Talk:Alan Oakley (journalist)

NPOV cleanup
This article is listed on the NPOV backlog. Text edited. Since the NPOV tag was placed without discussion, and there's no discussion suggesting disagreement, the tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the article with and post to Talk. -- Steve Hart 22:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

i simply don't see what evidence has been provided to suggest that 'oakley has offended readers' beyond the one who wrote the original article. the whole thing stinks of one person with an axe to grind against oakley, and mentions nothing of what i'm sure is a long and distinguished editorial career going by his listed former positions. instead it's a diatribe against 'his' decision to label the various football codes' content in the Herald as football, league and union. this is before even getting to the unattributed and nonsensical claim that "Herald's delining sales have been contributed to Oakley's editorial style."Dibo 07:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * removed NPOV tag, after removing POV material. material was removed because it was unsourced. this is in accordance with Biographies_of_living_persons: "Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately." hopefully new material can go in to fill the article out that is appropriately sourced and verifiable. Dibo 02:30, 23 August 2006

(UTC)

You are starting to engage in Lawyering Dibo, which is strictly forbidden. You yourself know that all those facts are true so I must truely doubt your motivations.... Ehinger222 11:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * first - you should assume good faith. i'm not 'lawyering', whatever that is supposed to mean. i'm ensuring that content that is questionable is not added to an entry about a person in contravention of Biographies_of_living_persons. i'm not going to go around trying to find citable references to justify content i don't see a need for. if you'd like to, i'm perfectly happy to see it go in. as it stands, i was going through whacking after everything when i figured that for the purposes of Biographies_of_living_persons it was really more appropriate to simply delete the content. -Dibo 11:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well cite away Dibo, cite away. Ehinger222 08:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * as i said, it's content i see no need for. therefore, if you want it, you cite it. Dibo 12:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

did not vandalise
Assume good faith. What I meant was that the remaining words required citation. I am in agreement with you about the justice of the Wikipedia laws and their application in this instance. Ehinger222 13:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As you have said, add the citations. Ehinger222 10:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

don't be dense
simple biographical information that is by its nature indisputable (yes, alan oakley exists and is a newspaper editor) doesn't need to be cited.

what needs to be cited is any 'fact' that may be disputed. for example - 'alan oakley is a newspaper editor' does not need citing - its truth is easily verified and is not under question. 'alan oakley is trying to destroy rugby league' certainly does, if it warrants inclusion in wikipedia at all (which i doubt). Dibo 01:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

simple biographical information that is by its nature indisputable (yes, alan oakley exists and is a newspaper editor)- Is he? Prove it, those facts are not indisputable unless you have appropriate citations. its truth is easily verified and is not under question. Yes it is easily verifiable, so simply verify it if you do not want it removed... I have no time to do it. Check the facts and make sure that they are correct or I will be bold and remove them. alan oakley is trying to destroy rugby league- When was this ever asserted? I believe the comment was that some fanatics believe that but that this is unlikely. Check it yourself if you would like to get the right quote. This type of conjecture is not wikipedian and rightly removed.

However the comments attributed to him at that time were definitely indisputable, to the same extent that the material kept is. They both rightly require citation. Ehinger222 04:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "However the comments attributed to him at that time were definitely indisputable" - they weren't, you had to link separate pieces of information together to make an argument, which is a breach of no original research, not to mention npov. the bio is now cited with a link to the article introducing him as the editor of the herald. Dibo 23:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No surprise that there has been an argument over this, the whole football thing. I have put it in because I think it is relevant, especially because he is an immigrant from England trying to do it.
 * removed non notable, unverifiable, unencyclopaedic material. when you find one other reputable source that has anything like the material in it then we could discuss having it in... Dibo | Talk | Contribs 04:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously suggesting that it did not occur?
 * i am suggesting that the claim is nonsense because i've seen nothing at all to suggest that it isn't. you (in your manifold incarnations) are the ONLY person i've ever seen who has ever suggested it is the case. the fact that he is a newspaper editor, rather than a warrior in the battle of the codes is evidence of the fact that its inclusion would be to add trivia outweighing his broader character to the point of practically defaming him. if you want something to write about him, talk about his editing of the herald and other papers, leave the POV pushing out of it. Dibo | Talk | Contribs 11:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * you (in your manifold incarnations) are the ONLY person-There was some person before me doing it, so I am obviously not the only person. the fact that he is a newspaper editor, rather than a warrior in the battle of the codes-WTF are you talking about? if you want something to write about him, talk about his editing of the herald and other papers- Please do not order me. IF YOU want to include that, than do it. The more the better. practically defaming him There is absolutely nothing defamatory! That man is the one who did it and it is probably the most notable feature of his editorship in my opinion as an avid league fan.

Edits by 147.10.112.157
''Notably, Oakley has challenged the popular conception for what football is, by calling soccer football, although prevoiusly the term football was used for the southern Australian code of football, Australian Rules Football. The popular use of the word football in Sydney, (as it has been for 140 years since the beginning of organised football), is rugby football, particuarly rugby league football''

The above has a large number of problems. "Notably, Oakley has challenged the popular conception for what football is, by calling soccer football" This needs to be cited. You also should cite why this is notable.

The popular use of the word football in Sydney, (as it has been for 140 years since the beginning of organised football), is rugby football, particuarly rugby league football Really? Well League was formed in Sydney in 1907 according to Rugby league in Australia. Compare this to Assoication Football, where from 1882, the NSW association was called the "English Football Association". So I would say that this claim of 140 years ownership can be strongly debated. There is also assoications such as the Gladesville Hornsby Football Association. I cannot find a foundation date online, but google shows clubs joining the association in 1953. SBS, Northern Spirit FC and others all called the sport football 8-10 years ago so I would say the Oakley is not notable for this, and 147.10.112.157 has a strong POV to push here.Tancred 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It can be cited easily. Rugby League was and is rugby football. Rugby league players were mostly rugby union players when the split occurred,so in many ways, it is the continuation of the rugby football tradition and culture. Soccer never really caught on until the hippys came in the sixties, and it had no realistic impact back than in terms of naming etc. So whilst it may of gone around calling itself English football, noone was really calling it football except the small number of enthusiasts, as opposed to almost everybody calling rugby, football. Oakley is notable because the SMH is a very notable publication. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.10.112.157 (talk • contribs).


 * Rugby union is also called "football" by many people. It was the main form of football in NSW before 1907. Sydney University Football Club, founded 1863, is the oldest rugby union club in Australia and one of the oldest football clubs in the world. Soccer was an also-ran until the massive influx of immigrants after World War II.


 * Anyway, I hope my new wording is satisfactory to all parties. Grant65 | Talk 14:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * New wording on the main para is great, but the problems I raised with the second remain, I'll take them point by point here:


 * In 2006, Oakley was prominent (how? and according to whom? was he the one who pushed the decision? was there resistance within the organisation or was it a matter of rough consensus?)


 * in controversial (controversial is defined as "a matter of opinion or dispute over which parties actively argue, disagree or debate. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements." The change in the Herald isn't very controversial, as the only place I've heard vigorous discussion that would approach 'controversy' about it is here - there have hardly been riots in the street)


 * moves by some journalists (it's not 'some journalists', it's some media outlets - Several media outlets have adopted this use, while others have stuck with "soccer"  . )


 * in Australia to refer to association football (soccer) as "football", in line with the policy of the national soccer body, Football Federation Australia. The word "football", in Australia, usually refers to rugby league or Australian rules football.


 * In this light, I just don't see how it's remotely relevant to an article about the editor of the Herald. I think it's lacking in substance, and I think it actually detracts from the rest of the article.


 * I think it's a paragraph aiming to 'blame' Oakley for something that this anon editor doesn't like. That's all well and good, but it's got no place in wikipedia. Dibo | Talk | Contribs 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In response to your other points: (1) Oakley is clearly "prominent" as ed of the SMH! (2) As you also say: "controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements". A quick web search will find examples of the controversy: e.g. "this English git [i.e. Oakley] should be sacked as of now. How dare he attempt to re-impose his English cultural imperialism on us." (3) "Some media outlets" is fine with me. (4) The nature of the dispute regarding the word football needs to be xplained, we can't presume that people will know that. Grant65 | Talk 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is only this: That it should be noted in some form, along with his editorship as I am an avid league supporter and I am not used to calling soccer football. The use is validated on wikipedia often by referring to media outlets, so it is more than reasonable to trace their source IMO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.10.112.157 (talk • contribs).


 * Grant - clearly he's prominent, but I wasn't asking for the article to be deleted. I was asking that that paragraph to be deleted because I cannot see how he is prominent in some great controversy, because there is no reputable source that makes the claim. ...Which leads me to my second point.
 * That's | the blog I post on you're referencing, and while I think it's great, it's hardly something I'd cite as evidence of a great controversy. It's not exactly a huge outlet with massive readership. And while the democracy of opinion that the internet is a wonderful thing, not every commenter on every blog is really due the label of reputability.
 * Thus I don't think there is a dispute. I think it's at most two (even assuming this user is a different person to the person who commented on my blog, which I'm not personally inclined to) people pushing a POV.Dibo | Talk | Contribs 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What? Lots of people in Australia object to the "football = soccer" project, myself included. Grant65 | Talk 03:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, and good luck to you, but my point is that I have seen no reasonable justification for putting that paragraph in here. If you've got an objection related to the name used to refer to football (soccer), take it to Naming conventions (Football in Australia), but it's got bugger all to do with Alan Oakley. Dibo | Talk | Contribs 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that Oakley has nothing to do with the usage of "football" by the SMH? Grant65 | Talk 07:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only that, I'm saying that even if it were entirely his call (a claim for which I can see no basis, it'd be the sports editor's call) I don't think it's notable. WP:NOT says that even if something is 100% true, it's not a basis for its inclusion. We're talking about a newspaper editor, not a player in the battle between football codes. It's a practically inconsequential decision compared to any number of other decisions that he would make. Dibo | Talk | Contribs 07:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder who authorised this announcement: "Soccer finally becomes football" January 1, 2005 It is on the news section and (as an ex-journo) I can assure you that a sports editor and editorial policy in the sports dept is always subordinate to a general editor! Such a departure from normal usage in Australian English would have to go all the way to the top. There are quite a few other references/comments to the SMH and "football = soccer", outside of Wikipedia talk pages and stoush.net. See (e.g.) the Aussie rules history site fullpointsfooty.net.


 * The bit on football in this article only sticks out because there is a dearth of material about other aspects of Oakley's career; that is what really needs to be fixed. Grant65 | Talk 03:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I defer to your knowledge of newsrooms, but is this event worthy of more than a reference like this?


 * In fact, that's exactly what I'm going to do. Dibo T 05:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * redfaced* Dibo was right in the first place, as a comparison of the dates in those two SMH articles shows. Sorry 147, SMH made the change before Oakley became editor and he would have been in Melbourne or Newcastle at the time. Grant65 | Talk 06:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * double red faced* - that means that i went and put the content in without having actually looked at the dates! :oops: Dibo T 07:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
Hello, I am going to be one of the mediators listening to this case. Please see Alan Oakley Mediation Cabal to participate in this voluntary mediation. I also invite all who may wish to partake in any discussion of this to please post here, as this talk page will be watched and discussion added to the discussion portion of the case. Somitho 21:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)