Talk:Football in Australia/Archive 4

Improvements
The following edits were all (blindly, I presume) reverted by LauraHale and then HiLo48. And here is my response. If I have wrongly assumed that content was copied & pasted from elsewhere, by all means use these edit summaries to retrieve the content and move it into the relevant "[Specific code] in Australia", or "[Specific code] in [specific state]" article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your edits are too extensive to comment on fairly yet. Some refinement will obviously be required. Your interpersonal and communication skills are appalling. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * His edits included adding unsourced information, changing information so it did not agree with the source, and adding sourced information that did not agree with the source. It also included a fair amount of information about regional popularity being removed while he was on the side trying to argue that AFL is only popular in Melbourne. It is incredibly controversial. Consensus should be arrived at before going back to his version. --LauraHale (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "...while he was on the side trying to argue that AFL is only popular in Melbourne." I've tried more than once to correct you on this and you wonder why I concluded that you continue to edit/comment without reading and understanding the thing you're editing/commenting on. My edits, if you care to discuss them, are all on display below. By all means if I omitted any, feel free to point them out as well.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You omitted your manners. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He should also admit to doing original research and synthesis to push a point of view in this article. Despite repeated requests, Gibson Flying V has still not provided any sources to support a point of view that says only events that go towards a unified view of football sharing the same history, influences and things having implications for one code are the same thing that have implications for other codes.  We cannot move forward until this is addressed.  What sources is Gibson Flying V using that suggest this is true of football in Australia? I have been repeatedly accused by Gibson Flying V of not reading.  Gibson Flying V has failed to provide a single diff to support this accusation that I am not reading. Gibson Flying V has failed to retract it.  It appears that Gibson Flying V is the one not reading because Gibson Flying V has been unable to provide any sources to support their POV. Retracted comment on his actions regarding the Melbourne thing being associated with that arguement. --LauraHale (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You certainly (still!) have a lot to say about me, don't you? (even though my edit history -as well as yours- is all right here for everyone to see).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

1
Here I took out the sentence: "In Australia the use of football to describe codes outside of soccer predates the 1930s." Actually in the 1800s the unqualified use of 'Football' was used to mean rugby football in Sydney (see point 29 below). And why does soccer need to be mentioned?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * This is an unsourced comment. Removing sourced material to support to support an unsourced claim is problematic.  I challenge this as a controversial removal.  Please put it back until consensus to change the text has been established. --LauraHale (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm... what can I say other than "please re-read it" (especially the part about point 25 below). That "football" has been used to refer to more than one code since the 1800s does not need to mention any specific code (why do I need to type this out for you???)--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not going to read point 25. It is unsourced.  It needs to be sourced.  You stated your edits were non-controversial. Because sources used in the article disagree with you and your unsourced ones.--LauraHale (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing. If you're going to discuss it, you're going to have to read it. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. Please read it, and not just for my sake, but also your own.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please retract or please provide proof that I am failing to read. I eagerly await your proof or retraction as a demonstration of good faith. --LauraHale (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Every time you say "retract" it reminds me of when you said to me above: "I would hazard a guess that you will now ignore this comment to further push your personal, non-neutral, anti-consensus, anti-common name agenda" in response to me rather mildly voicing my concerns about this article's scope. You know very well that the only reason this discussion about specifics of the article's content is now able to finally take place is because I have set it up that way. You also know that I made one mini-edit per change of specific content, rather than a single sweeping edit that changed multiple areas of content at once, for this very purpose. Then you have the nerve to say to the admin who reverted your rollback that you "had repeatedly tried to discuss edits with the person and they were not willing to discuss their contributions". For shame. That you're in no position to lecture me about good faith is obvious to any editor who cares to poke their nose in here. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please retract or please provide proof that I am failing to read. I eagerly await your proof or retraction as a demonstration of good faith. --LauraHale (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

2
Here I rearranged the lead paragraph so that it flows more coherently from overview to history to participation, rather than jumping randomly from code-specific details, to history, to professional leagues, to national teams.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * This is a controversial change. The lead summarized the article.  Your changes did not reflect this.  The lead should accurately summarize the article.  As multiple controversial changes were made to the article, these all need to be addressed before this is fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're doing that thing where you just type and don't read again aren't you?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Retract.  Personal attacks are not acceptable.  I commented on your changes.  I did not comment on you personally. --LauraHale (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was impressed that you managed to leave another attack out of this one. You should be commended. But you only commented on my changes in as far as you saw that I made some sort of changes and went instantly to condemning them: This is a controversial change. (No it wasn't) The lead summarized the article. (I know it did) Your changes did not reflect this. (My changes did not reflect what?) The lead should accurately summarize the article. (Who's arguing?) As multiple controversial changes were made to the article, these all need to be addressed before this is fixed. (Removing needlessly duplicated content that makes no attempt to fit itself into a broad-concept article is not controversial, but re-inserting it is). I'm well aware of WP:LEAD, but not only that, I have a vague idea of how to write paragraphs of prose that flow properly (i.e. dealing with one theme t a time). I'm sorry that making that happen involved changing some stuff that you wrote, but you do not WP:OWN this article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please either provide a diff where I said I did not read or please retract the comment. Please retract your new accusation of WP:OWN. Once these retractions or diffs are made, we can start discussing the text.  Improving the text should be a shared goal. --LauraHale (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

3
Here I changed the opening sentence of the "Participation" section from "Among the other three football codes, there was historically a regional variation:" (which is clearly cut & pasted thoughtlessly from elsewhere) to "There was historically a regional variation in the spread of Australian football and rugby football:"--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * This change is controversial and inaccurate. There were three football codes mentioned and it was taken down to one.  Rugby league and rugby union are not the same. --LauraHale (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How can you have the first sentence of a new section start with "Among the other three..." Use of the word 'other' must be preceded by something so that readers know what you're not referring to. Why are you making my type this?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit made the statement factually inaccurate because it says only two football codes, not three. Surrounding text made it obvious. I am making you do nothing.  Please keep your actions to referencing the text, and not about me personally or me making you do anything.  This is unacceptable.  --LauraHale (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The word 'the' (as in "the other three") is a definite article. I'm sure you're familiar with their use. If not, have a read.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We are talking past each other. If I am willing to concede the problem with other, will you concede that you introduced a factual error with your controversial edit? --LauraHale (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to my reduction of three (Aussie rules, rugby league and rugby union) to two (Aussie rules and rugby football)?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. This was a factually inaccurate change. You have not explained why you made a change that was factually inaccurate, and then reverted my removal of your factually inaccurate modification.  What is the purpose of re-doing your revisions of your controversial edits to re-introduce this factually incorrect statement? League and union are not the same code.  --LauraHale (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

4
Here I changed the name of a subsection of "Participation" from "Indigenous participation" which needlessly repeats the word participation, to "Indigineous Australians".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:

5
Here I removed content needlessly copied and pasted from Women's soccer in Australia because it is not only specific to a single code, but also to a single gender.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * This is controversial because it eliminates women from the article. It was not needlessly copied and it is important for contextualizing women in Australian football. This should not be (Men's) Football in Australia which eliminating women that way assists in doing. --LauraHale (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It does no such thing. That's the same as saying indigenous Australians are excluded. You created a section for women under "Participation" and I have no objection. Your argument above would stand if I'd tried to remove it. This article clearly needs to be restricted to content that touches in some way on more than a single code of football or it belongs elsewhere, don't you agree?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there is no "football" in Australia. There are multiple codes in Australia.  It is completely reasonable to expect content to be specific to specific codes.  There are few sources that exists that treat football as one thing in Australia.  Almost all the academic and newspaper sources acknowledge and discuss football in Australia as a plurality of codes.  You appear to be POV pushing and are not supposed by sources. --LauraHale (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a very convincing argument for a disambiguation page. But I'm saying we can make this broad concept thing work, dammit! You seem desperate for this article to be of a particular length, and even if that means copying and pasting content directly from '[Specific code] in Australia' articles to bulk it up, regardless of whether it has any relation to the broader concept, then by Jove you'll do it. I'd like to say you import from all these other articles indiscriminately, but you don't. you're particularly fond of Aussie rules content and women's soccer content. You can see how plain that is to any user here right? Making this a genuine broad-concept article has to mean boiling it down to content that deals with the topic as a whole, whether you like it or not. All the stuff about specific codes in specific states is still all right there for people to access and read in the relevant articles. By all means introduce more WP:Wikilinks to them. But you cannot keep reproducing it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because the same arguement could be made to disambiguate Sport in Australia. And I disagree: We should not doing original research and synthesis by creating new meaning not implicitly found in the sources. Also, please retract "you're particularly fond of Aussie rules content and women's soccer content".  This is an untrue statement that is contradicted by my stated comments. --LauraHale (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

6
Here I removed content detailing someone once winning an award in a specific code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:


 * This was a controversial removal. It mischaracterizes the some specific code, and demonstrates a lack of broader understanding of the topic by Gibson Flying V and Gibson Flying V failing to read the sources.  This was the first time this award was one by a woman and is important for understanding the role of women in Australian football.  The source actually explains why this award is significant beyond an individual level. --LauraHale (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in how this article reads, not how the sources used for it read (and so should you be). If you're able to word it in such a way that it is in alignment with the uncontroversial stipulation that it relates in some way to more than one code of football then how could I possible object?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I´m interested in an accurate, factual and neutral article. You removed it "removed content detailing someone once winning an award in a specific code of football".  Your controversial removal was not "improving flow".  If you are interested in improving flow, you read the sources and understand them.  When you remove, you say why.  You said "removed content detailing someone once winning an award in a specific code of football" for which I based my judgement on.  This removal was controversial.  Please read the source and propose alternative wording that has better flow. --LauraHale (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think if you could manage to repeat that you think it was controversial a few more times it might actually work and people will start believing it! If I deleted that sentence from Australian rules football you might have the ghost of a point. But I didn't. I deleted it from this article, which as you've already agreed, is a broad concept article not intended to be a repository for content copied & pasted from other articles. I have got that right don't I? We are in agreement about that right?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You said your edits were non-controversial. They clearly are given that it should have been clear from the talk page that your rewriting efforts would be met with friction and opposition.  I have not agreed with " a broad concept article not intended to be a repository for content copied & pasted from other articles."  Please retract.  I have explicitly stated otherwise. --LauraHale (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

7
Here I removed content that appears to have been thoughtlessly cut & pasted directly from Rugby union in Australia. The information can actually probably stay, because it does relate to some firsts for any code of football in Australia, but it needs to be re-worded to reflect this.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * This is a controversial removal because it is important for understanding international Australian football, Australian football at the Olympics, and where a team nickname came from. This team is arguably one of the two most well known Australian national football teams internationally. --LauraHale (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, the removal by Gibson Flying V appears to indicate Gibson Flying V's lack of understanding of the topic and lack of familiarity with the sources. In the whole of this discussion, Gibson has provided few sources outside of Sydney based newspapers and FFA links exclusively about soccer or to support a pro-soccer position. --LauraHale (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to make all the ad-hominem remarks you want. No one cares. I'm restricting my comments to the content in the article and so should you. Feel free to accept my invitation to re-word it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As a controversial removal, it should absolutely be put back into the article. The impetus is on you to reword it if you want to progress with the controversial change. I will assume that you are fine with the text as it is situated and written in the article given your lack of desire to fix the wording.  Is this an acceptable assumption? --LauraHale (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Was the addition of these two sentences about the Wallabies your attempt at comprehensively dealing with the topics of early internationals played, tours embarked on, and nicknames earned by Australian national football teams in a way that's appropriate for a broad-concept article entitled simply "Football in Australia"? If so, it was not recognizable as such.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

8
Here I removed mention of an instance where one particular code of football was played outside Australia.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * This is controversial because it culturally situates Australian football in a way that is still felt today. The AFL has big celebrations on ANZAC day that tie into this sort of thing and there are numerous references to Australian sport in war time.  (Oddly, none about Aussies playing soccer, but there are ones about cricket and rugby league and rugby union.) --LauraHale (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Again: relevant to a single code of football so suitable for that code's article (where it no doubt already appears). I continue to wait for an argument against restricting this article to content that is relevant to more than a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The body of sources that discuss football in Australia do not treat all codes as one. Do you have sources that suggest all codes are treated as one code?  Most sources, when discussing them, do not discuss football in the way that you are demanding the article do.  This is the argument being put forth. The rationale for the inclusion of the material has been put forth.  You have provided no argument that supports the controversial removal. You were the one who claimed none of your edits were controversial. --LauraHale (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if I should refuse to discuss this any further until you "retract" your accusation that I'm "demanding" that "all codes are treated as one code"? No, that would be silly! So, was the inclusion of one sentence ("During The Great War, Australian rules was played on the fields of Gallipolli.") an attempt at comprehensively covering the topics of a) Australians and the football codes in wartime, and b) ANZAC Day celebrations and the football codes, in a way that's appropriate for a broad-concept article entitled simply "Football in Australia"? If so, it was just not recognizable as such. Even if sources treat these two topics one code at a time, what's stopping us from bringing the separate pieces of information together, grouped by their common theme, under the title of this article?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

9
Here I removed a sentence that was cut & pasted from Rugby league in Victoria (where I added it, by the way).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial removal. It furthers understanding of regional popularity of various football codes in Australia.  This is important given the Sydney versus Melbourne rivalries still present in the national sporting landscape. --LauraHale (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It furthers understanding of popularity of a single football code in a single state. What you're describing is the sentence I added (with a reference from a source outside Australia) about the reversal of the footy landscape so to speak in the 2006 grand finals (which, by the way, you removed).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your response highlights the controversial nature of your removal, and why all your edits should have consensus before being done. Sources about football in Australia do not talk about football as a universal way.  Football codes in Australia are understood either in isolation or by comparing them other codes.  This is how the academic sources and to a degree many of the newspaper sources treat football.  You have offered no evidence to support your position that every instance of a specific could should be understood in a more universal football Australian way.  I am just baffled by this.  Can you provide me with the sources YOU are using to arrive at your conclusions? Perhaps we are reading completely different academic texts about football. --LauraHale (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How this sentence ("The Victorian Rugby League was running a rugby league premiership by the 1920s and also selected a representative Victorian XIII to tour domestically.") furthers understanding of regional popularity of various football codes in Australia is what I find baffling. These Sydney versus Melbourne rivalries still present in the national sporting landscape you speak of are simply not "given". In fact, nothing "Sydney vs Melbourne"-related post 1900s was even alluded to in this article until I added "Also in 2006, both Sydney's and Melbourne's grand finals featured teams from interstate, reflecting the shift in professional football in Australia." Your statement, "Football codes in Australia are understood either in isolation or by comparing them other [sic] codes" is interesting. I would put it like this however: On Wikipedia, football codes in Australia are described either in isolation (at code-specific articles such as Soccer in Australia, Rugby union in Australia, etc.) or by comparing and contrasting them with other codes (at an article entitled Football in Australia).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 *  Your statement, "Football codes in Australia are understood either in isolation or by comparing them other [sic] codes" is interesting.  Interesting how? What sources are you reading that have led you to arrive at an alternative interpretation?  We cannot move further with this as you appear to me to have decided WP:V is not important in this discussion.  Whether my interpretation of your intent and beliefs is accurate or not, I have reached an impasse in my ability to communicate with you because I do not understand where you are coming from.  What sources are informing your point of view?  What have you read that have led you to arrive at your current interpretation regarding the history and current nature of Australian football? --LauraHale (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

10
Here I removed content specific to one code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial removal. That it is specific to one code is completely irrelevant.  It is incredibly important information for understanding football in Australia at that time and as it stands now.  --LauraHale (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. It is important information for understanding Australian rules football in Australia at that time and as it stands now. No doubt it already appears elsewhere as well. Don't you agree that for content to be duplicated amongst different articles there needs to be a good reason for doing so?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Content can and should be duplicated in many situations. If you are writing Soccer in Australia, I assume you would have a fair amount of duplication from all the various articles about states. In many ways, this is a daughter article of Sport in Australia and should be more comprehensive than the article as it pertains to football.  Parts of this article could be summarized for Sport in Australia.  This is a parent article for various articles like Soccer in Australia, Rugby league in Australia and Rugby union in Australia.  Those articles should have more depth and could/should be summarized here in relevant parts. See Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Formatting_and_Illustrating_Articles/Article_Sections_and_Tables_of_Contents and Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Building_a_Stronger_Encyclopedia/Better_Articles:_A_Systematic_Approach. --LauraHale (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I refer you to this article's title. A title that is, I'm sure you'll agree, very much open to interpretation. My own interpretation, upon discovering that it is not a disambiguation page, is that of an article that treats all the football codes with regard to the commonwealth in a non-specific, balanced and neutral way. Given that articles already exist not only for each of the codes in Australia, but for each of the codes in each of the states of Australia, I'd expect this to be a place for comparing, contrasting and detailing overlaps on a national level in these different footballs which all have a claim to the name. Now, since you're so well resourced with this wealth of academic texts on the subject, you appear to be better positioned than anyone to achieve something resembling this. Yet you manage to contrive six consecutive sentences that detail the minutiae of a single code's early history. If it's minutiae of individual codes that you want, then you should be careful what you wish for because (as we've already witnessed) once fans of particular codes take notice of this, that's what you'll get. And the next thing you know this article has spiraled out of control into a puzzling and verbose patchwork of needlessly duplicated content from a multitude of other articles whose existence (unlike this article's) is never questioned. If the information I removed can be, as you yourself say, "summarized here in relevant parts" I'm sure everyone will feel a lot better about it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I refer you to this article's title. Yes, let us discuss the article title.  The article is about football in Australia. The early history of the code is very important for understanding the present situation.  The game of football is regional and code based. The details are not as you characterized minutiae. (Again, I would repeat the request for sources that you have read and are familiar with the led you to this conclusion. What are your sources? WP:V is one of the core content policies you seem keen to miss.)  If you are arguing that once the fans of a particular code take notice that their code is not being given special attention and the point of view that their code is the most awesome is not being presented, that is a problem with WP:NPOV pushing.  At the present, I think it would be better to blow out a particular section, make it larger, spin it off to its own daughter article, take the lead from the article and put it back into the article here.  I am not seeing a reason to cave to WP:NPOV warriors, which is my interpretation of your words.  --LauraHale (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

11
Here I removed content specific to a single code of football, and added a "Clarification needed" tag to the unqualified use of the term "football".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial removal. The reference is to Australian rules football and goes to explain regional patterns again.  Clarification needed tag is not necessary in this context because it refers to all football codes. --LauraHale (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Therefore it belongs in the Australian rules football article and not this one, don't you agree? If you're referring to all football codes, then say so and then no one can possibly require clarification, can they?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I do not agree. Regional patterns of Australian football are one of the keys to understanding the football situation in Australia. There are a number of academic and newspaper sources that talk about regional issues related to football in Australia.  What sources do you have about the nationalization of football in Australia?  On the other issue, if you have a suggestion for the text, please suggest a reword because the use of football in the article to refer to all codes is rather clear to me. -LauraHale (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How does the following assist a reader in understanding the football codes in a national context? "In September 1921, a game was played at the Brisbane Cricket Ground between a team from North Brisbane and a team from South Brisbane. The match had over 10,000 people in attendance. The North Brisbane team wore red and the South Brisbane team wore blue. The game was won by North Brisbane with a score of two to zero." In addition to the above question, also ask yourself how, in an article that stands as testament to the very ambiguity of the term "football" in Australia, is the following sentence helpful? "Early football outfits for women were not that different than outfits worn today: long socks, long-sleeved football jerseys, baggy shorts, and purpose worn football shoes." It's very simple: If, for example, you're writing about Australian rules and soccer, put "Australian rules and soccer". Or, if you're writing something about all codes of football, put "all codes of football". Just putting "football" and leaving it up to readers to then click on the reference to find out which code is being referred to is, in my humble opinion, inexcusably poor editing.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

12
Here I removed content specific to a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial. Once again, Gibson Flying V removed Australian rules football information that is very, very important for understanding the regional patterns of the sport in the country.  Gibson Flying V and 2nyte have both been arguing that AFL is only popular in Melbourne.  This sort of edit appears to be revisionism to hide the fact that the indigenous football code has been played more widely and has more national popularity than outside Melbourne. --LauraHale (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You make my point for me: "the sport" (singular). Everyone waits with bated for the evidence of my having "been arguing that AFL is only popular in Melbourne." And by all means, keep the baseless personal attacks coming. But might I suggest not mixing your editors up first?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If I confused you with 2nyte, then I apologize. But the point stands: This is a controversial removal for the reasons stated. Also, the use of singular is grammatically correct. It refers to all sport in Australia. Regional patterns for football are very important, more important based on the volume of sources, than for other sports in Australia like bat and ball sports, and water sports. --LauraHale (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I've made an error. I've only just now noticed that this is the same diff already being discussed above (which is very is surprising since you read my diffs so carefully before discussing them). Anyway, I believe here I intended to discuss my removal of: ''The first international soccer match played by Australia was against New Zealand in 1922. In 1923, a soccer team from Southern China toured Tasmania.'' Now, the first sentence would have been fine if mentions of every other code's first internationals were also included to comply with WP:UNDUE. The second sentence would be OK if it was contextualized properly. Why is this particular tour mentioned and not the multitude of tours for all the other codes? If it was in some way the first or only such tour, this would be worthy of mentioning as it would clearly show its relation to the other codes, i.e. such a thing has never happened for any other code, or not until after this instance.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

13
Here and here I removed content specific to one code of football, and reworded other content so that its relation to all codes of football was made clear.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant.  The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia.  Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned.  Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant." Now we're getting somewhere. I'd like to know what your test for inclusion here would be. Why stop at only copying & pasting your personal favourite bits? Why not import even larger swathes of content directly from the '[Sepcific code] in Australia' articles? Better rationale is required from you for wanting to change a sentence that says "[Code X] was the first of any football code in Australia to do something" to "[Code X] did something".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * " Why stop at only copying & pasting your personal favourite bits?" Please retract this statement.  It ascribes to me things that you cannot prove.  If you have evidence that these are my favourite bits, please provide the diffs. Beyond that, we deal with topics like sources deal with sources.  We do not create our own meaning and do synthesis work. --LauraHale (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just can't see any reason for you wanting to include this sentence ("In 1924, the Australian Rugby League Board of Control, later to be known as the Australian Rugby League, was formed to administer the national team (the Kangaroos), and later as the national governing body for the sport of Rugby League.") in the history section, other than it being a sentence that you personally favour in some way. What about the formation of the Australian Rugby Union, New South Wales Rugby Union, Queensland Rugby Union, Queensland Rugby League, Western Australian Rugby League, South Australia Rugby Union, etc.? What about the New South Wales Rugby Football League's first Kangaroo tour or the fact that rugby league is not mentioned in the "History" section until the formation of the Victorian Rugby League in 1922? What about the "National teams" section? Is the version you're so vigorously defending really as well thought out as you appear to think it is, or was it just a very clumsy, lazy attempt? Regarding the green & gold: it's my POV that we can get away with limiting this article's scope to the football codes. Otherwise more content regarding more different sports must also be allowed to creep in.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

14
Here I removed content specific to one code of football in one specific state that was no doubt copied & pasted from the relevant article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:

15
Here Here I removed content specific to a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:


 * Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant.  The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia.  Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned.  Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing the point that "individual codes will be mentioned". I've even made a few mentions myself. But I word them in such a way that their implications for more than a single code of football in Australia are obvious to readers. This prevents them from scratching their heads wondering why this isn't a disambiguation page. Better rationale is required for why the sentence, "Soccer was used a cultural [sic] gateway to introduce new European arrivals during the 1940s to Australian culture" has implications for football (as a broad concept, not solely the association code) in Australia. Its copying and pasting from Soccer in Australia in its current state is not justified by any attempt at contextualization.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing the point that "individual codes will be mentioned" is what you just said. Please explain in the context of Here I removed content specific to a single code of football.  I am confused as this appears to be a contradiction.  Your rationale of  But I word them in such a way that their implications for more than a single code of football in Australia are obvious to readers. is original research and synthesis because this is not how sources treat football in Australia, where codes are compared and contrasted with each other, and their histories and fan bases treated as separate.  Perhaps I am wrong.  Could you tell me which sources you are reading that treat the suggest the implications of an event in one code widely have implications for other codes? This would better assist in understanding why the point of view you are advocating (shared history where events on one code have implications for other codes) should be the dominant one in the article. --LauraHale (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

To clarify my point and avoid confusion. The following are a few of the sources I have read and have physical access to that talk about football in Australia. These texts compare and contrast, talk about how the sports are occassionally influenced by eachother, and talk about how these codes compete with each other. These sources do not at any time suggest a unified history of football in Australia implying one event had implications for multiple codes.
 * A National Game, The history of Australian rules footballb y Rob Hess, Matthew Nicholson, Bob Stewart and Gregory de Moore.
 * A Game of Our Own by Geoffrey Blainey.
 * The Sportsmen of Changi by Kevin Blackburn.
 * Sport in Australian History edited by Daryl Adair and Wray Vamplow.
 * Our Footy, Real fans vs big bucks by Cherl Critchley.
 * The Makers of Australia's Sporting Traditions selected and edited by Michael McKernan.
 * Good Sports, Australian sport and the myth of the fair go by Peter Kell.
 * Passion Play by Matthew Klugman.
 * Urge to Merge by Ian Ridley with John Ridley.
 * Up There, Calazy by Leonie Sandercock and Ian Turner.
 * Sport Management in Australia, An organizational overview by David Shilbury and John Deane.
 * No Pain, No Gain? Sport and Australian Culture' by Jim McKay.
 * Bulletin of Sport and Culture, volumes 33 to 39.
 * Half the Race by Marion K. Stell.
 * Football's women, the forgotten heroes by Kevin Sheedy and Carolyn Brown.

To clarify, what sources do you have that treat all football in Australia as a monolithic thing where what happens in one code has implications for another code and influences other codes? Treating all football in Australia as a monolithic thing? A better case for this arguement could be made for Sport in Australia than for this specific article based on the sources, but I am might not have read, nor have access to the sources you have that you are using to support your POV regarding the selection criteria for content in this article. I would like to understand this better. (Hence the repeated requests for sources.) This understanding is fundamental towards moving forward. --LauraHale (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Pinging @Gibson Flying V here. This is the most important point at this point in time regarding your controversial edits. This part here goes to the very heart of why your edits are controversial from my point of view and why your material should not be included in the article and why your removals were inappropriate. Until this is addressed, we will not be able to move forward. --LauraHale (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Pinging @Gibson Flying V again. We need to discuss WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. Please assist in moving forward by citing sources that support "But I word them in such a way that their implications for more than a single code of football in Australia are obvious to readers." as the way sources treat football in Australia. The aforementioned sources do not. The sources in the article do not. What sources are you looking at that can be cited to support the POV in your statement. --LauraHale (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Now, regarding your question about the existence of sources that discuss more than one code of football at a time (not that we need them in order to do so in this article):                                This is by no means exhaustive.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the inclusion of the sentence I removed constitutes an attempt at dealing comprehensively with the topic of immigrants/demographics and the football codes in Australia, then it was simply not recognizable as such. We don't need to first find a sole source that deals with this topic before we can do so here. You take the information pertaining to the individual codes (which should ideally be located at the "[Specific code] in Australia" articles) and you group it together here in a balanced way as per WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure why you want to bring up WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If giving the topic of Australia's immigrants/demographics and the football codes proper treatment is your intention, perhaps a section entitled "Demographics" is a better option.

16
Here I removed content specific not only to a single code of football but to a single gender.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant.  The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia.  Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned.  Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How this sentence: "During the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, women's Australian rules football saw a large expansion in the number of competitors" has any relevance for the broader concept of football in Australia (i.e. what implications it has for more than just a single code) is what needs better rationale. As it is now, it will make any reader wonder why its appearance in Women's Australian rules football and/or History of Australian rules football and/or Australian rules football and/or Women's sport in Australia is not sufficient.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

17
Here I removed content specific to a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant.  The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia.  Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned.  Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The following has zero relevance for any code of football in Australia except one: In 1974, the Australian team qualified for the 1974 FIFA World Cup, the first successful qualification to the FIFA World Cup in the country's history after failing to qualify to the 1966 and 1970 tournaments. It would prove to be the only appearance for the Australian team for more than three decades. Better rationale is required for its inclusion as it is in this broad-concept article. Or if it can be worded in such a way as to make its presence in this article less confusing that would also be nice.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has implications for soccer, the development of the sport and its visibility. This implication is covered in a wide variety of sources about the game in Australia. Its inclusion is thus very important. May I ask what books, journal articles and sources you have read about football in Australia and soccer in specific that led you to arrive at a conclusion that this is not important to the development of soccer in Australia? --LauraHale (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So that I'm not accused once more of making a personal attack (amusing though it is), I'll frame this as a question: Did you miss the words "except one" in the first sentence of my previous reply? If not, why did you open your response with "Yes, it has implications for soccer..."?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

18
Here I removed content content specific to a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant.  The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia.  Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned.  Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the following could be re-worded or contextualized in such a way as to make it relevant to more than a single code of football in Australia its inclusion may approach being justified: In 1995, rugby union became professional in Australia following an agreement between SANZAR countries and Rupert Murdoch regarding pay television rights for the game.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues again. You have failed to provide sources that suggest the implications for one code impact all football codes.  Please provide sources for this point of view so that a determination if this is an acceptable approach to determining the inclusive value of material in the article, rather than including the most important events in an individual code's history and culture. --LauraHale (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If I ever did say that content added to this article regarding one code must always have implications for "all football codes", then that is not exactly right and I apologise for the misunderstanding. My POV is that code-specific content must have implications for at least one other code, and these implications should be made apparent. If not, then it can go straight into the "[Specific code] in Australia" article. Rugby union's professionalism obviously had implications for at least one other code (as did rugby league's), and if you're unable/unwilling to find sources for this and comprehensively deal with it in a well-balanced way in this article, then I have to wonder why you're here spending so much time on it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

19
Here I removed content content specific to a single code of football and also addressed an WP:OVERLINK issue.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant.  The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia.  Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned.  Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So that readers who happen upon this article don't continue wondering why it isn't a disambiguation page that provides a link to Soccer in Australia, where the following paragraph no doubt belongs, it will need to be re-worded or contextualized so that its relevance to more than a single code of football in Australia is made clear:
 * "By 2001, Australian soccer players were plying their trade around the globe with 150 of them playing over seas. In 2002, the Australian government again intervened in sport when Senator Rod Kemp, the Minister for Arts and Sport, announced that Soccer Australia was to be restructured by the Australian Sports Commission. At the time, the organisation had A$2.6 million in [sic] debt. National organisational problems were mirrored on the state level at the time of the take over. The Australian Sports Commission delivered back a report that recommended 53 changes to be made in four key areas. One suggestion involved separating the management of the national governing body from that of the national league. Former Australian Rugby Union CEO John O'Neil [sic] was brought in to make these changes and the organisation changes [sic] its name in 2005 to Football Federation Australia as part of an effort to reposition the sport in the country."
 * Hint: include for the purpose of comparison mentions of Government involvement in other codes of football and details of other multi-code football administrators, wording them in such a way that they tie in together as one would expect in a broad-concept article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

20
Here I removed content content specific to a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant.  The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia.  Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned.  Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the following has any relevance to the broader concept of football in Australia, it is extremely difficult to divine: A U17 Youth Girls Competition was established by Football Victoria in 2004. This was following legal action taken against them in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal following a complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commission by Penny Cula-Reid, Emily Stayner, and Helen Taylor. Let's also agree right here and now, that the unqualified use of the term 'football' be prohibited in this article whose very existence stands as testament to how bewilderingly ambiguous such usage is.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

21
Here I removed content content specific to a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:

22
Here I removed content specific to a single code of football in a single state.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant.  The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia.  Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned.  Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Details specific to Australian rules football in Queensland (and no other code) belong in Australian rules football in Queensland (and no other code's article), don't they? Or are you suggesting a merge of all the codes and all the states into this one article? Or rather than a merge, just straight up duplication? I'm trying my best to understand.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Details about Australian rules football in Queensland may be relevant to this article given the correct context. Facts from one article are not the exclusive domain of that article.  I am not suggesting a merge.  See Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Formatting_and_Illustrating_Articles/Article_Sections_and_Tables_of_Contents.  Parent and daughter articles frequently borrow text from each other. --LauraHale (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We're in perfect agreement that details about Australian rules football in Queensland may be relevant to this article given the correct context. How were the details in question (Popularity of Australian rules in Queensland was evident in the 2006 AFL Draft with a record 11 recruits, including 8 of the first 32 picks. The majority of the movement was in the regional areas, with some picks from previously undrafted regional areas such as Townsville, Toowoomba and Mackay providing AFL talent.) given the correct context, sandwiched as they were within the "History" section between details of soccer playing youth's ethnicity in the 1990s and the Melbourne Storm 2010 salary cap breach? To avoid questions regarding WP:UNDUE, where were the details of other professional leagues' non-heartland talent?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

23
Here I went to merge content that was relevant to any sport in Australia to Sport in Australia only to find (surprise, surprise) that that's where it had been copied & pasted from.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant.  The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia.  Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned.  Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "...a record Australian sporting fine..." Pretty clear cut case for Sport in Australia (where it already is) don't you think?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant.  The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia.  Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned.  That it is copy and pasted from Sport in Australia is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it should be included in this article. Better rationale required. --LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That it is copied and pasted from Sport in Australia could hardly be more relevant, as this is the very reason returning to a disambiguation page keeps being brought up. If it was actually your intention to deal with the topic of salary caps as they relate to Australia's football codes in a way that's appropriate to a broad concept article, then that attempt was simply unrecognizable as such. To strengthen the case for this article's existence I suggest giving the topic of salary caps in relation to football in Australia proper treatment by adding (preferably to the section dealing with professional football) details about when each code's was introduced (in chronological order), then each code's record breaches (in order of scale). I want to emphasize (not that I need to since we're all so big on assuming good faith around here) that this is merely one editor's suggestion and naturally subject to input from others.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

24
Here I removed content content specific to a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant.  The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia.  Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned.  Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Further controversial: This section is one of the best places to discuss national teams as opposed to a straight list. Also, annoying that once again, Gibson Flying V is removing information about women.  Given the massive participation of women in soccer in Australia and the existence of the W-League while no comparable exists for any other football code, it is especially troubling to see these women and soccer references removed. --LauraHale (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Under a section entitled "National teams" you had the grand total of two sub-sections: "Australian rules" and "Soccer". This, I think, speaks volumes.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume the volumes it speaks are this: LauraHale could not find adequately sourced existing material for rugby league, rugby union and other national teams and was too lazy to research the topic to create separate sections for those teams to the point where she felt comfortable creating sections? (Go look at most of those articles and the sourcing. Look at the lead and see if you can fully source them from the body, and then easily include them in this article.  Bet you cannot.) If this was not the volume you were speaking of, or if you were in anyway implying something else, please retract the statement or provide diffs that support your implied negative comment. --LauraHale (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that I should have to type this out, but the volumes it speaks, in light of


 * a) your vigorous defense of a "National teams" section containing sub-sections only for "Australian rules" and "Soccer" more than three weeks after similar concerns were raised,


 * b) your own admission that your additions were sourced mainly from Women's Australian rules football and Women's soccer in Australia, and
 * c) that you were "too lazy to research the topic" whilst asserting above that the Australian rugby union team "is arguably one of the two most well known Australian national football teams",


 * are that you have no concept of undue weight, are pushing a particular POV, lack the necessary competence to edit or discuss this article, or any combination of the above. Take your pick. As I say: Volumes. Why you insist on this discussion being about you rather than restricting it to the article's content is truly puzzling.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

25: Inclusion of unsourced information
Here I added content on Australia's first participation in and winning of a football World Cup tournament of any code.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial. Introduction of unsourced material. --LauraHale (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I look forward to hearing more about the ones that came before these. Then I'll happily remove them myself.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You should not have re-introduced your controversial, unsourced statement. I look forward to hearing more about why you introduced unsourced controversial content. --LauraHale (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Australia's first appearance in:
 * the Rugby League World Cup was in 1954,
 * the FIFA World Cup was in 1974,
 * the Rugby Union World Cup was in 1987,
 * the Touch Football World Cup was in 1988,
 * the Futsal World Cup was in 1989, and
 * the American football World Cup was in 1999.
 * Have I missed something? If I did, I assure you it was an honest error. I also assume you've heard of these tags?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

26
Here I reworded a sentence so that it was clear that it related to the broad topic of all codes of football in Australia, and also added a (deliberately?) neglected WP:Wikilink.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial. Changed meaning not supported by the sources.  The AFL and the NRL were not the first professional football leagues in Australia.  --LauraHale (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Were they not? Do you have a source for that? Seems like something that should be mentioned in the article (noticing this common theme about firsts for any code yet?).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They were not the first professional leagues. You said they were and you said the sources supported that with your edits. Hence, the controversial nature of the edit.  This was mentioned in the article, but oddly it appeared some one tried to remove this information.  The history of the leagues in general, rather than organizational structure, profits, spectatorship, television viewing, should be in the history section and not the professional football section. --LauraHale (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

27
Here I added another first for any code of football in Australia.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial and unverifiable. Given the removal of the earlier text about the first international tour for this team and of other teams playing in Australia, the inclusion of a bit about a French team touring Australia is weird. --LauraHale (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a first for any code, therefore relevant to an article about all codes. Simple. I invited you to re-word the other bit above so that it actually said it was a first for any code. Bizarrely you'd rather make paper-thin and confusingly worded arguments like this instead.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You removed similar information about firsts for codes. The information was patently unsourced.  The french touring is not inherently important.  Why the French? Why not the Spanish? The Portuguese? The Irish? The Welsh? Also, why did you fail to source it? You took a full sourced article and included several unsourced pieces of information. --LauraHale (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

28
Here I added content related to multiple codes of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial. Not supported by the source. --LauraHale (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll need to explain exactly how it's not supported by the source.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The source says it will be trialed, not that it was trialed. Beyond that, there are much better and more reliable sources on the topic. This trial was generally viewed as a failure. Have you read Hess and Stewart who have discussed this in some depth? --LauraHale (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

29
Here I added relevant and referenced content to the "Etymology" section.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss:
 * Controversial edit. Not supported by the source. --LauraHale (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Prove to me that you read the source and understood it by explaining clearly how that sentence is not supported by the source (this should be good).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Source says:
 * "A meeting of the Mercantile Football Club was held on Monday night at Hodge's Commercial Hotel, King-street. Mr. J. Bush occupied the chair.  The following office-bearers were elected for the ensuing year: - President, Mr. R.A. Price; captain, Mr. Heeiler; vice-captain, Mr. T. Coghlan; secretary, Mr. Anderson; treasurer, Mr. L. Forstor; general committe, Messrs. Chalmers, Hellyer, Coghlan, Wallace and Busg: selecition committee, Messrs. Chalmers and Thame, to act with the captain; caps of honour - all-round play, Mr. Thame; back-play, Mr. Wallace, forward play, Mr. Hellyer; special cap of honour, Mr. Chalmers Messrs. R.A. Price and R. Brannnon were elected delegates to the Southern Rugby Football Union, and the meeting the adjourned."
 * Your text, "In Sydney in the late 1880s the term unqualified term football was used to refer to Rugby football." The quoted text from your source does not say that at all. Please retract the accusation that I failed to read the source text and your text addition. --LauraHale (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please retract your accusation of me having made an accusation (oh no now you've got ME saying it!). The accidental duplication of the word "term" in my sentence was corrected but repeatedly re-instated by your careless rollbacks by the way. Now, that paragraph's heading is "FOOTBALL". I took the fact that the Mercantile Football Club was electing delegates to the Southern Rugby Football Union as evidence for it being a rugby football club. Anyway, I've found this. Another section of a sports page from the same year entitled "FOOTBALL". It opens with, "A meeting of the Southern Rugby Football Union was held...". Further down in the same section a paragraph opens with, "A meeting of the Southern British Football Association was held...". I think we can use this as a source for a sentence that says something along the lines of, "In Sydney in the late 1880s the term "football" was used without qualification to refer to more than one code." This removes the need for mentioning any specific code, which I always felt was less than ideal. Are you still going to argue that this would not represent an improvement on your "In Australia the use of football to describe codes outside of soccer predates the 1930s."?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Prove to me that you read the source and understood" is the text you made. This clearly implies I did not read the diff in question before making the comment. The text I clearly read does not support your textual addition.  Before 29 goes any further, please in good faith retract your implied accusation that I did not read the text OR provide a diff where I said I did not read this.  Once you have done this, we can get back to the point where  "In Sydney in the late 1880s the term unqualified term football was used to refer to Rugby football." is not supported by the cited text. --LauraHale (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V soccer and women's content removal
I am concerned about Gibson Flying V's edits. He has removed a lot of information about soccer from the article, including women's participation numbers, a woman earning an award never earned by a female footballer, and when the Australia played their first international soccer game. Can the editorial thought process behind the decision to remove women and soccer references be explained?? --LauraHale (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The removal of information appears to be an attempt at trying push an anti-consensus disambiguation point of view by purging all information that does not refer to all codes in their entirety. This is extremely frustrating because the involved editors have not demonstrated through use of sources any understanding of football in Australia. Can they please stop their editing on the page and explain what they are doing?--LauraHale (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the reason for disambiguation of the article. The majority of the information is either specific to one code or needlessly copied and pasted from one of the football specific articles. This has been repeated in, and , and still you ask to "explain what they are doing".--2nyte (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason is not important. What matters is there was no consensus for this.  Rather than try to develop consensus for changes, a battle axe was taken to it in order to force a point of view that was rejected on the talk page. --LauraHale (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You're both way off. I'm removing needlessly duplicated content so that the much-touted broad topic article can actually be achieved, i.e. an article restricted to content that relates to multiple codes of football, or firsts/records for any code of football. Pretty uncontroversial stuff. Feel free to pick particular edits to contest. I've done it bit by bit rather than one big sweeping change just for this purpose. Where are the bad faith accusations now, Laura?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to do this. You removed information wholesale and indistrictimately.  You claim it was uncontroversial but the removals were clearly controversial given the talk page and the requests that you discuss any such action before taking it.  The actions here, not the motivation behind it, clearly demonstrate acting against consensus.  Your good faith motivation which led you to taking controversial actions are not the issue.  It is the actions against consensus that are the problem.  Your motivations are irrelavation. --LauraHale (talk)
 * There is no consensus for these changes. Hardly anybody has agreed with your proposals here on the Talk page. Continue, and I will treat it as vandalism. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Prove to me that you actually looked at what you reverted by telling me which specific changes you mean.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You spend days arguing for massive changes to the article, they weren't agreed to, then you began making massive changes! Why the hell should anybody assume good faith? If you have accepted the arguments against the massive changes you first wanted, then a statement to that effect would have been appropriate. If you have new ideas, discuss them! (I know there is now some discussion attempted below, but it's a little late, isn't it?) Your editing has not been in good faith. (If it has, your competence to edit here must be in doubt.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD. Doubtless you don't need me to point out that I raised my concerns and ideas for improvement above in no uncertain terms and both you and LauraHale were eerily silent on them, instead choosing to go on a wild goose chase and make personal attacks clearly intended for some other user. I gave you time to respond properly but you both declined. But please, do continue with the ad-hominem remarks. I'm really not bothered. Any grown-ups visiting this talk page now know where to voice their thoughts.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD does not apply as a way of circuvnting consensus. You were repeatedly responded to.  I can show you the diffs where I responded to you. --LauraHale (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I once again will make it clear that I believe there is little hope for this article, and the constituent parts be split as per my "Split/Merge Proposal" post. There is zero reason this article should exist. If a specific code is being referred to, it should be linked to a specific page (such as "Rugby League in Australia" or "Australian Rules Football in Australia") and not a generic page like this. If it refers to multiple codes, it can be linked to the Sport in Australia page. Every sport has it's own official name, and it's own specific 'in Australia' page that should be used for these 'xyz in Australia' pages, and then Sport in Australia in the event it refers to multiple codes. This article is just cruft and duplicated busywork. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Similarly, I will once again will make it clear that with respect to all arguments made against this, I wholeheartedly agree with Macktheknifeau and feel his is the best approach for this article.--2nyte (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As soon as I see such a post made by an editor who it's clear would want an article called Football in Australia to be all about soccer, I drop all thoughts that it is good faith editing. Your POV is blatantly and nonsensically on display. HiLo48 (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, I guarantee that is not my intention. I did not write that with a smirk on my face nor an ulterior thought in my head. All I can ask is for you to trust that I have good faith. If you cannot trust that then understand that this "Split/Merge Proposal" will have no effect in focusing Football in Australia solely on soccer. There is no outcome where what you say comes true, so why must you prevent this?--2nyte (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone editing in good faith does NOT change another editor's posts. If your not pushing a POV, you're certainly displaying incompetence and/or bad manners. Now, please don't change my post again. I cannot in all good faith contemplate the contents of your post when you stuff around with mine. HiLo48 (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I didn't realise I had changed you post. It was an accident.--2nyte (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, apology accepted. The basic problem here though is the history of the behaviour of both you and Macktheknifeau on the matter of using the name football for soccer in Australia. It is one of quite irrational argument, combined with utter denial and failure to accept obvious facts presented to you by editors with different knowledge and views. Neither of you has yet acknowledged the reality of the different perspective of those who live on the opposite side of the Barrassi Line from you. You have presented alleged "facts" to support your views, which have then been disproven, with no subsequent change in your position. That's irrational. Both of you have failed to respond to questions about whether you have ever actually spent meaningful time on the other side of that line, to see the way the language of football is used there. Failure to respond can only lead me to guess that the answer is "No", which places both of you in no position at all to argue about how the word football should be used in the Australian context in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, my opinion on soccer/football is completely irrelevant to my opinion on the Split/Merge Proposal of Football in Australia. There is not relation between the two. Also, I cannot see how the Split/Merge Proposal of this article will further my opinion on soccer/football. Again, there is not relation between the two, so why is my opinion on another matter such an issue for you to overcome?--2nyte (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For someone irrationally obsessed with using the name football to describe the game exclusively known by half the population as soccer to claim that such a view is irrelevant to his views on the name of an article with football in its name is just plain ridiculous. You will simply never convince me of that while your base position on the use of the word football is so rigid. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, the Split/Merge Proposal for Football in Australia will have no effect on focusing the article solely on soccer. I guarantee that. Yes, my 'obsessive views' are irrelevant, they have no effect on the proposal. If I do choose to go down that path you have every right to argue it, but currently that is not my intention.--2nyte (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48 please cease your personal attacks on myself. I do not appreciate being called "irrational" and in "denial" simply because you disagree with my viewpoint, which I recently gave a thorough and in my view, very legitimate argument reasoning why I believe what I believe. I do not believe that you have 'disproven' anything, merely stalled the inevitable. The so called 'facts' are merely small points in a much wider discussion, and I do not hold them in any major weight. Right now the situation on the naming issue is that the name Football is increasingly popular (as well as being the official name of the sport like all the other major codes are called on Wikipedia, as well as being used by Government agencies) and as such, I find it extremely likely that in the future my viewpoint will find legitimate consensus. If you cannot refrain from attacking people for a differing opinion, I suggest you create your own personal wiki where you can control who can and cannot edit. Where I have or have not spent my life is no business of yours, and has no impact whatsoever on the situation or the truth behind my viewpoint. Wikipedia is not your personal "Victorian Wikipedia". Your uncivil conduct is not helpful, especially when you bring up issues that have nothing to do with the topic at hand in an attempt to derail discussion to cause it to grind to a halt. Editors outside Victoria are not lesser editors because of their origin or current location. I request you withdraw your claim that I am 'irrational' and that I am in 'denial'. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. You admit you got facts wrong, finally, after having it pointed out many times. THAT'S irrational. You virtually admit you have no idea how the language of sport is used on the other side of the Barrassi Line (not just Victoria - it's HALF of Australia's population!), yet still insist that you know best. THAT'S denial. You are fortune telling. That doesn't work anywhere. It's your contributions to an inevitably failed and vexatiously repeated campaign that have caused trouble for Wikipedia. It's your persistent ignoring of the solid and FACT based arguments of others that is disruptive and uncivil. Now, open your mind and open your eyes. Learn from others who may know something you don't. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)