, the first match in Australia is truly unknown. We do know that the first recorded match played under the Laws of the Game was the Wanderers match in Parramatta, 1980 - as confirmed by FFA, and generally known within the sport.--2nyte (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
No I mean precede, as in the games came before... But actually, if we look at the history of football in Australia, no one is actually sure what type of game was played, or when it actually occurred. On the basis of that, we really shouldn't have a "first game" at all... --Orestes1984 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
1980? Really? That seems quite late for Australia to be adopting the Laws of the Game. – PeeJay 23:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that was a dyslexic moment, it should be somewhere closer to 1890... --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soccer_in_Australia/Archive_7&oldid=669122290"