Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woggabaliri


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While there are hoax fears, there seems a reasonable consensus that until that is conclusively demonstrated Wiki should opt for the balance of sources which indicates real existence. In the event of *significant* new evidence demonstrating a hoax then this can always be re-considered. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Woggabaliri

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to just be one massive (and fairly racist) hoax. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As well as making a cheeky joke about soccer in Australia, one that soccer fans should be embarrassed about. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This game was described in the book The Aboriginal Soccer Tribe, by Professor John Maynard . I don't know why that reference is not in the article. As well as the article from the Adelaide Advertiser, which is referenced, there is this one in the Sydney Morning Herald . The rules appear on another Australian government website, as well as the one referenced, here . There are some commentators in Australia, mainly racist shock jocks, who claim it is made up. But the author of the book is Aboriginal himself, and his research, and the 19th century engraving illustrating this article, are genuine. TheAwesomeHwyh, would it be possible for you to withdraw the nomination for AfD? RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Definite keep With anthropological academic peer reviewed references going back to at least 1904 it is hard see how this is fake. Those claiming it is fake will need to do some pretty amazing WP:OR to prove such?  Aoziwe (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added some references, and also changed the order of sentences in the History section so that the first sentence is now " 'Woggabaliri' was documented prior to 1904 as the Ngunnawal word for "play"." I hope that will help people realise that it is not made up, and it is not a play on 'wogball', which seems to date from the 1970s, and certainly not until after WWII and the arrival of post-war migrants to Australia. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The references seem adequate. For example, a federal government body, Australian Sports Commission, includes the game in its publications - and has done for decades.  Bureaucrats tend to be very careful about stepping on toes!  And are very aware of cultural sensitivities around traditional cultural knowledge.  So their vetting of the history is probably even stronger than Wikipedia's.  yoyo (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I am torn as to the veracity of this article at this stage. There are big issues here that MUST be addressed if this is not going to be permanently seen as a hoax. The name instantly looks to older Australian readers like "wogball", the insulting name for soccer from the 1970s. This makes it look like an anti-soccer joke, and is what has led to this AfD proposal. I'm certainly no expert, but the word doesn't seem like other claimed Aboriginal words. The article needs to explicitly address this point, with words pointing out the apparently "unfortunate" coincidence. The image used in the article is [[File:Marn grook illustration 1857.jpg]] . "Marn grook" is a game recognised as having been played in Victoria's Western District, known to one of the founders of Australian Rules Football, Tom Wills, who lived there, and is therefore seen as a precursor to that game. (So, more of the seeming cheeky joke.) It is used in Origins of Australian rules football, and several other articles. It's presence in this article also makes it seem like a hoax. The pic doesn't belong. The overlap with Marn Grook needs to be mentioned. (NOTE: That article uses the same image!) While these problems exist, this article  will continue to look like a hoax. HiLo48 (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It may be useful to add a section on claims that this is a hoax (which have appeared in the media, too, and can be referenced outside Wikipedia), although I don't know if Wikipedia would see that as appropriate within an encyclopaedia entry (EDIT - there are articles with a section called Hoax Claims, so I will have a go at writing one for this page, though I will need to access sources in order to do that). As for the word not seeming "like other claimed Aboriginal words" - it has a shape very typical of Aboriginal languages (CVCVCVCVCV), and if you look at the 1904 source of the word, you will see that almost all of the verbs end in -i (probably a tense ending), and several others end in -iri. (I am a linguist working with Aboriginal languages in the Northern Territory, and it certainly would not be an unusual word form in many of the languages still spoken.) As to the picture - it was apparently drawn at Merbein, which is considerably further north than the Western District. I note that the Marn grook article says "The indigenous ball game Woggabaliri, which is the subject of William Blandowski's Drawings of 1857". I have not seen the picture in the original book or archive sources myself, so I don't know how much information was recorded about the name of the people depicted, their language, or their name for the game. As the only image of Aboriginal people playing a ball game from that period, it is used to provide evidence that Aboriginal people did play such ball games, not necessarily as an illustration of one or the other. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification re the typicality of this word as an Aboriginal one. It's good to hear from an expert. I support the idea of a Hoax Claims section, addressing and (hopefully) refuting that possibility. That's what's missing right now. Without it, the claims will continue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I remain sceptical. There's no doubting the 1904 source, but it wouldn't take a genius to notice the similarities between a word for "play" and the racist euphemism "wogball". It seems the two were only linked together relatively recently. However, the article should reflect the published sources. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.