Talk:Barassi Line/Archive 1

Untitled
Has the Barassi line really blurred? I have often heard that swans players can walk around sydney without attracting much attention, even when the swans are doing well. And the same goes for storm players in melbourne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnnamedGent (talk • contribs) 03:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This article really needs to be deleted
It was obviously written by somebody with an AFL bias and is quite ignorant of the position and history of both rugby league and union in Australia. This is beside the fact that it ignores the world game - football (soccer) which undeniably has a strong and growing presence in the football landscape. The term "Barassi Line" has arguably rarely been used and most Australians that do not follow AFL would not even be able to recognise the name Barassi. It is nothing more than somebody's vague theory and some sections of the article are flat-out incorrect. As someone else said "What an unencyclopedic crock". Danausi (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting view on the deletion policy, "I don't like it therefore it should be deleted"! If the article has an "AFL bias" (no doubt you are entirely unbiased, of course), it is because the concept of the line came from the 1978 Ron Barassi Memorial Lecture (i.e an Australian Rules themed event). As for the concept rarely being used I would have thought in these post-Karmicheal Hunt days, the geographic cultural division of the nation based on football codes is a constant and enduring theme in Australian discourse, no matter what you call it. While perhaps most non-AFL fans would not recognise the name "Barassi", I doubt most AFL fans would recognise the name "Clive Churchill" but I wouldn't use that as the basis to argue for deletion of the Clive Churchill Medal. "I never heard of it" is a poor argument for deletion. Football (soccer) isn't mentioned because it isn't relevant; there is no geographic divergance in its popularity across the nation, the article isn't (or at least shouldn't) be a general ramble on Australian sport. Cricket, netball and underwater hockey aren't mentioned either. Perhaps, instead of calling others' work "an unencyclopedic crock" and arguing for deletion how about fixing what you don't like through the use of reliable sources. (For the record, I live in NSW and grew up playing RU in Vic.). -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mate the only way to fix what I don't like is to delete the article haha. It may be interesting but its basically pub talk masked by some academic's opinion and not encyclopedic. Danausi (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is it ?
The article says that to the left of the line AFL is the "main football code played' but to the right of the line the rugby codes are the "most important codes". The map says that the line separates where the codes "are most popular". Well which is it ? Most important, main code played, most popular ? And don't start me on the likihood of this fuzzy distinction being at all likely to apply as it's set out in Western NSW. What an unencyclopedic crock. - Sticks  66  14:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added Original research tag, as I believe this is a theory that a couple of people wrote about and I don't think this article constitutes notability. It is a theory, not really mainstream, and is fictional, and theres nothing really about the actual line and how it was figured out. I could have done the same thing.   The Windler      talk   01:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm about to remove it, as the theory was derived by a university professor in 1978 (and if they aren't allowed to do OR, then who can?) and was fairly accurate at that time. Do a quick google search and you'll see that the term is still in use, but generally in a sense that it is being broken down, or becoming more permeable.  I'll add some more refs, try to make it more historically based and it should be OK to all.  And Sticks... I think you are being a bit pedantic about "Most important, main code played, most popular"... but I accept that western NSW is possibly an anomaly to the line... but was it in 1978?  By all means stick a fact or OR tag on a particular section, but not on the whole article.  The-Pope (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm pedantic. But you're happy to assert something without even clarifying what you're asserting. "We're not sure what it's more of... but it's definitely more". "And we reckon that applies in Narrandera, in Hay, in West Wyalong, in Broken Hill, in Wilcannia" "You want facts to prove it ? - well now you're being pedantic".- Sticks  66  12:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The removal in other articles to this article is rather unconstructive. This should have been raised with WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Riverina and WikiProject AFL so a wider view and give a consensus on what should happen. Bidgee (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, we removed this picture - a stylised depiction of a concept - from the article Sport in Australia. The picture appeared in the lead paragraph ! Not buried in the article, not in the section on AFL or RL but at top of the article. As if it were fact! We're an encyclopedia. - Sticks  66  12:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thats fine about this article, if all I have achieved is that refs will be added to this article then that is he point of critisicm. To make it stronger. I can accept this article staying that's fine. I have removed the links to this article which seem to use this as factually true in todays society. That is, this line can no longer be supported as accuarately true. It may have been somewhat true in 1978, but it needs to be made clear in every-single one of those articles that the Barassi line is fictional and not factually true, especially in today's world. Wikipedia is all about factual, and even if this talks about the fact that this line is fictional on this page, it is not implied on those other pages. I still believe there is a lot of OR currently in this article, feel free to remove it, but make sure you fix up the article. Otherwise, it might return, later down the track.   The Windler      talk   01:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well found some possible sources http://arts.monash.edu.au/publications/eras/edition-10/scully-review.pdf and http://www.deakin.edu.au/dro/eserv/DU:30015957/hay-ourwickedgame-2006.pdf > Bidgee (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The line is no more or less factual than the equator. The line is relevant and current because it continues to separate the overall area where Australian rules is more popular / important as opposed to the rugby codes. The perfectly straighht line is less accurate and more stylised but still relevant. A more accurate line would not be straight. What the line does is communicate an idea of cultural separation which certainly does exist in Australia today, and the concepts involved are a good illustraion as to the policies of the major football codes now and in the recent past. Mdw0 (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Equator may be imaginary but it is the intersection of the earth's surface with the plane perpendicular to the Earth's axis of rotation and containing the Earth's center of mass. The Barassi Line as depicted in the offending drawing is somebody's simplified, stylised depiction of a concept mentioned by somebody in a 1978 lecture. The Equator, the Barrasi Line, just as factual as each other. Yeah, right- Sticks  66  13:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Future
Why is the sub-head "Future" ? This section doesn't seem to talk about the future.

It says After a period of contraction, its slower approach has seen its two newest clubs on its own side of the line achieve mixed results. Does this mean that the NRL taking a slower approach has caused the the newest clubs to have mixed results ? And by mixed results do we mean they've both been up and down, or do we mean that Souths have been poorly performed and Titans have been well-performed. And in any case what do this have to do with the NRL taking a slower approach. And is it right to call the South Sydney Rabbitohs one of NRL's newest clubs ? 100 years old, new, hmmm.

It says Whereas the success of the Gold Coast Titans has wiped previous poorly-performing clubs on the Gold Coast from the memory of locals and occasionally topped the rankings. What are we saying ? That because the Titans have been successful, no one can remember the Giants, or the Crushers or the Seagulls ? - Sticks  66  10:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Then there's the section "Current Situation" which says that the AFL's 2 clubs and RL & RU's 1 each have had "mixed success". Just how successful would the Sydney Swans or the Melbourne Storm need to be to be described as "a unbridled success". Read the articles on these clubs - there's nothing "mixed" about their success. And the Brisbane Lions - three consecutive premierships wasn't it ? - Sticks  66  10:23, 30 March 09


 * I guess if you are counting premierships as a measure of success, then you also need to take into account the salary cap and draft concessions used to get them those premierhips (both NRL and AFL), which ultimately cost heartland clubs. Then when these clubs aren't winning games, it is clear that they are not viable.  SO I think Mixed Success is a fair description.  --Rulesfan (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over the line
User:Mdw0 has raised concerns over my deletion of the following paragraph and has reinstated it:

The exact location of the line may be disputed, and the stylised straight line is not particularly accurate. It is yet to be shown that any of Queensland favours Australian football over rugby codes, and in the Riverina area of New South Wales both codes vie for dominance. In the Canberra area there are two professional teams playing rugby codes, the Canberra Raiders and Brumbies, whereas the AFL only plays a few games there each year.

I'm not actually censoring this, my issue with this section is that it is unnecessary for at least a couple of reasons:

a) it contains uncited conjecture and quite possibly POV as well. since when is there a need to clarify the popularity of the game in Queensland when the article makes no claim that Australian football has popularity over other codes there

b) the image is a representation of Professor Ian Turner's version of the concept, as stated in 1978. As such, it is not trying to say that it is the story today.  The caption reflects this, all a reader has to do is actually read it.  So stating that it may be disputed is irrelevant.  Citing counterarguments to Turner's essay could be a good idea, but I haven't yet encountered any.  The story today is mentioned in subsequent paragraphs.  And if someone wants to have a stab at a more accurate drawing (of Ian Turner's account - not their own) or a graph representing the actual situation today, they are most welcome.  If you were being 100% accurate, then the line would cut through the top right corner of South Australia, as Birdsville is slightly west of this.  Then the line would miss Canberra and hit the border of NSW and VIC on the south eastern tip.

c) it is unnecessary detail in the opening paragraph of text that is already stated in detail in the article itself. The opening para is a summary.

d) there are plenty of articles which provide a way of clarification if the reader wants to make up their own mind.

Personally I don't think that such a line exists. It is not a state border or anything. Yet it is a eans of conceptual representation of the sporting landscape and probably the most effective one ever put forward.

--Rulesfan (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The straight line indicates certain portions of western Queensland and southern NSW favours Aussie Rules. That, surely is not in doubt, therefore such a claim IS in the article. The inaccuracy was was brought up by certain pedants who are well within their rights to indicate such inaccuracies in the stylised straight line, so this paragraph was added. It is the only indication in the article that the stylised line is not necessarily accurate, merely indicative. The caption does not indicate the line may have changed or that a specifically accurate line would not be straight, merely when it was first suggested. You cant infer from that that there is any change unless its mentioned. The rest of the article details the cultural divide's effects on expansion plans by the various football leagues, not that the straight line is not accurate. A clear qualifier is necessary to counter the inaccuracies of the image, otherwise you'll always have editors trying to add such qualifiers in. If you think its excessively verbose, edit it back a bit.


 * When you say you doubt such a line exists do you mean you doubt the accuracy of the straight line, or do you think there is no such cultural/sporting separation between the states? Mdw0 (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a clear cultural/sporting separation between the states, but it is by no means a straight line. Half the places the line passes through don't even have enough people there to organise or even watch any code of football.   However the image is about the concept, so it doesn't matter whether it is factual or if the line ever existed in reality.  Who cares if the straight line is accurate, in the end it is just some guy's educated opinion/theory.  Perhaps a graph which shows the locations of regular national league matches the "in enemy territory" might balance the article.  --Rulesfan (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * All true, but as I said, if there's no comment on the inaccuracy of the straight line, you'll always have pedants inserting their two cents. Its better to have a couple of lines regarding the inaccuracy of the straight line at the bottom of the opening section and then get on with the good stuff. I understand the image is about the concept, but images like this are very powerful, and if there's no indication the line only roughly indicates the divide it will be accorded an accuracy it never had. Its up to us as editors to forsee this, and by pointing out an inaccuracy we make our article more accurate. Mdw0 (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Union?
I'm well aware that RU was affected by this, but wasn't Barassi talking about RL? That was been much more popular than union in Australia, even if RU is catching up. The killer blow for RU during pre-war Australia was the defection of a number of Wallabies to the other code.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether he directly referred to union or not, the phenomonon he named - the cultural divide - still applies to both rugby codes. Mdw0 (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Barassi didn't mention anything. Read the article. HiLo48 (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether Turner directly referred to union or not, the phenomonon he named - the cultural divide - still applies to both rugby codes. Mdw0 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * True. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely ?
If the article (and the image) is about a concept presented by Prof Turner in 1978, then by definition the theories about patterns that have emerged since then: discussion about the Brumbies, the Raiders, the Swans, late 80s expansion etc must all be Original Research. So exactly whose work is the discussion in : 3rd paragraph (no citations), 6th paragraph (no citations), 7th paragraph - "Expansion" (no citations), 8th paragraph "Australian rules football" (no citations) and each paragraph thereafter ? None of this theory can be attributed to Turner - he died in 1978 ! Let's not kid ourselves, bloke gives entertaining lecture in 1978 about a interesting concept, thereafter some Wikipedians turn it into an ongoing essay - Sticks  66  14:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure what your concern is. I agree that large parts of the article are insufficiently referenced, but they are mostly true or at least realistic, and could be sourced. Some of us should simply get should work on that. The article is about the imaginary line, not Turner's speech. The line is an admittedly inaccurate but useful concept to describe an interesting social divide in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My concern is that other than that the Professor gave a lecture in 1978 on the topic, most of article is original research.- Sticks  66  13:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, this article is generally about the divide between different types of football, and most if not all is probably easily sourced. The speech was just where the divides name was given. Speaking of sports and the Barassi line, the Lions have fallen since their glory of the early 2000's. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for making my point in tidier language Chipmunkdavis. (My language got messy and my proofreading was terrible!) The divide is real. The line is a useful way of describing it. Our job is to find sources, not just abandon the article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank Chipmunkdavis for perfectly demonstrating what it means to cite things on Wikipedia: write out the text first and then just lazily search for tenuously related articles online. Great job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.216.144 (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Sticks 66 is saying that a theory postulated by someone cannot be discussed or attributed to anything after that person has introduced the concept. Does this apply to scientific theory as well? Tough to all those who want to apply quantum theory or relativity to any new ideas. Mdw0 (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually mdw0 if the only place where new applications of quantum theory get discussed or advanced is on the talk page of the Wikipedia article on quantum theory, by WP editors rather than scientists - which is exactly what seems to have happened here over the last seven years - then I would indeed say that such advancements are ORIGINAL RESEARCH. As I said, a Professor gives an entertaining lecture in 1978; some Wikipedian creates a four sentence article in 2007 about it; by 2014 following much collective original research and postulating it has become a 20 paragraph article with scarce citations (none of which if you click throgh - even the ADB entry on Turner - actually mention the Barassi Line). This article always was and remains an unencyclopedic crock.- Sticks  66  15:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well that's one viewpoint I suppose. I think you might be extrapolating from the title of the article OR that isn't there because rather than just being about the line in Turner's lecture, it is what the Line divides - the dichotomy in Australia's sporting culture - that the article is about. I think Sticks66 is trying to say that the application of any analysis of demand, policy or popularity after the lecture, no matter how well documented, must be Original Research because it is the relevance to the Line and what the Line represents that is questioned. Sticks66 is saying that the Original Research occurs when we say that any of it applies to the article at all, rather than the gathering of the data. I think that is far too limited an outlook to apply to an article which is about Australia's footballing sporting culture and its fundamental division. The Barassi Line is just a good name to describe the overall article, rather than "Differences in popularity of the main football code across Australia." Sticks66 seems to think the article should only describe the Line as Turner described it and shouldn't go into how and why the line exists. This extension of outlook is not Original Research, it is a natural progression of an idea that has turned out to be a bit broader than Sticks66 understood it to be in the beginning. Mdw0 (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes well I'll be fascinated to see how more WP editors "progress the idea" further. We'll then have additional opinion masquerading as fact. - Sticks  66  15:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of recent articles in reliable sources that mention the line by name when discussing expansion plans and activities of the rugby codes and Australian rules football. That shows that this is a living concept that can validly be written about in an encyclopaedic way. There is also a reasonably clear boundary for the topic. Some soccer loving editors added material about their game some time ago, apparently because they thought their game was somehow being ignored, but it was deleted as off-topic. There are no major issues about the definition, currency and scope of this topic. A perfectly reasonable one to have an active article on. HiLo48 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course if there were any glaring opinion masquerading as fact there would be citation needed markers all over the place, which there isn't. So we're not doing too badly. But I think we should make an effort to do a bit of backwards referencing where we relate any of the references we find to the article as it stands. Mdw0 (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Beyond the line or above/below the line
The use of above or below the line doesn't work, because we are talking about a line that is mostly north-south, so talking of AFL being below the line is problematic because Darwin is clearly above the line but is on the AFL side of the line. Beyond is better because it works as a respective 'other' side for all codes. I would also be OK with east/west of the line, because there are no anomalies using this. But beyond is better. Mdw0 (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's really just silly to say that "above or below" doesn't work. It must be obvious to even the simplest mind what it means. I'll admit that I'm not a total fan though. It depends on a mapping orientation convention that may not always be case. But "beyond" is also inappropriate, because that's describing things from the perspective of someone on the Aussie Rules side of the line. We need a neutral perspective. So, what to say? I can understand that the "above or below" idea came from looking at the major population centres of Sydney and Melbourne being "up" or "down" on a conventional map, but we really do need a way of describing the whole of Australia, and avoiding that mapping convention. I'd be happy with "east or west", although it may confuse some Victorians, who think they're in eastern Australia. Could others cope with "east" and "west"? HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just adding to the above, the technically correct names for the two sides would of course be "the Rugby League side" and "the Australian Football side". It would be fine to use these, but my less wordy suggestion is east and west. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It's pretty annoying when someone initiates a discussion, I create a thoughtful reply, and the first editor doesn't return to continue the conversation. There was also an IP editor who changed that part of the article after this conversation, who I invited here to comment. And nothing eventuated. Think I might make my proposed changes myself. HiLo48 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I dont see how you can say 'beyond' is from an Aussie rules perspective. Beyond the line means the 'other' side, whether your viewpoint is Sydney or Melbourne. But obviously for some people that is confusing. I agree that naming each side the Aussie Rules and Rugby League/Union side would be technically correct, but its a bit unwieldly. I think east and west is a decent compromise. And I dont think there is any significant population of readers in Victoria who is unaware that although they are an 'eastern' state, that they to the west of Cape Howe where the line goes. And excuse me for not logging on to Wikipedia for a couple of days to read your so-called 'thoughtful' reply, it was not to spite you I promise. If you're annoyed by that you must completely blow your lid when something truly provocative happens... Mdw0 (talk) 06:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

There is little value to this article
Ron Barrassi has limited notability outside of the AFL community in this country and this article fails to meet NPOV in many instances. This article needs to be cleaned up, or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.201.23 (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * These are completely erroneous opinions and you have clearly missed the significance of the article. It  is not an article about Ron Barrassi himself but about the historical geographical divisions where Australian football has been the dominant code which has been called the "Barrassi Line". Whatever issues the article might have it is still on a topic of notability. The only person with an obvious POV on this is yourself. Afterwriting (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for suggesting someone else do all the work. If you can't fix the problems yourself, at least have a go at outlining what the problems actually are, and where NPOV is failing, rather than leaving it to guesswork. Strange that your point of view about Barassi's notability is OK to express, and yet the points of view you accuse the article of having are absent. Whatever value the article has or hasn't, unsupported demands to 'clean up or delete' have precisely nil. Mdw0 (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to cleanup this article but frankly it's a useless article for pro AFL supporters, for whatever success the AFL has had in expanding they've also had teams like the Brisbane Bears, Western Sydney Giants and the Gold Coast Suns. As far as I can see the success of all of this has been about 60/40. Rugby League has successfully expanded into Canberra and Melbourne whilst also creating the Brisbane Broncos, where the AFL have only really had any success in expanding into Rugby League territory with the Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions despite throwing money at the Western Sydney Giants, who failed to compete with the Western Sydney Wanderers in Football (soccer) and  the Gold Coast Suns who have failed to do little more than nothing. --60.228.201.23 (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're trying to say that both codes have had 'mixed results' when it comes to their teams on the other side of the line. I agree that this should be mentioned in the AFL section as well as the rugby league section. I added in a paragraph, but its pretty bad. Edits on that are welcome. I don't think the history of the Raiders illustrates the nature of the line. Although Canberra wasn't expanded into by the NRL until 1982, it has always had a strong rugby and rugby league culture. The fact is that like most of the Riverina, there has also always been an Aussie Rules presence stronger than in the rest of NSW. This hasn't changed much since the introduction of the Raiders, but I do believe that the commitment of the rugby codes to a presence in Canberra has meant a return commitment from Canberrans that has kept professional AFL in Canberra at bay. But this battle of the codes for the soul of Canberrans has little to do with the nature of the Barassi line and the national forces involved. League's success with the Storm was tarnished by the Storm's cheating of the salary cap, and by the demise of the Reds and the Rams. The point of these sections is not to pit the codes against each other by saying the AFL has had more 'success' in putting teams across the line because it has 4 teams versus 1. It is to illustrate the policies of the codes and show difficulties in combating the social constructs that created and enforced the line for so long. Other than the lack of mentioning that the AFL had had mixed success like the rugby codes, what else makes you think the article is pro-AFL? It cant be because the line was named after Barassi? Mdw0 (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is not about which code is better or more successful. It's about a very real divide in the popularity of football codes in Australia, one that involves major language and cultural differences as well. It's an article worth having, but could always do with improvement. HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The article as it was read that the AFL had, had "success" whatever that means by any account in terms of neutrality, while other codes have not had success in crossing the Barassi line. Conceded point that the AFL has never been as "successful" in the ACT as it would like to be, however the general claim by those who would support the AFL is that they would like to claim the ACT as AFL territory. While this article is not about expansion directly, it is indirectly and neglecting to incorporate Rugby League expansion at the same time heavily weighs the article in favour of AFL supporters and would appear to make the article biased.

I would personally remove this article, or talk about it indirectly in terms of AFL and Rugby League expansion, it has little merit on its own other than for the purposes of trolling --60.228.201.23 (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a couple of tips - See how the posts of others here are indented to show who they are replying to? That's achieved by using the : (colon) symbol as many times as the number of spaces you want to indent. It makes conversations easier to follow. And can you please "sign" your posts by typing ~ at the end? HiLo48 (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The line exists. It illustrates an interesting and important divide in Australian sporting culture, and one which is very rare in the sporting world. Only the rugby league/union divide in Britain has a comparable geographical split inside a national boundary. The Barassi Line's noteworthiness should put talk of removing of the article to rest.


 * There was a point made that the AFL bits failed to mention that the AFL met with 'mixed success.' This failure to ensure an overall NPOV is a fair call. It needs to be said that the Swans and Lions were below AFL standard for a long, long time and required significant help from the central body before they were competitive. The Suns and Giants are currently well below standard and have also required financial and other assistance from the AFL to survive. Whether the new clubs can repeat the same success as the Swans and Lions in the near future or even at all is still up for question, there is no doubt about that.


 * However, it does not diminish the fact that the edits regarding rugby league expansion teams in Canberra, Wollongong and Brisbane are irrelevant to an article about the Barassi Line, as would be exhaustive detail about the Eagles, Crows, Power and Dockers. I don't understand the insistence of this irrelevant material going in, when the editor says the whole article is no good anyway. Why would someone care about the edits in an article they want deleted? Mdw0 (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's in the best interests of everyone if this article is just cleaned up to a standard that it meets a NPOV as clearly in its current/previous shape it has issues. I have added citation tags for some of the claims that need verification rather than removing them at this stage. Please see Citation_needed, No original research and SOURCESbefore adding any more unverifiable claims. --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed the citation tag for the statement from the statement that the AFL has created the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney clubs. It's obvious. It's very public knowledge. Policy says that citing such statements is unnecessary. Your other citation tags are in the Future section. I think we should remove that whole section. Anything there is almost certain to be WP:SPECULATION or WP:POV, neither of which is acceptable. Thanks for drawing our attention to it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The AFL know they will have to prop up the Gold Coast Suns and GWS for some time before the clubs are viable. From last I remember, Brisbane is still propped up by salary cap concessions in the AFL, to say "development is completed" isn't really correct, or a fact. If the development was completed then these clubs would not continuously need to be propped up by the AFL. I think it's a valid citation tag --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The big leagues are always propping up less successful clubs, in all professional football codes in Australia. The AFL right now is propping up a couple of Melbourne based clubs too. It's not really an issue. The Brisbane and Sydney clubs exist. I think we can accept that. But anyway, to me it's not the most important aspect of this article. As you say, it could be seen as claiming that one sport is better than the other, and that's not the point of the article. It is that the line exists. It's real. It's a sporting, cultural and linguistic divide. They're the bits that matter the most. Would you be happy to see the Future section gone? HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see how a future section could be much more than speculation, so yes --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Soccer
I have included a section to show that the sport of soccer is not affected by the concept of the barassi line, if no one has any complaints I'll expand on it further at a later date --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as with the other recent addition of content about NRL expansion on the Rugby side of the line, I see no point in including anything on soccer, precisely because, as you say, it's not affected. What is relevant, and I'd like to find some good sourcing for, is the linguistic aspects of the line, and hence the impact on the demand from soccer administrators and fans on the non-Aussie Rules side of the line that the whole country should call soccer football. That's the one area where the line affects soccer. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the recent edit I'm going to remove a bit more of that section. On the issue of linguistics I did find a bit in one of the articles I referenced last night, although theres a bit of a problem with the neutrality of it it. The author despite writing an article on football with reference to soccer in Australia uses soccer for the majority of the article and is somewhat biased in the causes for why football has failed to gain traction in Australia. I'll have a look at it again and see what else I can find --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If he is a writer from the Aussie Rules side of the line, he is bound to use the name "soccer". Don't you understand that yet? It's not offensive. It makes sense, because the word "football", up until those Sydney administrators of soccer foolishly told their fans to call the game football everywhere in Australia, ONLY meant Aussie Rules. It didn't have multiple uses, as on the Rugby side of the line. So, people who know one and only one meaning for a word suddenly hear it being used to mean something different, at the direction of seemingly ill-informed Sydneyites. You may not be aware, but there's a very long term rivalry between Melbournme and Sydney. For Melburnians to hear Sydneyites telling them to change the way they talk is actually a quite negative thing to do. It damages soccer. Very foolish. I'm a high school teacher. Every school on the Aussie Rules side of the line has what they call a Football Team, that plays Aussie Rules. It's been that way for over a century. They also have a soccer team. It would make no sense at all to try call that a football team too, would it? So lots of kids play soccer, and are quite happy with the name. I'm truly hoping that you are beginning to get the picture. Oh, and as for sourcing what I've just written, there is no need. Wikipedia has a concept of WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, which says that one doesn't have to cite facts that are common knowledge. What I have written IS common knowledge to people on that side of the line. You wouldn't ask an American for sources to prove that the game they call football is American football, and that game alone, so don't ask people who exclusively use the name "football" for Aussie Rules football to prove it either. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, and will you please stop pushing a POV with your persistent use of the name "football" in conversation here. Wikipedia consensus is to call the round ball game "soccer". As well as that, when you say something about the game of football without obvious context, and especially in a thread where more than one code is being discussed, I immediately think the word means Aussie Rules. Although it's my normal usage, out of courtesy to you and other readers, and for clarity, I have used that term, Aussie Rules, for the game invented in Victoria. I would never do that when just talking to other Victorians, or South Australians, or Western Australians, or Tasmanians, or Northern Territorians, or folks from the Riverina in NSW. I'd just say "football". Can you too please make some effort to improve clarity here? HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Given my background, I am well aware of what goes on in Melbourne, my family has also lived in Sydney so I'm aware of what goes on in sydney in terms of "football" as with everything north of Canberra, football generally means rugby league and occasionally rugby union, the Melbourne/Sydney rivalry has little to do with this discussion however. You are pushing a POV agenda here that Aussie rules is primarily known as football and yet you wont substantiate why you are denying soccer the right to be considered football despite facts to the contrary showing that this is what it is called by its governing body and supporters. You are also not justifying why anyone should put up with the term "soccer" other than because of some imaginary line in the sand which has little to no significance to anybody other than AFL supporters. I have substantiated why soccer is called "football" across Australia by football supporters, the wherefores and the changing shifts in language which you continue not to acknowledge.


 * Furthermore It is also common knowledge that there has been a growing shift in language and use of the word "football" to represent soccer. I'm not going to get into this debate any further, as I said I'm over it, and I'm over your inability to address the facts of the matter as they are that the term for soccer has moved on. In terms of my own speech which has nothing directly to do with Wikipedia, I will continue to use the word football without disambiguation and will continue to refer to rugby as rugby and AFL as AFL/Aussie Rules, there is no disambiguation necessary in my own use of terms. I suggest you get over it and continue to improve wikipeda.  --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You are a very frustrating editor to communicate with. You just posted as if didn't say three quarters of what I wrote in those previous two posts. I won't repeat it. I'm sure others will comprehend. And you still don't comprehend the linguistic significance of the Barassi Line. I'm sad for you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * PS: Our conversations would be almost incomprehensible if you and I both insisted on using the name football for both Aussie Rules and soccer. Here is one of my earlier posts using that approach....


 * If he is a writer from the football side of the line, he is bound to use the name football. Don't you understand that yet? It's not offensive. It makes sense, because the word "football", up until those Sydney administrators of soccer foolishly told their fans to call the game football everywhere in Australia, ONLY meant football. It didn't have multiple uses, as on the football side of the line. So, people who know one and only one meaning for a word suddenly hear it being used to mean something different, at the direction of seemingly ill-informed Sydneyites. You may not be aware, but there's a very long term rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney. For Melburnians to hear Sydneyites telling them to change the way they talk is actually a quite negative thing to do. It damages football. Very foolish. I'm a high school teacher. Every school on the football side of the line has what they call a Football Team, that plays football. It's been that way for over a century. They also have a football team. It would make no sense at all to try call that a football team too, would it? So lots of kids play football, and are quite happy with the name. I'm truly hoping that you are beginning to get the picture. Oh, and as for sourcing what I've just written, there is no need. Wikipedia has a concept of WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, which says that one doesn't have to cite facts that are common knowledge. What I have written IS common knowledge to people on that side of the line. You wouldn't ask an American for sources to prove that the game they call football is football, and that game alone, so don't ask people who exclusively use the name "football" for football to prove it either.


 * Meaningless, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all you're wrong... Football on my side of your arbitrary line in the sand has had no less than 3 different sports competing for the name football for as long as I've been alive, rugby league, rugby union, soccer and 4 if you count the AFL. I have never had a problem in changing my vernacular to suit the occasion and have never become confused as to which sport is which in a discussion with anyone about the matter I could hypothesise that your argument is about as bereft of logic as those people who live in Far North Queensland who claim they wont know when to milk the cows if we ever adopt daylight savings time.


 * Could you please provide me evidence that the Ron Barassi lecture actually mentioned the terms soccer or football (soccer) directly? I have had very little interest in the term in anything other than passing conversation and would be interested to hear directly which thoughts if any were held towards the sport of "soccer" directly to put this to rest once and for all --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You know, I think you're actually getting closer to understanding the situation on the other side of the line. It's very different from on your side, which you've just described. Now, go back and read some posts from me and others again. I can't be bothered repeating myself. (And do stop putting words in my mouth.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You know I just don't get it actually... If I wasn't educated enough to care I wouldn't even remember the name Ron Barassi, and I doubt the majority of Queenslanders or those who live in New South Wales could identify him, or the prose named after him in a lineup. While for the other side of the line Barassi may fall under notability. I doubt the rest of us combined really care and/or have given conscious thought about it and no one much did, or does except on the odd occasion where a team on our side of the line manages to fluke a piece of silverware in the case of the Lions and Swans and then everybody returns pretty much to the point of not caring again as soon as the team isn't winning again. I honestly believe that the AFL and particularly Andrew Demetriou himself, take the sport of Australian Rules football far too seriously and perhaps you do as well and that this rubs off on arguments with "football" supporters broadly speaking who are pro AFL. AFL is played by one country in which it's not the dominant football code in 5 states or territories discounting the Northern Territory and Tasmania where there is no "dominant" football code to speak of, the sport of rugby with varying rules is played in every continent except North America at a professional level, the sport of Soccer is played in every corner of the world at a professional level. I think you're taking yourself too seriously --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You've really got hung up over that name, haven't you? And your seeming contempt for Aussie Rules is distorting your perspective. It could equally well be called the Dally Messenger Line, or The Line That Divides Australia Into Places Where The Rugby Codes Are Popular And Where Aussie Rules Is Popular. But the talk was given by a Victorian, hence "Barassi". Who he was is unimportant at this point. I don't take Aussie Rules all that seriously, but my local culture does. I actually played more soccer than Aussie Rules as a kid. (And a lot of baseball.) I am just trying to get you to understand the impact on a culture of one single sport known as "football" for 150 years. Anyway, a question. Your thoughts on what I told you about secondary schools on the Aussie Rules side of the line? They all have a Football team. It plays Aussie Rules. That's the way it's been effectively forever. Can you see that the other team, the one that plays the round ball game, cannot also be known as a football team? Just imagine the confusion. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not hung up on anything, I'm merely acknowledging that the term for the sport of "soccer" has been decided by its governing body and as a result the sport is no long considered to be "soccer" but instead "football". The government have accepted it, a fair percentage of the media has accepted it including the two dominant mediums on which its displayed Foxtel and SBS and a fair amount of the population has accepted it. My thoughts on the naming dispute as it were are the same as the ones that I hold about curtain faders and cow milkers in Far North Queensland... It is silly arguments blown out of context over something that is meaningless. Furthermore, they're two different sports played with different balls, on different fields, with different rules. I am not sure how anybody could get the sport of "soccer" and AFL confused in any way what so ever --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Now you're just being silly. I've told you what happens, and you just throw insults. So, people from a very different culture, who don't conform to your thought patterns, are just fools. Sorry. that approach is not smart. Do try to accept difference. And reality. Think about the school sport assemblies. "Can those who want to play football move over there, and those who want to play football, stay here." Nah, doesn't work. There's a perfectly good word for the round ball game. One that everyone's comfortable with. (Including the players.) It's "soccer". So that's what's used. It works. And please don't ask for a source. Trust me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources: football = AFL, Football = FIFA, football = AFL, Football = AFL, Football = Rugby League, Football = Touch = Rugby, Football = AFL, Football= Soccer. Worth noting here: The National Library of Australia uses the term soccer for the purposes of categorizing it as a football code in Australia.  I think this actually is probably one of the best indicators.  I don't think soccer is appropriate for being mentioned in this article any more than Soccer in Australia should have a line in the lede that says "Soccer in Australia should not be confused with Australian rules football and rugby league football, all played in Australia and all involving kicking the ball between a pair of posts." And yeah, I'd like to see a source on why it should be included.  We should be thinking about sources and verifiability first.  This tendency of the major soccer in Australia proponents to be content first, sources not considered.  That should stop. Sources first would go a long way towards resolving neutrality problems. --LauraHale (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the current issues that are going on with "football" in Australia I think there should be references on the issue. While the NLA may attribute the round ball version of football to soccer, the AIS = Football, while the AIS has AFL as "Australian rules football the Queensland government is soccer/football and AFL Western Australia has football for the dimensions of a football - soccer field, the South Australian government as football (soccer) for school sports, the Australian government has Football (soccer) an ABS article from 2009 has Association Football (soccer). The New South Wales government has Football (soccer)


 * Anyway I already suggested football (soccer) as a compromise as it is representative of most of the national and state authorities views about what football should be called in Australia. HOWEVER none of the AFL proponents seem to like that one either --Orestes1984 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You're still avoiding those school realities I spoke of above. In schools and in the community, nobody on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line calls it anything but soccer. This includes the players of that game, not just your target of insults, those evil "AFL proponents". They don't call it "football (soccer)". That would be silly. They use the traditional and very sensible "soccer". (BTW, nobody uses the name AFL for Aussie Rules, either. AFL is the name of the highest level competition. That would be like using "A-League" as the name of the round ball game. Do you play A League?) We use the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game, "soccer". HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're wrong, the sport is referred to in Queensland and New South Wales by just about everyone as either AFL or in a way that denigrates it as "that other game" and as per above, no one gets confused about the matter and to answer the above. What causes "unnecessary friction" is the continuos and ongoing denial that there is an ongoing shift in linguistics when it comes to the sport of "soccer" in this country --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The Barassi Line only explains the dichotomy in the two most popular codes, therefore soccer does not apply. Soccer is already mentioned as not being affected by the line in the last line of the opening section. All the material in that Soccer section is irrelevant, pointless overkill, and as such has been deleted. If you want to write about friction between the codes, either start up a new article or write in the 'Soccer in Australia' article. That's 'Soccer' in Australia, not 'football', where the details about naming conventions are relevant. Mdw0 (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with that deletion Mdw0. However, I'd love to get something well-sourced into the article about the linguistic significance of the line, and how it defines the places where soccer cannot easily and automatically claim the name "football", as its administrators are trying to do nationally, and as some editors from the rugby side of the line, who won't accept the realities of the common name of Aussie Rules being "football", are pushing here. I have argued that it is covered by WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, because everyone who lives on the Aussie Rules side of the line simply knows that it's true, but some NSW and Qld soccer fans seem to want to argue about it and want proof. It's bad faith editing to not believe something true that another editor tells, I know, but they do it anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And as I keep repeating Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. To quote verbatim verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. It has nothing to do with bad faith and everything to do with verifiability. Furthermore if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Providing proof is unnecessary when it's a case of WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Would you ask an American what the word "football" means to them? For you to argue that what I'm saying may not be true makes you look like a fool to everyone who knows the truth. That includes me. If you think that means I'm calling you a fool, so be it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What I am saying is that football is now a contested term and so if you want to maintain the fact that football is referred to as AFL alone on your side of the line a little verifiability would be more than appreciated for yourself. Furthermore, in terms of academic veracity, there is no such thing as truth. In terms of Wikipedia, as per above if you are sure it is true then it must be verifiable. At best you are being lazy, at worst you are not showing competence --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you're talking crap. Would you ask an American what the word "football" means to them? HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a different culture, your argument put forward makes no sense a little civility would not be lost on you either. For someone who claims to have such a hard time with editors consistently, you may wish to invest in one of those things called a mirror --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A different culture? FFS! That's exactly what we're talking about here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The context of America's sporting culture has no relevance to Australia and therefore your argument is not logical, given the recent changes and given that the Barassi line only exists in the minds of AFL supporters it is not out of line for me to ask you to verify why you believe Australian Rules football has exclusive rights to be considered football on your side of the line where everybody on my side of the line has no problem using the term football interchangeably depending on the context.


 * You're right there is a divide and that divide shows a lack of competence, to understand that a word can mean more than one thing at the same time on your side of the line. You victorians are a weird lot the rest of this country rarely understands that are often over protective of trivial matters of little consequence --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that you're finally realising that there IS a divide, but you deny there's a line. Hmmmmm. And do broaden your insults and attacks. it's not just Victorians who are weird. It's South Australians, Western Australians, Northern Territorians, Tasmanians and Riverinians as well. See Barassi Line. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My "attack" in jest is that this remains yet another silly artificial divide between victorian things like the game invented in that state and the rest of Australia as in your New south Wales vs. Victorians comment. Other examples may include but are not limited to... "where is the sporting capital of Australia" and also "where was Australia's government first established." These are honestly trivial things that most people in Victoria spend far too much time wasting their time attempting to defend.


 * More seriously, your failure to recognise the linguistic shift that has occurred in Australia is astounding and incompetent beyond belief and this is one of the guidelines that is required in order to edit a page such as this one--Orestes1984 (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Virtually no linguistic shift has occurred in the common use of soccer vs football on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, for the obvious reason to anybody who lives there that "football" mean Aussie Rules, and has for 150 years. Have a look at the print version of Australia's biggest selling newspaper, here. Scroll down in the Table of Contents on the right. You will find "Soccer" there in all its glory. Rupert Murdoch must be lacking in competence too. "Soccer" is the ONLY non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes well and? Interpretatively... The Age which is the other major traditional broadsheet outside of The Australian and also coming out of Victoria has soccer at the top of the page, but also has "latest football news" as at the time of writing this in the middle of the page. Your next incompetent statement is what exactly? --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you look at what that Age link url actually said? And did you click on it to see the headline it linked to? The Age is really mostly managed from Sydney now, and STILL has big SOCCER headlines! LOL. I think you're learning, but the truth didn't fit with your own preconceived world view, reinforced by those silly Sydney based soccer administrators. What WILL they do about all my soccer playing friends who still call game soccer? LOL again. HiLo48 (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * For a Victorian you're pretty much in a state of denial, you said there had been no linguistic shift, yet perhaps at least traditionally Victoria's largest broadsheet has latest football news smack bang in the middle of their page, no matter what the lead is, it says football quite clearly which opposes your view of "no linguistic shift". In this context once again you are incompetent, and in denial of the fact that the latest football news refers to soccer. It seems to me that The Age is happy to use the word Football with reference to soccer in their style guide, yet you can't fathom such an occurrence of terms and instead it's the dastedly "Sydney" editors up to no good again. Face the facts, you are incompetent or pushing a POV argument. --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The Age is a Fairfax newspaper. Just checked the Fairfax website. Contact address: FAIRFAX MEDIA LIMITED, GPO 506, SYDNEY NSW 2001. So what we have is a Sydney based organisation using soccer as a name for the game you insist is called football. I note that you ignored Murdoch and Australia's largest selling newspaper. The basic point is that "soccer" is the only unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is still irrelevant to this article, because the term is an academic and scholarly one. I'd love to see the sources describing soccer as it relates to the Barassi Line.  (It isn't viewed as a linguistic one anyway.  It is described as a cultural one.  Soccer has always been a more national than regional game.   It does not describe any inherent conflict between the views of Sydney and Victoria.  If soccer is being used in an Australian context and has historically been used in that context, the show me the sources.) Blacktown City Sun, Wynnum Herald, Camden Advertiser, Brisbane News are all behind the traditional definition of the Barassi Line, and all regularly use soccer to describe the game in the same articles that also use football.  In any case, the linguistic issue is not one for this article, and it should really be taken elsewhere because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Barassi Line.  (And if I am wrong, show me the academic sources.) --LauraHale (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I have issues with mentioning soccer in any sort of way in this article as the usage of it increasing as it relates to the Barassi Line. I've looked at academic articles and Australian football books and soccer is not covered in more recent literature to discuss changes in usage. Anything related to that being injected into the article will likely be unsourced. (Though there are a couple of academic publications I can think of where people could get published on this topic.) That said, engaging in a bit of WP:Original research related to this topic that I'm thinking of submitting as academic paper (Bulletin of Sport and Culture), I do not think there is a really good claim here for re-imagining of the Barassi Line as it pertains to the Aussie Rules side. I'm trying to develop a historical map for usage of football and understanding what codes are actually being referred to. I've started going through Trove and Newsbank searching for football and then determining in situ what code is being referenced to. Using all the references to football available on Newsbank for Adelaide Magazine, the following is a breakdown by year for 2011, 2012 and 2013:

For Queensland, there is a sample from Brisbane News for the same period for all results for the word football.

Western Australia I started using Comment News and for the Northern Territory, I started using Centralian Advocate. These have huge numbers of references to football. This makes data mining requiring reading in context take more time. Thus, only 2013 for Comment News:

For the Centralian, I only have November and December 2013 because the sheer number of references is overwhelming.

Preliminary conclusions suggest that the diversity of the usage of the word football on the rugby league side of the Barrassi Line is probably expanding to include more codes from a linguistic viewpoint. On the Aussie rules side, there is no similar linguistic shift. (Though this is again WP:OR, not supported by published academic sources, and needs more data to improve accuracy.) --LauraHale (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A good research topic Laura. It's obvious that the Barassi Line is not relevant to participation in soccer, but is relevant to its naming. That's my OR too. Would be good to get something sourced to add this to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Barassi Line is a concept that comes purely out of Australian football academic work. It is not commonly used outside that context.  It is not a term used by the media.  It does appear in a number of books about Australian football and rugby league.  So yeah, conceptually, any references to soccer in this article need to be backed up with academic and scholarly research coming out of Victoria.  That said, I've presented at the national football conference in Australia so should be easy enough to get published on this topic.  I've started going through more sources in terms of broader usage of football by the media to determine what code is being referenced.  I'm up to about 800 total references.  I can tell you that amongst the sources I've tabulated for New South Wales in 2013, there are currently more sources using football to mean soccer than rugby league.  (This often comes like this: "The football club participating in the number 1. soccer league" or mentioning Football New South Wales.) This isn't true for 2012.  In all other states, other football codes have top every year looked at over soccer.  This includes Queensland in 2013 and 2012, Tasmania, Northern Territory, South Australia, Victoria.  It looks like there is beginning to be greater use of football as soccer in all other states EXCEPT Victoria. As an academic exercise, it is interesting... but again, what I am doing is original research.  Soccer proponents need to do a better job at citing sources, and if they are familiar with football scholarly work, they know the Barassi line is not used to describe soccer.  If it is, they need to provide the sources. --LauraHale (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Data is data. (Data analysis for sports is my PhD topic.  Pardon the obsession.)  Including only Adelaide Magazine, Brisbane News, Comment News, Centralian Advocate, Camden Advertiser, Eastern Reporter, Hume Weekly, Hobart Mercury, Wynnum Herald, Wyndham Weekly,  Blacktown City Sun (not all dates, but I can tell date ranges), the totals for 2013 alone so far (still tweaking as I am looking for the linguistic shift for writing a paper):

--LauraHale (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Impressive list. I particularly like political football and lingerie football. Have you looked for International rules football? There's also several forms of football played in wheelchairs, both motorised and manual, but I'm sure you're aware of that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, so the point trying to be made regarding soccer in this article is that advocates of the name football for soccer have a harder time using it in Aussie Rules areas rather than league areas. This is true, but it is not relevant to the Barassi line because the line only divides Aussie Rules and rugby code areas. It does not affect the fact that the major code of football is called 'football' no matter what that code is. This applies worldwide. The fact that the Americans don't use 'football' for soccer but for their own dominant code is not irrelevant, it is completely relevant because its the same thing. Whatever the dominant code; soccer, gridiron, rugby or Aussie rules, it is called football. This is why the campaign to call soccer football in areas where it is not a dominant code is essentially pointless and looks silly to outsiders. Its even sillier to try to use it in an article like this one which compares multiple football codes. If there's a generic term for a code in this context it should be used; soccer, gridiron, rugby league, rugby union, Aussie Rules. This recognizes the fact of multiple uses of the term 'football' by different codes where they dominate. The name comes with the dominance. Everyone seems to accept this, except for a minority of soccer people. For some reason they want to use football even when their code is not dominant. If and when soccer dominates the sporting landscape in Australia it can properly use the crowning moniker, and not before. At that point the national side can be renamed the Footballroos instead of the Socceroos. Until then, the term soccer will remain the common use term for that sport. This campaign by some soccer people for exclusive use of the name 'football' and the treatment of 'soccer' as wrong or some kind of epithet is not just willful ignorance of the common use of the term football in Australia, there is a political element to it as well. It is an attempt to co-opt the implied dominance. It is a message that soccer is dominant when it isn't, or that it should be dominant, which is egotistical opinion, or that it will be dominant sooner or later which is threatening. Advocates of the use of the name 'football' exclusively for soccer need to understand that by advocating something threatening, egotistical and incorrect there will obviously be resistance.


 * I think the reason the term football has been slightly easier to introduce in NSW is because of the need to use the term rugby league more often than just football in order to differentiate it from rugby union. But this proviso does not preclude the common use of football for rugby league in NSW and Qld for the dominant code name, same as everywhere else in the world. The Barassi Line does not divide this phenomenon in any way. The term does NOT easily and identifiably relate only to soccer on either side of the Barassi line, except in the minds of the soccer zealots, who are a small but vocal minority. Using the stance of soccer journalists who write for this minority in the Age as definitive verifiability for changing use of the term football would be to discount the obvious POV of those journalists.


 * In short - the linguistic use of football by the dominant code is not a cultural factor described by the Barassi line, and is not unique to Australia so it cannot be divided by the line. Mdw0 (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So there you go, there IS a definitive linguistic shift in the word usage of football to refer to Soccer. All of this agrees with what I was saying. ALL of this also agrees with what I provided as an edit for soccer, I have also done a bit of research into the matter, on the point of soccer, it would appear as I put forward that soccer is considered a migrant sport and has been considered so pretty much from day dot in former British colonies.


 * It would also appear that once a football code becomes the dominant football code in a country it becomes football by linguistic default, although as I have said and as your research suggests this trend is shifting, even if not in Victoria. The claim that there has been no linguistic shift therefore is blatantly incorrect.


 * NB: I did not initiate this discussion in particular on this page and I have no interest in changing the contents of this particular page beyond the information that I provided that this particular concept does not affect the sport of soccer directly. --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There hasn't been a linguistic shift. Not in the population. There has only been a marketing campaign amongst a small group of soccer people in an attempt to popularize a term they have always used amongst themselves. No-one new uses it, its just that now those soccer people want to tell everyone else how to talk and be the football Humpty Dumpty - football means exactly what I want it to mean and nothing else. Renaming the lead body (again), and having some soccer journalists use the term whenever they can isn't a linguistic shift until people outside the sport start using it. Not even all the people within the sport use it. Trying to explain that the incorrect use of the term (when soccer does not dominate) looks deluded and egotistical and only increases resistance is wasted breath.
 * With relation to this article though, it is the case that this linguistic shift/marketing campaign follows a different geographic line. Not the Barassi line, which describes something different. As a for instance, the Fury didn't just go under because of poor play, the management was up against not just apathy but virulent resistance from North Queenslanders. It is definitely 'football' for rugby league up there, as stridently as any Aussie Rules area. So that means you're talking about a different line mapping different areas in a different article. And we're also talking about degree - where some groups are very resistant, others fairly resistant, others less resistant. Nowhere is there no resistance because nowhere is soccer dominant. Its not a cut and dried line with opposite views on either side the same way the Barassi line is (Riverina notwithstanding). For the FFA the policies for overcoming the resistance to the use of 'football' for soccer is the same all over Australia, unlike the policies of the AFL or NRL regarding teams on different sides of the Barassi line.
 * Soccer has many challenges but it they are national. Soccer can be assured that the Barassi Line does not affect it. Maybe now that everyone's put their 2c worth in, this article can be assured that the politics of Australian soccer (football) will no longer affect it. Mdw0 (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A good perspective there and above Mdw0. I hoped to use the Barassi Line to help explain to the soccer nuts here how there are different dominant codes across Australia, and that particularly on the Aussie Rules side of the line that dominance has meant very exclusive use of the name "football" name for a very long time. But when one comes up against opposition that says the line doesn't even exist, that the article should be deleted, then that it has nothing to with soccer, and then adding content about soccer, I find intelligent discussion becomes impossible. But your broader perspective on the dominant code getting the name "football" anywhere is great. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * For a discussion on the theory of football and code dominance by default and a few other interesting statements about the barassi line see 'Our wicked foreign game:why has association football (Soccer) not became the main code of football in Australia?' . I've linked a copy of the journal article that is not behind a paywall --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, the article really is called that! I thought he was being sarcastic! I suppose it follows on from 'Poofters, Wogs and Shielas.' See, some soccer people have a sense of humour and perspective, while others disappoint. What I think is more interesting is - why did association football manage to dominate Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa where the others didn't? Is it because soccer is simpler, where really all you need is a ball and a patch of dirt? Or because its just that little bit older and had a decade or so's advantage to establish clubs? If 'code dominance by default' is a bad thing why is it not a bad thing where soccer has 'code dominance by default'? The article tries to explain that British Empire lands were run by people with sympathies towards playing rugby, which kept soccer at a lower level. So that works in South Africa, New Zealand and half of Australia. That doesn't apply to America, which was independent before these games were codified, so they mostly made up their own games. Or India, where they could only play cricket because you don't have players touching each other in cricket, so caste rules were honoured. Or Africa, where soccer is just as popular in the English speaking areas like South Africa and Ghana as in any of the others. And it didn't apply to half of Australia. Needs more investigation. C-. Mdw0 (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It was the cricket loving elite in Melbourne who invented Aussie Rules. They wanted a sport to keep cricketers fit in winter. HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a bit of a myth. Although Wills was a famous cricketer I think he said that so the cricket administrators who owned the paddocks would allow their use for football. The inventors of Aussie Rules were influenced by football code such as Rugby, Sheffield, Harrow and Cambridge Rules as well as soccer being trialled in English schools, especially Wills who spent time in Britain actually playing these various games at this crucial time when the rules were being codified. Mdw0 (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A National Game: The History of Australian Rules Football is an absolutely fantastic book on the early history of the game. It discusses this a fair amount.  The early history also potentially has tie ins to gaelic football.  There is now also a view that multiple versions of Australian rules were being developed independently in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.  The eventual dominance of the Victorian version of the game was the result of an influx of a number of influential players migrating with the gold rush in those areas, and the desire to play interstate matches. --LauraHale (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A bit of original research... The United States of America has it's own distaste towards things that are generally considered British ever since they gained independence. That doesn't really explain much at all why rugby union has maintained a hold, Bill Clinton and George W Bush being notable example of American rugby players, or polo for that matter and why it has maintained a hold on the United States among the social elite, but I really haven't done enough research on the matter to dig deeper into it. Sports like rugby union and cricket seem to have fallen out of favor in Canada for other reasons, possibly, broadly American influence across the continent. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * American football (called either Gridiron or American football in Australia) has an evolution that on some level mirrors the development of Australian football. Both codes trace their origins to English football BEFORE the association/rugby split in England. Local conditions in both countries led to codification for the purpose of allowing competition between clubs.  What I've read to a degree has suggested there might be some class related elements at play in terms of divergences with England, in that sport in England was played in schools and used to reinforce Victorian era definitions of masculinity.  Sport in the USA had fewer class issues. This actually caused problems later in the USA because allowing the working class to play made it harder to get true amateurs because things like being a farmer or factory worker where you were engaged in manual labor made you not as amateur. I think this more than a distaste for GB explains the differences in sporting cultures.  I understand Australian sport had similar conditions in terms of class, though it is not explored in literature the same way.  Australia's sporting culture also has a lot of pub related connections and gambling.  It all makes for a lot of interesting reading. --LauraHale (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * With what I've been reading in the last couple of articles including the article linked here it makes sense. American history is not directly in my field of studies outside of a few courses I've studied in the area more so relating to politics & international relations which I've done enough coursework to have a minor area in. I'm sure you could mount a good argument to justify what you're saying --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a sports culture and sport historian person. Australian and American sport, especially when being looked at against an English context, need to take class and immigration into account.   Australian sport needs the Barassi line to be understood in terms of regional looking patterns.  Sydney (and to a degree New South Wales, Brisbane and Queensland) have always been more focused on defining themselves externally.  Thus, it makes a lot of sense that they would be more likely to code switch from Rugby League/Union to Soccer, because of that global view in their internalized definition of place.  Victoria and other parts of the country define themselves around a domestic code and are more inward reflecting.  Soccer thus has those elements of internationalism that were not required culturally.  Hence, less adoption because of the importance of the domestically created games.  There are some fantastic papers on the differences in sporting culture.  It also probably explains why much of the best football scholarship in Australia comes out of Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia where the researchers are focused on domestic sport.  Rugby league and soccer studies, and book publication history, lack a strong domestic tradition in Australia.  (Compare that to New Zealand where the All Blacks are the focus of numerous academic works and published books.  The All Whites? Largely forgotten in New Zealand sporting culture.) --LauraHale (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Laura. Those additional cultural differences between the Aussie Rules supporting and the other half of Australia is something I've become aware of as I've travelled the country during my lifetime, but I haven't seen much of the academic work on it. Do you think you could add some material on it to the article, maybe under a heading something like "Cultural differences" (maybe "Linguistic differences" too), with those academic works as the references? I'd also love to read some of those works. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The new map
It's great. Did you create it 2nyte?

If you are the creator can I ask nicely if you could move the entry for (Brisbane) Bears (the crossed out name for the club) to in-between the Lions and the Suns? Despite the name, the club actually spent the first half of its life based at Carrara Stadium on the Gold Coast.

Oh, (and this one's just a thought - nowhere near as important) did you consider actually putting the line on the map? After all, it's what the article's about. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well done with the Bears move. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good idea, but there's an inconsistency. There's two dots for two current teams in Perth and Brisbane, but one dot for no current teams in Adelaide. Do defunct clubs get a dot or not? Maybe a dot for the current ones and a ring (halo?) for the dead ones Mdw0 (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Dots in the same location overlap each other so you can't see the bottom dot. That is why in some cases (Melbourne, Perth) I moved the dot by a degree so you can see the different colours (red/blue representing different sports). In the case of Melbourne Rebels and Melbourne Rebels (ARC) it doesn't matter if the dots overlap because the are the same colour, and same with Western Force and Perth Spirit.


 * Dots don't overlap - they just disappear. There's plenty of room to add more dots in. One for each team is easier to follow, and clearer. Mdw0 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is correct, the Brisbane Bears historically played where the now redeveloped Carrara stadium is located before moving to the Gabba Stadium, however the Rebels are not defunct in terms of Super Rugby competition as the two teams are not directly related. I'm not sure what your position is as such --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If defunct teams don't get a dot, why is there one for the defunct Rams? Mdw0 (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Defunct teams do get a dot, though dots of the same colour in the same location overlap each other, so the bottom one can't be seen. It is not necessary to show two dots of the same colour right next to each other. On the other hand if two dots are different colours and in the same location, we must move the location slightly to make sure the dots don't overlap so we can see the different colours (this is done in Melbourne and Perth).--2nyte (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't say they overlap, because a digital dot that cannot be seen is gone. What is the difference between one dot and two dots with one on top of the other? Nothing. An infinite stack of dots that have zero width is the same as one dot. Any dots underneath don't exist for the viewer. How is anyone meant to know an overlapped dot is there - telepathy? Non-viewable dots are not dots. They're not anything. If each team doesn't get a viewable dot, only each sport, then the legend is wrong. It should say Sports with professional clubs in cities east/west of the line because the dots represent sports, not clubs. Mdw0 (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as a note the previous map was much better quality then the current take on it. The current take on it also skews the line quite favorably towards the western orientation where there is a fair bit of the Northern Territory which is actually Rugby League code dominant. There is also the ongoing contentious bit ever since the line that was drawn about Queensland, let alone the fact that most of the towns the line passes through in that area of Queensland aren't even really big enough to have teams contending a regular football league. If anything out that far is known it's Birdsville as a horse racing town.--Orestes1984 (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason I think the new map is better is clarity, and it includes the actual line, wheras the other one was more cluttered, more confusing and didn't include the line. But that's just my opinion, and I presume that the original map maker will have something to say in defence of their work, which was a good idea. If they genuinely believe the original was better they are obviously welcome to revert to their map and explain why. With regards to Orestes' comment on the positioning of the line on the map, it is the same as the one described in the text as in Turner's original presentation, and is on the map at the top, so this idea of major sections of the Northern Territory being rugby league dominant is something completely new. It would mean a major shift in the position of the Line itself, because it would mean the AFL claiming an area of dominance that it is not entitled to claim, so if there are any references to back that claim up it is important that they are presented. I can't imagine such a claim would be made frivolously, without anything to back it up. Especially by an editor such as Orestes whose credibility is so important. I find it strange that there is also an examination of the minor inaccuracies of the stylized straight line when this is dealt with at quite some considerable length in the opening section of the article. Its almost as though Orestes has never looked at the map at the top, or read the fourth paragraph of the opening section where it mentions where the line is and the minor inaccuracies of the stylized straight line. It couldn't be that Orestes just hasn't bothered to actually read this article, could it? No, there must be some other explaination. Mdw0 (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. One of the most important pieces of text in the article says "the stylised straight line is not particularly accurate in representing the division". Of course it's not a straight line in reality. There are no straight lines in nature. HiLo48 (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just from what I can see on one map the line stopped at Queensland's border, while the other runs through the Northern Territory. There is a bit of ambiguity going on in the page itself before I contribute anything further. As per the article I'm referencing for statistics the correct interpretation is that Turner identified a "...boundary, running between Canberra, Broken Hill, Birdsville and Land." Geographically Arnhem land is in the Northern Territory. It would appear that a line running across the Northern Territory is the correct interpretation and furthermore that it should run the length of the Northern Territory across to Arnhem Land with that point demarcating the divide --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

stats and other tidbits
The short and the long of it is that there appears to be no code dominance on either side of the line. The AFL has not been any more successful in developing a captive audience than the NRL or vice versa. I've added some referenced stats to the current situation, current being as at 2011. They reference is quite exhaustive and well worth the read if you're a statistics fiend.

The long and the short of it is that the idea of code expansion on either side of the line with any deal of great success does not appear to be a truism for either code. In terms of audience figures across Australia on free to air TV their seems to be a roughly 50-50 split which also seems to correlate with Pay TV figures, although they appear to be a bit murkier and less easier to gauge.

Putting this silly debate to bed about code dominance, it would appear that we have a stalemate and that it's not going to change any time soon. I hope this adds a bit of neutrality to the debate --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To me it's the least important part of the article. It's primary purpose is to describe the existence and impact of the line. From memory, you began the recent "debate" anyway, so it's good that you want to drop it. Only someone paranoid about their own favourite code's success would want to continue the "debate". I don't. Let's concentrate on the impact of the line, sports wise, culturally, linguistically and socially. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept only exists because of such "paranoia"


 * No code dominance on either side? That means none anywhere by anybody. I'm sure that's not what Orestes is trying to say. I'm fairly sure Orestes is saying that neither code has been very successful in promoting itself on the respective opposite side of the line. That would be very correct and what the article is all about. But I would not say that the attempts to expand beyond the line are of little relevance, because it is in the attempts to go where they are not popular that the line's influence is best illustrated. User:Mdw0 (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue I raised was the contentious nature of such a concept which is mostly meaningless to rugby supporters, even if it does exist, while being overtly over meaningful to AFL supporters as the article I referenced suggests. I could go further into this, however it would be unnecessarily verbose and would add little value to the overall article, other than to state the fact that the AFL puts too much emphasis on their sport either being "national" or "indigenous" when both claims are controversial at best and marginally valid in some respects. As the article suggests, nothing highlights the AFLs brazen attempts to push a national agenda than their attempted expansion into Western Sydney when they could have perhaps had an easier time against less competition by simply establishing a team in Northern Sydney. As far as myself, I came upon editing this article in the first place as it contained a bunch of parochial agenda peddling that was far too obvious. My sole intention was to establish NPOV here which I believe I've achieved. As per above, you are correct there has been little success by either football code with regards to promoting the game on their opposing side of the line --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Gee, you really are paranoid about the AFL, aren't you? And this article isn't actually about how evil the AFL is, so I don't know why you wrote about its "brazen...agenda" at all. Your own POV may be just a little bit on display there.


 * Anyway, I was interested in the situation re the Barassi Line in that "top right" corner of Arnhem Land. You see, I've taught some Aboriginal kids from there, and they were (bloody good) Aussie Rules players. No evidence of an interest in rugby of any kind, or soccer. This was at a school in Victoria, so that may have influenced the behaviour. So I went web hunting. AFL Gove (Gove is the big mining centre there) has an Aussie Rules comp dating back to 1973, currently with five teams. I could only find one unsourced mention of "Gove Rugby League" as a single mention in Rugby league in the Northern Territory. There's not all that much material available all up, so I won't claim my research as thorough and conclusive, and I did not go looking for a particular answer. I've never been there, so don't have that reality to influence my conclusion. But in a small information pool I've certainly found more evidence of Aussie Rules than either version of Rugby in Arnhem Land. Happy for others to try their own research into that area. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There's nothing which amounts to POV in anything I've said, if you'd care to read the linked reference you can see where I'm drawing my evidence from... I am not paranoid about any of this either, if you want a POV argument, I really could not care any less other than to offer a valid point of view that it is the AFL that has been pushing for national code dominance. And yes, While the line exists, if you want another POV, I heavily doubt the majority of us living across the eastern seaboard even know who Ian Turner or Ron Barassi is.


 * What I have stated above if you would care to read the thesis that is available to all of us is completely evidence based. HiLo48 I really wish you would stick to using evidence to justify your statements rather than your own opinion. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No POV? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct, no point of view in anything that I have provided. Take the time to read the evidence that I have supplied regarding the location of the Barassi Line and stop being incompetent. You might be surprised if you did some READING as opposed to talking. You really are the most frustrating person I have ever dealt with on this site. I have been doing a lot of reading lately in order to improve this and other pages on this site such as soccer in Australia and the history of AFL which I have been thanked by other editors for. You on the other hand while I'm sure are not deliberately editing in bad faith are opinion peddling and then referring to an article that is not a wikipedia rule or policy when it comes to citing your opinion. --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Doing a lot of reading eh? Have you read what I've written? You ignore most of it. As for no POV, how about "...the AFL puts too much emphasis on their sport either being "national" or "indigenous" when both claims are controversial at best and marginally valid in some respects. As the article suggests, nothing highlights the AFLs brazen attempts to push a national agenda than their attempted expansion into Western Sydney when they could have perhaps had an easier time against less competition by simply establishing a team in Northern Sydney." That's pure opinion. And not exactly nice about the AFL. I don't care about the AFL. I just describe what the situation is in a place you've never been, and you choose to ignore me. What I say obviously doesn't fit your world view. Sadly, it's a very very small world in your case. HiLo48 (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the thesis that I have linked to with my recent reference that supports my claims. If you object then find a case which supports your opinion and add it to the article, I'm sick of having these meaningless head clashes with yourself that do nothing to improve the overall quality of the articles and are just adding spam to the talkpages because you wont listen to anyone other than yourself. If you think something is wrong then correct it, under the duress of making sure that you cite a reliable source such as a journal article, book, or thesis --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * While I know that they can never count as formal sources here, maybe you should begin to treat the recollections and knowledge an old fart like me has of things of of which you have no experience as valuable folk history. While what I am saying doesn't support your preferred view of the world, it's definitely true, and should help you get a bigger, better picture. I'm not pushing a POV (I like soccer, and don't love the AFL at all), but I am presenting a picture that's not what you hoped to see. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * For someone who is educated I don't see why you ardently object to actually verifying what you are saying rather than just stating that it is the case. I suggest you red Verifiability,_not_truth in order to understand how we got to the current consensus on the matter. I also suggest you desist from backhanded comments that I am somehow narrow minded where every recent contribution I have put forward is actually well read and evidence based from sources that have had substantial review. I would suggest if you are claiming that I am narrow minded then you are going to have to mount a case against where the sources have come from which you can do using that funny little word called evidence. I suggest you also understand that your memory is not published --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Spend a year getting all your soccer news from the Herald Sun. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to politely but firmly decline. Take a look at my userboxes on my talk page, I have better things to be doing with my time than reading Rupert's clap trap particularly considering the nonsense that was going on during the last election. I will not go into any more details than that other than to say there are far better sources of information than the Murdoch press --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can understand that view. So try The Age instead. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I do read The Age on occasion, I'll have to pay more attention to the sports section --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , Why don't you stop with the original research on Wikipedia?  is just plain wrong to demand you read Victorian newspapers.  The Barassi Line is an academic concept.  What do Australian sport historians say in published articles about the use of the word? Why don't you see what Australian dictionaries say? --LauraHale (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Orestes says the Barassi Line is 'meaningless to rugby supporters.' That cannot be true, as supporters of the rugby codes all know that the football culture in Victoria, SA, WA and NT is different to Qld and NSW. Its where Aussie rules comes from. That much cannot be in doubt, therefore the existence of a cultural divide as represented by the Line cannot be in doubt, no matter what side of the Line it is viewed from. I think what Orestes is trying to say is that overcoming the divide represented by the Line, and making markets on the opposite side and being 'truly national' is not as important, either culturally or financially for the rugby codes as it is for the AFL. This is an interesting point, as it is obvious the AFL is willing to put its money where its mouth is by establishing the Suns and Giants. This was in the face of a lot of criticism from both sides of the Line, that these clubs were a bridge too far, that they would always need a crutch and could never be successful or independent. The jury is still out. On the other hand, league was burned to its core by the Super League war which followed right on the heels of its first attempts at expanding beyond the Line, which makes league less willing to risk further expansion into AFL territory. This is not to say it won't or can't, and I think the popularity the West Coast Pirates' bid for an expansion team shows that rugby league supporters want the NRL to be bold and expand into the opposite side of the Line. Sort of, if they can do it, we can do it. Incidentally, I think basing the Giants in the Northern suburbs of Sydney was never on. The people of the North shore are just not strong football people. Norths were never well supported. The only side from northern Sydney to become a truly famous club is Manly, and that's because the Northern Beaches culture is more tribal than the rest of the Northern suburbs. Rugby union is more popular in that area, but their clubs have never matched the powerhouses of the eastern suburbs like Randwick or Sydney Uni. The demographics of Western Sydney best match the typical fan base of AFL supporters on the other side of the line, and there are more of them. At least, that would have been the view of the AFL. They were trying for something akin to what the Western Sydney Wanderers have tapped into. The AFL's biggest problem is that they have tried to ignore the Line and what it represents. They have failed to grasp the reputation of Aussie Rules in Sydney. The AFL thinks it is tough and Australian, but it is seen as prissy and foreign, even more so than soccer. If you don't understand how you are perceived, how can you then take steps to change it? There is also the problem of an adverse reaction from the target market to something being forced upon them that they have never wanted and never shown any interest in. The AFL doesn't seem to care about any of this, so why should Western Sydney people care about the AFL's product? Especially wearing that god-awful powder-orange ex-Tampa Bay uniform. Its about as tough as a wet paper bag. Echhhh! That needs to be changed NOW to a deeper, tiger-orange colour. Still think I'm 'pro-AFL', Orestes? Mdw0 (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We all know there is a code difference, the concept of a line in the sand is fairly meaningless however to Rugby League supporters who would rather ignore it and get on with playing the game they play without confrontation. People in Queensland, as in New South Wales are simply not as interested in expanding south or west this is correct and most of it stems from the above, while also being loosely to do with maintaing a competitive league system, of which there has been a lot of fine tuning recently to get it to a stage most rugby supporters appear to be happy with. Based on the weight of history, the ARL has also achieved predominately what it needs to at the moment simply by having a successful foothold in Victoria as it was trying to establish since it started sending state of origin matches there. The Super League wars caused a lot of kerfuffle and I really doubt  a lot of it was as thoroughly thought out as what it should have been. That's not to say expansion teams in the future wont or can't bee as successful I just don't think it was as strategically thought out as well as it could have been. I think the AFL is facing similar issues in sending clubs to the Gold Coast and Western Sydney now.


 * Where respectively the FFA and the NRL did a lot of market research before establishing the Wanderers and the Titans respectively in order to make sure there was a captive audience and to make sure decisions that were made were fan based, it would appear the AFL has taken more of an attitude of build it and they will come, or perhaps smash and grab. I do believe your correct, also, in terms of history of the games there has been a broader interest by the AFL and its preceding bodies in nationalism of the "indigenous" and "Australian" game. I think also that there maybe a bit of a head strong issue going on with the AFL which is actually repulsing certain members of the viewing audience in New South Wales and Queensland which is the case of "we're here whether you like it or not and we're going to stir the pot." The latest spat with the Brisbane Broncos over Israel Falou and Karmichael Hunt seems to highlight this. If anything it seems the ARL has been more interested in (re?)developing the code it plays in its more traditional heartland areas further north into Papua and out into the Pacific Islands, as well as in establishing a third team in Queensland representing Ipswich, with some interested parties on the Sunshine Coast, rather than heading further south or west.


 * You're also right that certain members of the viewing audience see AFL as soft, for someone who took some interest when the Lions were dominant, there last grand final with the crack down on "the biff" was representative of one issue where people are interested in a bit of "blood sport." The other one being what's considered "girly" tackles in the AFL as opposed to the rugby codes.


 * Broadly I agree with what you're saying, it was a bridge too far, for the AFL and what I have been saying in the article itself is that the AFL is going to face a lot more challenges up north as much as it wants to get there --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Migration
I couldn't find it in the article, but is there anything about how migration within Australia has affected the situation.--MacRùsgail (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a good question. Over my longish lifetime a lot of Victorians have moved to the Gold Coast in Queensland. It would seem likely that they would make up a fair share of supporters of any Aussie Rules team there. I also felt that the VFL/AFL missed a big opportunity of cashing in on the big move of public servants from Melbourne to Canberra in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. But I'm not sure where to find sourced material on either of those theories of mine. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * International migration like South African migration to Perth & South Pacific migration to Melbourne & Perth would have helped the rugby codes too. Not sure if there have been any studies done academically on migration effects on sporting interests. Most NRL followers I've known in Perth were originally from NSW or Queensland. The-Pope (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting answers thanks... it's no secret that the economic development of Australia is uneven, and that people are required to move around for work as well anyway... Not to mention people going to university - who often go to another town.

I'm thinking more of internal migration of course, but yes, immigration must be a key.

Nauru, although not part of Australia, is a kind of exception to the line as well. --MacRùsgail (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But HiLo48, I wouldn't worry that you can't find any sourced material to back up your theories. Just put them in the article like every other contributor has over the past seven years. On this article it very much remains the case that original research, theories and uncited opinions are always welcome ! - Sticks  66  15:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that the shortage of sourcing is annoying. It's a common problem with many sport related articles in Wikipedia. (Ever watched the frantic changing of player lists for soccer clubs? Never a source to be seen anywhere, ever.) I try to confront it at times and it usually leads to angst with those who want their favoured sport to get favoured treatment here. I'm not aware of anything outrageously wrong existing in this article. I'd love to have time to chase up up sources. You can help too. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this relevant?
I read in the Herald today that the AFL is gobsmacked at the success of the Wanderers compared to that of the Giants. As I mentioned above, the AFL were hoping to tap into that support, but this was always a forlorn hope because the AFL don't appreciate the way the negative way that Aussie Rules is perceived on the Sydney side of the line. Is this lack of insight and understanding really the key aspect of the divide? I wonder if presenting the divide as a philosophical one may be a bit too OR. Mdw0 (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you give us a link to that article please? HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * http://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/ffa-boss-david-gallop-says-soccer-wont-collaborate-with-afl-20141029-11dnvq.html


 * Thanks. Nothing surprising there really. The article is from the Soccer section of a newspaper on the non-AFL side of the Barassi Line. Given that, I think it's remarkably tame. And it shows that most of your post is your own opinion and OR, rather than from the article. It's surely obvious to anyone that soccer was going to be more successful more quickly than Aussie Rules in Western Sydney. It already was soccer territory. I would take comments about "amazement among those at AFL House" with a grain of salt, intended for the Soccer audience of the SMH. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The idea I was going with was a little more developed than just this article - more along the lines of a general lack of awareness of how their respective games are perceived on the other side of the Barassi Line, especially regarding the AFL. But as you say, unless I find a good article which states such lack of awareness clearly as a Barassi Line phenomonon then its too OR to pursue. Mdw0 (talk)


 * Yep. At this point, there's actually no evidence that there is a lack of awareness. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Barassi Line as a language divide
I just added a section describing the obvious fact that the Barassi Line is a linguistic divide, with a source. Pete/Skyring immeditaely reverted it, claiming [the source is very old. It's six years old. That's not "very old". What I added is completely true. The source is correct. No source to the contrary has been produced. Editors have been asking for such a source for years. My addition is fine. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The name changed in 2005. Since then Football is used by all official bodies, governments and most media sources. I'll accept that some people lag behind the change, but really it's like quoting a government source from before decimal or metric conversion and claiming we still use pounds in Australia. Times have changed. --Pete (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. But in the interests of compromise, and given that it's the ONLY source anyone has produced that actually describes usage, what if the date is explicitly mentioned so readers can decide for themselves if it's very old, and we only describe the use of "football" in the Aussie Rules states to mean that game? That usage hasn't changed. There is no reason it would. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * HiLo is correct. In Victoria the sport is usually called "soccer" in the media.  It's time that some editors such as Pete accepted the obvious fact that in Australia "football" is commonly used for at least three different sports.  Whatever the word usually refers to in other countries in Australia it does not exclusively refer to the game also known as "world football". Afterwriting (talk) 10:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * HiLo is correct only in that it is a source from 2008. In itself it acknowledges that the official name of the sport is Football: Soccer is now formally known as 'football' in Australia, in line with international usage. However, that is tangential to the thrust of this article; the Barassi Line distinguishes the predominant football code out of the four listed, whether Australian Rules or Rugby League. I dispute the claim that the sport formerly known as soccer is "usually called soccer in the media". Looking at the most widely read paper in Victoria, it is called Football. The Age calls it soccer, to be sure, but they don't call AFL "Football". Instead they use the cringingly defensive term "Real Footy". Every other major newspaper available in Victoria calls the sport Football.


 * As I say, this is a tangential matter. What people mean when they say "football" is not cut and dried. It is not 100% anywhere; the only thing we may be certain of is that they mean either all of the football codes or just one of them, and that "just one" differs according to who's talking. If we are to go down this path in this article, then we are going to be pulling in sources and before we know it, the question of who calls what football and when they did it and where they are doing it is going to be a major part of the article and the discussion page will blow out. I am more than happy to explore this question here, using as many relevant sources as we can find, but it is a tangential matter to the Barassi Line itself which deals with the divide between AFL and NRL. --Pete (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are completely missing the point ~ which is that in Australia the use of the word football is ambiguous and refers to several sports. Therefore the word cannot be used to only refer to the sport which is still frequently called "soccer" by Australians.  Also, the "formal" or "official" name of something is not decisive for Wikipedia articles.  This is only one thing to be taken into consideration and must be balanced against other considerations.  You can also dispute my claim all that you like about whether "world football" is usually called "soccer" the media in Victoria but I take notice of such things and I have no doubt that it is still overwhelmingly called "soccer" on television and the radio as well as by the general population.  It is not "formerly called soccer" in Victoria. Afterwriting (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are correct about a few media outlets using soccer and football in the old way, but by and large Australia's media use "Football". I have been compiling a list of sources, reliable, up to date and checkable. --Pete (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I say again. bullshit. You seem to believe that even when something has been refuted multiple times, just repeating the mantra over and over again will eventually see you win the day. Pete, you no longer live and no longer see how things really are on the western side of the Barassi Line. You seem to want to believe things have changed there, but you actually have no evidence. We have one source actually telling us how the language is used. It doesn't match your view, so you attack it. It's not a good look. HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo, I know you don't get irony, but picture me chuckling merrily at the above. --Pete (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand irony very well. You can drop the personal attacks. I don't understand the point of that post. I doubt if it has one apart from telling me you think I'm dumb. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The point of that post is that your own words could well be addressed directly to you. But you are unable to see the irony. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that a compliment? HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've added revised content based on the "very old" source, actually giving readers the year of publication, so they can decide upon its geriatric nature themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's OK. As flagged above, I'll add more current information later to give readers the full picture. --Pete (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I eagerly await your reliable source that tells us how language usage has changed among all Australians in the past six years. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * With the new source just added, that will have to be the past three months. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to see you are welcoming low-level, tangential sources. Such as a Prime Minister? --Pete (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This is NOT a tangential matter, it is completely irrelevant to the Barassi Line and what it represents. The Barassi Line only separates the followers of the main football codes. It doesn't matter if Aussie Rules people do or don't use football for soccer a bit more or a bit less than other people, either formally or informally. The name of soccer does not affect its popularity on either side of the Barassi line, its exposure or its following. The use of the term football may be resisted more strongly in most Aussie Rules areas, and possibly less in some rugby and rugby league areas, but not all. As stated on this Talk Page previously, North Queensland is virulently anti 'football for soccer' as much as any Aussie Rules area. If there is a line separating these areas it is not nearly as clear-cut or as distinct as the Barassi Line is. It most certainly does not separate the same areas as the Barassi Line does. It is, at best, a different line. It has NO RELEVANCE to this article.

Maybe that would explain why neither source says a single thing about which areas it is used more, or which less or even mentions the Barassi Line in any way. Find a reference with some relevance to the article, or better still, write your own article, but stop putting irrelevant trolling in this one. Baiting soccer zealots might be some people's idea of fun, but this isn't the place for it. Maybe start with the Etymology and Names section of the Association Football article. Mdw0 (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That is a very unethical removal. Pete has been asking for sources for years. Two were provided. They are bloody good sources. So I added the content. I am going to put the material back. If you remove it again I will report you for Edit warring. This is not about baiting anyone. It's about documenting, with excellent sourcing, a reality. Your statement that "The use of the term football may be resisted more strongly in most Aussie Rules areas" shows a complete misunderstanding of the situation. People on the west of the Barassi Line have been using the name "football" for Aussie Rules for 150 years. To use that name for "soccer" would make no sense to them. So, they aren't resisting using that name for soccer. They already use it for something else. And there's no reason for them to stop doing that. So the name "football" simply isn't available for soccer in those areas. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * HiLo, it looks like you need consensus for inclusion. You are a firm believer in consensus. As am I. --Pete (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are edit warring with a silly edit summary. The Australian government source explicitly names ALL the states west of the Barassi Line. It doesn't have to name the line. I truly don't understand why you want to argue so much about this. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you are pushing your POV so strongly on this, but let's work on consensus, huh? That way we can put any personal factors to one side. --Pete (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion. I have facts. Facts supported by sources. You live elsewhere. You cannot know the reality on the other side of the Barassi Line. Why fight what many people from west of the line and what the sources are telling you? HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The use of the word soccer vs football has nothing to do with the Barassi line. Pete's argument also has nothing to do with the Barassi line. Neither of the sources say anything about the Barassi line. The Barassi Line doesn't separate it. If you say it does, you are saying that people in NSW and Qld have no resistance at all to the use of football purely for soccer, which is flat-out wrong. The nature of using the word football for the dominant code is a worldwide phenomonon. The Barassi line can't divide something that exists worldwide. Now, on to your stupid threats about reporting me. In the first place, I would have to remove material three times and you put the same material back three times for it to be an edit war. So you would be as culpable as me in edit warring. It takes two to tango. And when that happens, please report away, because that will lead to arbitration, where more sensible attitudes will prevail, and which you will lose. And its not as though I object to your basic argument - in fact I pretty much agree with it. I think the way soccer people try to tell everyone else how to talk is not just rude, its stupid, like Canute trying to order the tide not to come in. I just disagree with the venue, because - drum roll - because its got nothing to do with the Barassi Line. Mdw0 (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Although I do admit to being quite confused by that post, so maybe I could agree if you could explain it better. A source describes the states of Australia on one side of the Barassi Line as having a distinct language usage for "football" (unique in the world), and you say it has nothing to do with the line. I don't get that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have restored the section on regional terminology. It is very reliably sourced and is also clearly and directly relevant to the focus of this article.  The sources don't need to actually mention the Barassi Line to be relevant to it. Afterwriting (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Until we get a clear consensus for inclusion of this material, which we do not have, I have restored the longstanding version of this article. We obviously don't have any agreement as to relevance, it doesn't mention the Barassi Line at all, and it would be WP:SYNTHESIS to include it. This needs more discussion. --Pete (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no issue of "synthesis" involved here at all as the particular section is clearly about the differences in which sport the word "football" usually refers to in different parts of Australia. This is entirely relevant and appropriate for inclusion in this article.  The sources are very reliable for this information and there is absolutely no need for them to actually mention the Barassi Line. If you disagree then I suggest you need to make a request for comments by some neutral and uninvolved editors as you clearly have a POV agenda. Afterwriting (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That actually is WP:SYNTH - "this terminology is used in these areas" + "this is where the Barassi Line runs". I don't have a strong inclination to include this information or not but it is a fair point. Macosal (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No it's not. Sometimes I wish the line had another name, because I suspect the name Barassi being associated with it puts fans of other codes on the defensive to start with. The line describes a real phenomenon, both in what is the most popular code of football in a large area of Australia, and in the language used, for both the game and the equipment. All those familiar with that part of Australia know it's true. We now have good sources describing the phenomenon. This is exactly how an article like this should evolve. The name is unimportant. The phenomenon it describes is what's important. It's factual and it's sourced. It just has a name that seems to upset some people. Would it help to rename the article in a way that didn't involve giving the line an apparently provocative name? Maybe "Geographic distribution of football code popularity in Australia".HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe the section could be better worded but it most definitely is not synthesis for the reasons already stated. It is factual information which has an obvious connection to the topic of the article.  No "synthesis" is being made from it and anyone who claims otherwise is special pleading. Afterwriting (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep. And I can't even think why. It's simple, factual, non-controversial stuff, with sources. A good faith editor would be helping to find ways to make this work, not just removing factual content for tenuous reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If someone can show me the phrase "Barassi Line" in the source documents, I might be inclined to consider it something other than synthesis, but at the moment there's a necessary leap of logic required to make the connection, and we don't do that sort of thing. --Pete (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That post is made as if several of the comments made by others in recent posts had not been made. It serves no purpose. HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I read them very carefully. However, it takes more than bland affirmations to be convincing. If you could just show me the phrase "Barassi Line" in the sources, then there would be no synthesis, and there would be no problem. --Pete (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That post is written as if several of the points made by others in recent posts had not been made. It serves no purpose. HiLo48 (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I can believe that there are variations in terminology between the states (as one of the sources suggests). Maybe this is what I'm misunderstanding: does the Line run along state boundaries? (the article suggests not) The sources suggest that the variation is defined by what state a person is in, not on which side of the line they find themselves. Macosal (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, not purely on state boundaries. It's remarkable that the straight line on the map does the job so well. Of course, that's an approximation too. The exception to state boundaries is in southern NSW, mostly the Riverina, which is Aussie Rules country. One can see it by looking at the shapes of footy grounds and goalposts when travelling through that area. (Even on Google Maps, if you want to do your own research.) This is probably due to the fact that it is actually closer to Melbourne than Sydney, and the early rail lines connected to Melbourne rather than Sydney back in the nineteenth century. Wagga and Narrandera are boundary towns. Broken Hill is an Aussie Rules town, actually being closer to Adelaide. (Did you know that Broken Hill runs on South Australian time?) Of course, journalists aren't going to go into that sort of detail every time they write about it. The line is wrong for the Northern Territory. All of the NT is Aussie Rules territory. HiLo48 (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources. We need sources. HiLo, I keep saying this and you keep ignoring it. Your personal opinion is all very well, but it doesn't make for a source we can use. --Pete (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Pete, piss off. Macosal asked a polite question. I happen to know (a fair bit of) the answer, so I gave him a polite answer. I hope it helps him understand. I'm not pretending that I have sources for all of this. I'm not asking that it be added to the article. I'm sharing knowledge. It's something I do. Reject it if you choose. I cannot comprehend why you would, but people surprise me every day. (Oh, and there's little opinion in my post. Most of it is pure fact. A fact is still a fact whether it's sourced or not.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Facts may be facts, but facts can easily be irrelevant if they are stated and re-stated in an inappropriate place. The link between this article and the issue of naming conventions for various sports is a fantasy, and certainly not proved or even helped by the sources given. Those sources do NOT say that Aussie Rules' use of 'football' to describe itself as unique in any way. They both say the opposite, that all codes use the term 'football' to describe themselves. That is why it is not relevant to this article. On both sides of the line the reference to the most common football code played is 'football.' This is not only in Australia - it is a worldwide occurrence, so the Barassi line cannot divide it. On both sides there is resistance to soccer people trying to make everyone else use football only for soccer. If its on both sides of the line, logically, the use of the term has nothing to do with the Barassi Line. In areas where both rugby union and rugby league as well as soccer is played at a high level, such as Sydney, the intensity surrounding the exclusive use of the term football for one particular code is slightly less than other areas because the rugby and rugby league communities have always used these other generic names to differentiate between the codes. But soccer's attempts to use football only for soccer is still considered very arrogant and is resisted very strongly. In Victoria, SA, WA, NT and north Qld where there is only one dominant code the use of football for the dominant code is strongest and resistance to soccer's demands for exclusive use is strongest. But this is only a degree of intensity - it is nothing like the division the Barassi Line represents. In the end, the Barassi Line divides areas where rugby league dominates and Aussie Rules is weak from areas where Aussie Rules is strongest and rugby league is weak. Whether or not those same people call their favourite code football or not is irrelevant. But the fact is that they both do, so that only makes it doubly irrelevant.

If you still don't follow that logic, think about it this way - does the Barassi Line divide professional sports from amateur sports? Or areas where sports are played on an oval ground from a rectangular ground? No, of course it doesn't because those things are common to both sides of the line - just like the use of 'football' that supporters use as a name for their sport.

Regarding the other discussions being made, it is incorrect to say the Riverina of NSW is 'Aussie Rules country' as though it was predominantly Aussie Rules like Victoria. Most of the Riverina supports both codes - Aussie Rules on Saturday, Rugby League on Sunday. This is one area where 'football' does not and has never referred only to Aussie Rules. Its a bit of a stretch to say that oval sports grounds on Google Maps proves an Aussie Rules domination, because there is also a funny game played in the summer months that uses an oval ground, and this game is played throughout the nation as well as New Zealand and even India and England. The line on the top map is inaccurate at its northern point, and HiLo is correct to say that all the NT plays Aussie Rules first, daylight second. The line should be redone so it starts at the state border with Queensland, like the other map. Mdw0 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I can agree with just about all of that. Thank you for making it clearer, and thank you for educating me about North Queensland. I had no idea they were so obsessed. I still think, though, that the Barassi line is a useful indicator for that southern boundary between "most popular codes", and hence language. I think your use of the word "resistance" is not quite right. The point is that in Adelaide, Perth and Melbourne, etc, "football" largely means something else, and only one "something else". Those who use it that way aren't going to stop using it that way because another sport to wants make "football" its name. that means Those people will keep using the old name, "soccer", for that sport. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand your point about how football is used in those areas - its just that its not unique to the Aussie Rules areas to use football for the dominant code. It doesn't relate to the Barassi Line. Maybe you think its unique to use football for Aussie Rules in particular, but that's a circular argument. If any code is called football where its #1, then its blindingly obvious to say Aussie Rules areas to use football for Aussie Rules. Its the sport's dominance that is unique to those areas, not the way the word is used - which is universal. Seriously, are you trying to say the Barassi Line divides people who use football for Aussie Rules from people who use football for rugby league? That's like saying the Barassi line divides games with kickoffs from those with centre bounces, and games with four goalposts to games with two and a crossbar, and games with tries from games with behinds. Or Sherrins from Steedens. Or 18 man teams from 13s and 15s. If the Barassi line divides the sports it also divides the aspects of those sports. Mdw0 (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Language" section
User:HiLo48 inserted a section on perceived language differences which failed to gain consensus and was removed. After a week, User:Spinrad reinserted the material without discussion. I'm not seeing any fresh discussion, there is no change in consensus. I've removed it until there is consensus. --Pete (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the section is relevant to the article and reasonably well sourced there needs to be consensus for its removal, not the other way around. Spinrad (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, you are not the arbiter of consensus. Spinrad (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Spinrad. Looking at the revision history we see that HiLo48 inserted the material on 4 December and it was removed and re-added several times thereafter. It only ever lasted four days and was the subject of much discussion above. If you can see any consensus for inclusion, please point it out to me. Given that it only lasted a short and turbulent time, it is quite different to the situation where longstanding text is removed without consensus. There never was any consensus for inclusion to start with. --Pete (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And where is the consensus for exclusion? Spinrad (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See above. It looks like nobody but you is in favour. --Pete (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been and remain in favour of its inclusion. It is directly relevant to the topic of the article (despite what others erroneously argued) and has good references. The arguments used to remove it were unjustified. Removing relevant information which is properly referenced requires a high standard of justification regardless of how recently the information was added.  Afterwriting (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant. Neither of the sources supplied uses the phrase "Barassi Line". We're not allowed WP:SYNTHESIS to make some leap of logic. If a reliable source doesn't say something explicitly, we can't use it. --Pete (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying it is relevant doesn't make it relevant. Saying that opposition is erroneous doesn't make it erroneous. Mere assertion does not help your argument. In fact, it makes your position look weak and baseless. With controversial or questioned material, an editor needs to show and explain their argument, not just argue it. They need to say WHY the text and the sources are relevant, not just that they are, over and over. None of the few supporters of the inclusion have managed to oppose the logic of its removal or defend the weakness of the sources. To paraphrase - Given that the section is irrelevant to the article and poorly sourced there needs to be a reasonable presentation of a case for its inclusion, and this has failed to happen. Mdw0 (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything you just posted applies to your own post. Saying it is irrelevant does not make it irrelevant. Mere assertion does not help your argument either. No editors have opposed the logic of it's exclusion because there is no logic to opppse. You should try coming up with a decent argument for why it is irrelevant. Spinrad (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources don't even mention the Barassi Line. How can it possibly be relevant? --Pete (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that sources had to contain the name of the article verbatim to be considered reliable sources. Spinrad (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it specifically has to say it - but the sources here fail to make any link to the sporting division that the line represents. The description of soccer as football happens with all soccer people all over Australia, and that use is resisted to varying degrees by everyone else. Since the sources fail to make any link to differences on either side of the line, they also fail a test of relevance. Mdw0 (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Spinrad, you really should take some time to read the rest of the Talk Page. There you will see that I do not rely on mere assertion and have in fact made a few attempts to clearly present the decency and logic of my argument. Once you've read those posts you may understand the opposing position a little better and it may inspire you to do something similar, or even better, for your own case. Or you may come to appreciate my argument so much that you end up agreeing with it. Or you can not bother and keep going on the way you're going. Mdw0 (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources don't have to explicitly mention the Barassi Line. That is a nonsense argument. They only have to be relevant to the topic of this article ~ the historical divide between between football codes in Australia. The language section and its sources are both directly relevant to this article and ought to be included. Afterwriting (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not any football codes - its the two main ones. There is no difference between the amount of soccer played on either side of the line, or what its called. Soccer is not affected in any way, and neither is the language of soccer. No-one who wants this section in the article has been able to make even the slightest mark on this fact. Mdw0 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Riverina is a mixed area, not Aussie Rules territory except for Albury. Many well known Rugby League personality such as Peter Sterling and Ray Warren come from the region. Other sporting stars from Wagga Wagga such as Michael Slater are passionate about RL as well, in Slater's case being co-host of the NRL Footy Show. I agree that the "Football vs Soccer" language issue isn't relevant to this article. None of the sources mention the language usage in terms of the Barassi Line. Gizza  ( t )( c ) 02:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is most definitely an Aussie Rules following in Wagga Wagga. Spinrad (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Mdw0's misuse of semicolon
Per WPMOS, "A semicolon is sometimes an alternative to a full stop (period), enabling related material to be kept in the same sentence; it marks a more decisive division in a sentence than a comma. If the semicolon separates clauses, normally each clause must be independent (meaning that it could stand on its own as a sentence)" The sentence, where you parsed it, would read "The "Barassi Line" is a term which was first used by Ian Turner in his "1978 Ron Barassi Memorial Lecture"[1] to refer to an imagined line in Australia which divides areas where Australian rules football is the dominant winter code of football from those where the rugby football codes." That's not a standalone sentence, therefore a semicolon is inappropriate.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not quite. The above says 'IF it is used to separate clauses, then normally each clause must be independent.' But the semi colon here doesn't perform that function. Read the other bits where it talks about the use of semi colons and short lists. Actually that sentence in and of itself is terrible. It should say 'normally each clause WOULD be independent.' or drop the qualifier and say 'then each clause must be independent.' You can't combine must with qualifiers because must is an absolute - You must do this but only if you feel like it.... Mdw0 (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A detailed reference
On Ronald Dale's 80th birthday, we have a detailed article on Turner and the line. http://m.theage.com.au/sport/where-do-rugby-codes-end-and-rules-begin-at-the-barassi-line-of-course-20160225-gn3lbe.html The-Pope (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barassi Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603114106/http://tensport.com.au/news/theroar/AFL-Why-AFL-expansion-really-is-worth-all-the-risks.htm to http://tensport.com.au/news/theroar/AFL-Why-AFL-expansion-really-is-worth-all-the-risks.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224112408/http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/research/bitstream/handle/10453/23386/02whole.pdf to http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/research/bitstream/handle/10453/23386/02whole.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should be speedily deleted because it is a page that actually looks good, but then starts going into an incomprehensible drivel. This article fails on notability. The sum of all articles/books on the Barassi line is all of about five worldwide, most of which come out of the state of Victoria. There is no reasonable grounds for this article to exist. The lead even says it is "imaginary." Moreover the history of the article itself says it is nothing more than a pipe dream created by Ian Turner. It is therefore my understanding that this article should be deleted under the context that is meaningless drivel that would best be discussed at the pub among your mates. --2001:8003:645C:9200:297E:9524:2142:D6D (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I propose the article be renamed "See, ALF is really great and the best and everything, and not at all integral to my sense of self worth" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.194.232 (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your speedy deletion request has now been declined by multiple admins. If you would like to continue perusing deletion, WP:AFD would be the appropriate venue. SQL Query me!  23:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you to the Wikipedia system for sorting this out. I was about to unload on this editor but decided to wait 48 hours and let the experts deal with it. Mdw0 (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Unload on what exactly I wonder? Surely you don't believe this bonehead theory is anything more than pub talk for Victorians, South Australians and West Australians? There isn't a single part of Queensland that supports AFL in the majority and most of the area on that map is parts of Queensland where the population is 1 person or so per 100kms. None of New South Wales above Albury/Wodonga supports AFL either. In fact the AFL themselves have stated how difficult it is to get traction in Western Sydney. Without rigging the draw in the same way Brisbane used to have theres rigged there is no way the AFL will ever gain traction north of Victoria.


 * You need to stop dreaming, this article is delusional on all of the grounds I have stated above. I should also remind you that Wikipedia is not a place for these types of forum discussions explicitly Wikipedia is not a place to share your free speech views on these kinds of matters. So What exactly were you planning to unload on I wonder? I don't really know or understand at this point. --2001:8003:645C:9200:A9F0:AE5B:4D57:AC53 (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * As a wise man said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." What you're failing to grasp here is that your opinion and your arguments on this whole subject mean exactly diddly-squat.  Wikipedia runs on runs on reliable sources and reliable sources use this term in exactly the way it's been used here.  Why this offends you so deeply is a matter only for speculation but such offense doesn't change anything. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia runs on the opinions of whoever bothers to turn up with regard to AFDs. With regard to the information that is available here, this is a blatant fringe topic, that much is black and white. I am fairly certain after completing a university degree and post-graduate post-nomainals I'd know how to find reliable sources. This article contains the same handful (less than 5) articles/books on the matter available through common catalogue research. It is nothing but pub talk and actually fringes on crystal ball theory. Either improve it or others will be left with no other choice than to recommend it for an AFD. --2001:8003:645C:9200:BC66:FD01:8A3:FEA4 (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article isn't eligible for CSD full stop. WP:AFD would be the appropriate venue to delete it, but you would need an account to complete that process. I don't think anyone has argued against the points you've made - just have tried to explain wikipedia's policy on speedy deletion. Take the article to AFD if you believe it requires deletion. SQL Query me!  05:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * To be honest I don't have the time of day to go through that unnecessarily bloated process that as per usual on Wikipedia is a circular discussion based on whatever esteemed peers turn up on the day. The whole process is flawed and its another reason why I don't bother to edit here full time under an account --2001:8003:645C:9200:BC66:FD01:8A3:FEA4 (talk) 05:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)