Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-19 Australian rules football

Who are the involved parties?
User:PIO and several others. PIO requested formal mediation with myself (User:JPD), but discussions have also involved User:Easel3, User:AlasdairGreen27, User:Fourplay and others.

What's going on?
PIO continually inserts claims that Australian football is the most popular sport in Australia in terms of general interest "for many sources", citing sources that mainly say no such thing. There are many problems with his edits, factually, stylistically and grammatically, but he refuses to change anything or sensibly join in discussion, simply reverting. He also inserts claims that Australian football "is the national and most popular sport" to National sport, citing the same sources, which is quite against NPOV, and still ignores talkpage discussion.

What would you like to change about that?
I would like PIO to accept the versions that have been implemented, which include the valid information that he has contributed, as he does not seem to understand the issues involved. However, it is more important that we have some meaningful discussion, in which case it is possible that he may be able to convince the rest of us.

Mediator notes
Ok, I'm opening this case and will be notifying involved parties when I get home tonight. Just a reminder that we are an informal, voluntary process. Formal mediation is handled MEDCOM.  MBisanz  talk 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd ask that the discussion be carred on at the article talk page and am reminding all users to sign their comments with the tildes so I can keep track of whose saying what.  MBisanz  talk 06:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Closed
After trying at this for over a month, I am of the opinion that we have exhausted all possible options. Every conceivable wording has been put forward, and still there is dissent over which version should be used on the various pages. Therefore, I am declaring this mediation at an impasse and have closed it. Parties should continue to discuss it and may seek out other forms of dispute resolution. I would advise all parties involved to remain civil and to follow proper policies in handling the matter further. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 05:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Impossible every kind of agreement with user JPD because he removes sources added by me in articles pertinent Australian rules football considered truly national and most popular sport among Aussie people in Australia.
 * User JPD assert cricket is most popular sport in Australia without link sources and refuses validity of sources added by me, Encycloepedia Britannica included: it's absurd!--PIO (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have said before, this last statement is simply not true. I have not once claimed that cricket is the most popular sport in Australia. This is probably simply a misunderstanding. The fact that PIO has repeated this claim after I have tried to explain what was actually meant shows the trouble most of us are having in discussing this with PIO.

Still repeating previous comments, I haven't simply removed "pertinent" sources, either - I have integrated one of them into the text and removed the others because they simply don't say what PIO claimed they say. Even then, the actual content of the sources was not completely removed, because it was already covered in the article a few paragraphs later.

The fact that the sources do not say what PIO seems to think they do is the real issue here. I also referred to the fact that I think encyclopedias are not particularly good sources - Reliable source examples says "General encyclopedias, like the Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution." I do not think this is an "absurd" claim, but at any rate it is a sidetrack, as the thing I am mainly disputing is not the validity of the source, but the fact that it doesn't support the statement ("in terms of general sports' interests, footy is a most popular sport for many, sources") in two ways. Firstly, the Brittanica article doesn't refer to "general interest" but to two specific types of interest - attendance and tv viewing. Secondly, it isn't talking about which sport is most popular, but about which sports competition is most popular. It simply isn't relevant to the claim being made. If it were relevant, then we could talk about the validity of the source, more recent sources, etc., but there are more serious problems than that. The other two sources have similar lack of relevance. One other is relevant, but noone is disputing that, and the version PIO objects to includes it anyway.

So far, it appears that PIO insists on misrepresenting my statements in the same that he misrepresents the sources. I am ready to accep that this is not deliberate, but he really needs to realise that he is not understanding the issues here. JPD (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Aussie rules is not considered truly nation nor is it considered the national sport by Australia. That is your personal opinion PIO.  Rugby League is the most watched sport in Australia according to national TV ratings, and television is something all of Australia has access too.  Yet everytime I post a reference to television ratings for sport you delete it, because it discredits your arguement.  Cricket is not the national sport either.  Both rugby league and AFL are more popular than cricket. I agree with User:InsteadOf that the entry should be "Australians have a vast range of sporting interests and as such there is no 'one' national sport. Rugby League, Cricket and Australian rules football are all claimed to be the national sport by various people." - User:fourplay

As per my comments on the discussion page of this mediation, PIO has not attempted to discuss this matter on a single occasion. He has not sought consensus, and if, in his words, "Impossible every kind of agreement with user JPD" then that is solely because PIO has entirely failed to seek agreement. His idea of agreement is for everybody else to say "Yes PIO, we agree with you". I also agree with User:InsteadOf that the entry should be "Australians have a vast range of sporting interests and as such there is no 'one' national sport. Rugby League, Cricket and Australian rules football are all claimed to be the national sport by various people". That's a decent compromise. However, if there's anybody that would like to amend it and put forward a variation on that theme I'm sure we can agree. But if the stubbornness shown by the edit histories of these two articles carries on then I dare say that "Impossible every kind of agreement" will remain the case. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed PIO's lack of participation in mediation, and I'm hoping its due to timezone work schedule differences, as its very difficult to mediate with only one side present.


 * I've proposed an idea over at the article talk page and don't see anything wrong with fourplay and AlasdairGreen27's proposed wording. Just a tip that if we're going to say its a disputed topic, we should source that claim either to an individual writer or cite to whose claimed that sports, x, y, and z are the national sport.  I'm thinking the American equiv would be a BWAA article, an article by Chris Collinsworth, and a press release from the NBA, all of which would show different reliable people think different things.  MBisanz  talk 13:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I inserted in articles many valid sources and I can find a lot of other sources pertinent footy national and most poular sport in Australia: do you want see other sources?--PIO (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * These sources may be pertinent to claims that footy is the national and/or most popular sport in Australia, but most of them don't actually make that claim. Please read my response to each of the sources on Talk:Australian rules football. Can you see what the problem is? Just because they contain the words "Australian rules football" "most popular" and "sport" doesn't mean they are saying it is the most popular sport, let alone the most popular sport in terms of "general interest" as your edits (probably by accident) claim. Some are only talking about attendance, some only about sports as a spectator sport, and some only about individual competitions. Most of us are not disagreeing with the sources, simply wanting to report them more sensibly. JPD (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it seems the issue hereis we're all reading the same things and coming away with different meanings. Given that the topic of popularity in any category is subject to weasel word issues, I don't think it would be improper here to use direct quotations for all assertions of popularity.   MBisanz  talk 04:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz studied sources inserted by me in talk:Australian rules football but I added this article too. JPD's obstinacy is surrealistic!!!! All sources consider ''in what manner football is the most X sport of Australia. It is the most popular, most interesting, most view, most popular spectator sport, etc.'' like as MBisanz asserts!!!! You all can read this other important source because in 1921 attendance of AFL was 1.341.331 then footy is sure most popular sport at least from 1921!!!! Encycloepedia Britannica asserts AFL is the country's most popular sports competition in terms of attendance and television viewing then consider footy as most popular sport too!!!! In association football's first sentence you all can read is the most popular sport in the world sourced with link of Encarta but for other sources soccer is not most popular sport in the world then JPD you can dispute that source because Encycloepedia Britannica is sure more valid than Encarta!!!!--PIO (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * PIO, the reason we are here at arbitration is because of your stubbornness and edit warring, that is still ongoing . Your comment above shows your (in my view) total lack of understanding of what people are trying to do here. I know I should consider that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, but it seems to me that you have a mindset that does not lend itself to anything other than "I am right and everyone else must agree with me". If you want to mention obstinacy, I'm afraid the only obstinacy on this issue is yours. JPD, Fourplay, Thugschild, Insteadof and I have all tried to discuss this matter, consider different points of view, come to a compromise, but you are only interested in one thing: That everyone else says "Yes PIO, you are right". You will go to any lengths to prove your point: Bringing in some data from 1921 that gives statistics for AFL attendances. What does that show? That it was popular in 1921? Yes. That it was the most popular sport in Australia in 1921? Sorry, no. It's a list of how many people went to one sport. How do you know how that compares with other sports? You don't. PIO, the edit wars on these articles are almost solely because you, an Italian who lives in Italy, who has been to Australia a few times, wants to tell other people, including Australians, what Australia's national sport is. Stop it. You are being just way too stubborn. The most insane part of this edit war is that the only difference is that you want to say that Rules is the national sport, whereas everyone else is seeking to say that it is a national sport, alongside a couple of others. My advice? Leave it alone, move on, acknowledge that you are not always right. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the first FindArticle source of "Based on Gaelic Football, it is by far the most popular sport in Australia, with more than six million tickets sold each season - equivalent to one-third of the population." is the kind I'd hope we could avoid. It seems to be written in the news, on the fly, by a reporter, and really wouldn't be that useful without hard statistics. If we merely want to show that some people consider Football the most popular (documenting disagreement) that might be ok. And the second link to AFL.com seems to only include Football's stats. How can we compare to other sports?  MBisanz  talk 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * PIO your source is dated the year 2000. If we look at current statistics,  rugby league is by far the most watched sport in Australia.   So how can you declare AFL is the stand alone national sport in the face of such evidence?  Also, the two largest states in Australia which make up half of the countries population, NSW and QLD, are rugby league areas where AFL is almost non-existant.  It is popular in Victoria and gets nice crowds there but a "national sport"?  Not even close...User:fourplay


 * In the US, a state usually passes a law or the governor issues an exec order to declare something the "state x" or the president issues a proclamation that day Y is the National Day of Y. So unless Aussis politics is that much different than the US, I'd expect something similar to be called the categorical "National Sport".  Now if there is a debate among around what is the so-called national past-time or by what adjective is Football a superlative, well then its the most reliable and recent statistic we can get our hands on.  We seem to have a reliable government source and a reliable Sweeny report, unless I'm missing something.   MBisanz  talk 07:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Victoria is bigger than Queensland Guy0307 (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I discuss with other editors for an agreement: AlasdairGreen27, you discuss too and together find a solution! There are a lot of sources: Fourplay, you insist on just one source pertinent television's audience! In sources about attendance all you can compare stats of several sports: MBisanz, you know these sources! In Australian rules football you read: As of 2005 the AFL is one of only five professional sports leagues in the world with an average attendance above thirty thousand (the others are the NFL in the United States and Major League Baseball in the U.S. and Canada, and the top division soccer leagues in Germany and England) but you consider that U.S., Canada, Germany and England have more inhabitants than Australia then in percentage AFL is professional league with highest attendance in the world!!!!--PIO (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My thinking is that we just need to source the most notable claim that has the best source. So if one report measures television viewership and another measures fan interest and a third measures gate attendance, those are all different claims and should be defined as such.  Just saying a sport is "The most popular" is really a weasel word, since we all know the source defined it as "The most popular sport in a survey of x number of people who had Y in common"  MBisanz  talk 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The only solution is not to declare a single national sport. I don't think Fourplay, PIO or any of the others will agree to a version such as "AFL is the national sport". Guy0307 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Sweeney report should not be included, as it doesn't even include regional areas, and 50% of rugby league fans live in regional areas. This is a huge flaw in their research that disadvantages certain sports, and AFL is non-existant in regional areas.  Have a look at http://www.thinktv.com.au//Media/Stats_&_Graphs/Top_Programs/Top_50_Programs_2007_Survey10.pdf and go down to REGIONAL AREA's.  Rugby League blows away everything in the regionals but the Sweeney Report does not include this.  PIO, no one questions AFL's crowds, but there is more than crowd figures that make up a national sport.  AFL crowds are higher because the game is bad to watch on TV, so people prefer to go to the game.  Also it's based in Melbourne, a city with not much else on.  Where as rugby league is based in Sydney and people prefer to watch it on TV, as illustrated by the TV ratings.  I don't know why you just won't settle.  MBisanz we don't have the government declaring a national sport in Australia, because the fact is there isn't one.  -fourplay

AFL's attendance is important like as NFL's attendance in U.S.A. then Guy0307 you can consider american football as a national sport in U.S.A. non NFL wich is a competition! I show stats in that source about television's audience but Fourplay you consider that is just for one year, and other years????--PIO (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I checked Australian law and "National Sport" refers to any nationwide sports organization, so we really can't use that term in any part of the article. How about we try a different approach.  Lets have each participant write their proposed version of how the section should read with final stats and stuff and then we'll be able to compare how far from the mark we are.  MBisanz  talk 22:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't understand me well. What I tried to say is that if we will say that cricket is the national sport Leage&AFL supporters will disagree. If we say that league is the national sport cricket&AFL supporters will disagree. If we say that AFL is the national sport League&cricket supporters will disagree, so we've got to say that league, cricket & afl are the national sports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy0307 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 25 January 2008


 * Actually I'm saying that since no governmental body has defined any sport as the "National Sport" then no sport(s) can be referred to as the national sport. It can be a nationwide sport(s), but not THE national sport(s).  MBisanz  talk 04:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the whole concept of a national sport for a country as large and diverse as Australia is absurd. If Hewitt or Casey Bellacqua made the finals of the Australian Open or Wimbledon, then, for that week or two, tennis would be the most popular, most watched, most discussed sport in Australia. If Adam Scott won a major then golf would be. Even November it's horse racing. If the Wallabies do well, then rugby union is, when the Socceroos made the world cup then soccer/assoc football was. Every 4 years it's swimming/cycling/whatever we win olympic medals in. It is variable by state, region, time of year and successfulness of the competitors. TV ratings are flawed, as Sydney/NSW or Melb/Vic can overwhelm interest (or lack of) in the other states. Attendances depend on local culture (ie attend or watch on TV) and stadium size. There is no "government degree" like their is for fauna or flora. I wonder why need to have a statement at all. If we do go with the proposed statement, I'd add rugby union and soccer in as well (as their national teams are more popular than AFL or League's, 2nd/3rd only to the cricket team) and change "various people" to something else... it just sounds weasly. The-Pope (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that the concept is absurd. The whole National sport article is just asking for trouble (note that it specifically says that it is not talking about government decrees, on the whole), but at the very least we should not be stating that Australia has a "national sport". Given that, the weaselly version seem the best we can get, preferably backed up by references to make them slightly less weaselly. (I don't really see why a national team is necessary for a national sport, but that's another matter...)
 * Apart from that, I am more disturbed about the warring going on at Australian rules football. PIO has not explained what is wrong with the current version, but says that it focuses on one view to the exclusion of others. I would have though that if anyone read the whole section, that would say that the many different ways of looking at it are covered, without emphasising any of them. It is his changes that use sources emphasising one view. He simply refuses to see that the fact that a sports competition is most popular (in some senses) does not mean that the sport itself is the most popular (even in the same senses, and definitely not in terms of "general interest"). His arguments here are full of similar logical fallacies, as has already been pointed out. (Using figures from one sport only to claim the title "most popular", treating the attendance figures per game as though they can be compared with the population of the country and so on.) Having said that, noone has suggested that the various points he has made using sources should be ignored - just that the ones that talk about attendance should only be used to describe attendace; those that talk about tv only to describe tv; statements about "general interest" shoudl only refer to sources talking about general interest, and so on. It would be a mistake to mix them all together as though they were the same thing. JPD (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "the most popular winter sport in the southern states" is a safe and correct route to take.Aspirex (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I explained your wrong action on article Australian rules football because JPD you remove sources added by me always!!!! I am more disturbed than any other!!!!--PIO (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * PIO, please start telling the truth. I did not simply remove all the sources added by you. I replaced one with a more direct reference, and removed the others for two reasons: firstly, they didn't say what you said they did (it doesn't matter how good the sources are if you do not report them correctly!) and they, or equivalent sources, were already used in later paragraphs. They were not "removed", but integrated with the existing text. However, even if you mistakenly interpret this as removing them completely, please note that I spent some considerable time explaining my actions. Please respond to this explanation, not simply the fact that your version has not survived. JPD (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't understand my former explanations, responsability is not mine!!!!--PIO (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about understanding explanations? It is not about understanding, it is about thinking they are wrong, and explaining why. It is your responsibility to respond to this explanation, and to try to be more truthful. JPD (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Vote
I Pio propose this vote pertinent articles
 * Australian rules football
 * Australia
 * Sport in Australia
 * Culture of Australia
 * National sport

All you can vote these sentences
 * Australian rules football is the most popular sport in Australia
 * 1) --PIO (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Australian rules football and rugby league are most popular sports in Australia

I vote #2 -fourplay. Cricket is not more popular than Rugby League
 * Australian rules football and cricket are most popular sports in Australia


 * 1) Guy0307 (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A consensus wording has already been proposed, for which there seems to be significant support, and for which I vote. Add your names below if you agree.


 * Australians have a vast range of sporting interests and as such there is no 'one' national sport. Rugby League, Cricket and Australian rules football are all claimed to be the national sport by various people.

I strongly oppose this Sydney-centric wording. Cricket must be listed first. The current national sport wording is a bit wordy, but explains the situation clearly and has good refs and gets my vote. But as that article isn't the true subject of this mediation, I'm not sure what we are voting on. Also I have no objection to it being improved by others 'editing it mercilessly' - remeber this is Wikipedia, not PIO/The-Pope/fourplay/Mr Green's-pedia. Haven't and won't bother looking at the other 3 pages PIO now lists. Lets move on. The-Pope (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Guy0307 (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC) (I'm not back, but it doesn't mean we should let ***** control wikipedia)
 * 3) fourplay I agree
 * 4) --PIO (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Australia – Australians have a vast range of sporting interests and as such there is no single official national sport. Cricket is often described as the national sport,[9] both because it has significant historical connections to Australian nationhood[10], and as it draws significant interest nationwide. The popularity of the dominant football codes are segmented by regions.[11] Australian rules football, which originated in Australia, is the most popular sport in terms of match attendance[12] and is the most popular sport in the states of Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, whilst Rugby League is the major sport in New South Wales and Queensland, and is the most popular sport on television in Australia.[13]

I think that the above is the same as the version I suggested. It's just more detailed and has references. So how you can "strongly oppose" it is a bit strange. But anyway. Which sport goes first isn't that important in my book, but for the record, either the shorter version or the longer version with refs that The Pope wants are both just fine as far as I'm concerned. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I like AlasdairGreen27's first wording rather then the second one like I said before in discussion it would be better to be ambiguous with some details rather than including extra details that is ultimately going to be contentious. Of course I still prefer the statement I suggested earlier in discussion but that would be extremely biased XD. Also about the ordering of the sports being Sydney-centric then lets just put the sports in alphabetical order. One last thing is that whatever statement is used, hidden comments are going to needed to be placed to warn people about changing it without discussion. --Sin Harvest (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As an outside party, AlasdairGreen27's wording seems closer to being a source-able statement, granted whatever wording has consensus is probably the best, but it really should be sourceable and neutral in presentation.  MBisanz  talk 23:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with AlasdairGreen27's current wording and going the alphabetical order is fine too.--THUG CHILD z  04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, the current National Sport section is already completely sourced. Alphabetical order for 3 items... come on, cricket is the one sport that is followed equally across the whole nation. Aussie Rules is indigenous to Australia and has a highest level team in every state, and plays games each year in every territory. NRL doesn't have teams in 3 states and only gets in list with the biggest TV audience in 2007, which, for MBisanz's information, the NRL grand final last year was between teams in Australia's two biggest cities, whereas the AFL was between an outer urban city and half of a two-team smaller state team... think of it similar to a Chicago Bulls vs LA Lakers final game outrating a Jacksonville vs Seattle Superbowl. ReadAFL_Grand_Final for the frequency of the AFL being the top rating TV program. Removing this article from my watch list, goodbye and good luck all. The-Pope (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The current version seems to be the right approach, although, as we discussed below, using 2007 tv ratings to deduce that league "is the most popular sport on television in Australia" is even more ridiculous than the over-simplified statements pushed by PIO. The source says that one rugby league game was the most watched sport event in 2007 - nothing more, and as The Pope points out, there are good reasons not to extrapolate from that. JPD (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Who do push what???? JPD, you and others read in introduction of sport in New Zealand New Zealand's most popular sport is rugby union, the national sport so also in introduction of sport in Wales ''the most popular sports in Wales are rugby union and Football (soccer). But rugby union is commonly referred to as the country's national sport attracting the largest crowds for international matches''!!!! But in list -countries by most popular sport-cricket- of National Sport THUGCHILDz and JPD always push Australia, New Zealand, Wales. You like cricket but you have no reason for push this sport in all corners!!!!--PIO (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PIO, I have not mentioned NZ or Wales in any of my edits, and I have opposed any version which suggests Australia has one obvious national sport - cricket or football. Please stop falsely accusing me. All I have done is adress the use of sources to say more than they actually say, which you did at Australian rules football, and the current text at National sport does even more with regard to tv ratings. I am surprised that I am told my attempt to be realistic about Aussie rules is because I like cricket - I have never felt there was any conflict between my preferred summer sport and my preferred winter sport before! JPD (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Where did New Zealand and Wales come from in this? And again, you can't source, or give reference to other wikipedia articles. We aren't pushing everything. You act like everyone's against you but it's just your still not trying to understand what others are saying. Like it was said before, you're being like "ok this is what i think, and i won't stop till everyone agrees with me". Well that's not how it works, you need to listen and try to understand what the others are saying and the majority doesn't have a problem with the current version except some think that RL listing under the TV tile is bit off.--THUG CHILD z  18


 * Just want to point out that the scope of this case is how to refer to Australian rules football in its own article on its own popularity. I'm really not sure this is the best place to hash out the popularity rankings of all Australian sports for all articles.  MBisanz  talk 18:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz you are administrator now: may you explain how THUGCHILDz destroy various articles pushing cricket in every place? May you explain how cricket is not most popular sport in Australia, New Zealand, Wales? --PIO (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Wow. Being a admin doesn't make any difference in explaining things. What is he going to do? Threaten me to ban me or something? No because admins. can't abuse their powers for no reasons. And really? I destroy articles? Which articles have a "destroyed"? And you made personal attacks and claims against me before and when I did confront you about them, you just didn't answer my questions. And another question, did you read what others have written above? 'Cause the majority doesn't agree with you bro. I feel where aren't making any progress because we are just going in circles with everyone else saying one thing then PIO being "no this is what i think, agree with me"--THUG CHILD  z  18:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd back up User:THUGCHILDz. There is very clearly a strong consensus behind the shorter or longer version (probably the shorter one). And he has not destroyed anything... OK, I don't need to go there. PIO, just leave it out. Give it a rest. I'd say someone should lock in the preferred version and we can move on.


 * For MBisanz, well the whole procedure has been at odds with the problem since it was first posted, as the edit warring was mostly going on at National Sport, not at Aussie Rules. That's why everyone's talking about that, not Rules. Ah well. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okey, so I'm going to start reading up on the national sports articles so I can get a better handle on that issue. PIO, yes I am an administrator, but remember being an admin is not a big deal and certainly not a license to force my views on others.  And I've said numerous times in WP:MEDCAB that a mediation will NOT result in a binding decision or a user sanction, for MEDCAB's purposes I'm just a regular user like everyone else here.  If you truly believe a user is destroying an article or POV-pushing, please take it to WP:ANI where an uninvolved admin can review the behavior.  MBisanz  talk 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

THUGCHILDz insists again in edit warring on national sport despite consensus settled. May you oppose his action?--PIO (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at that article history and only see one edit by THUGCHILDz since Feb 11 2008. As I've said before, mediation does not result in binding user conduct things.  Even though I'm an admin, it would be wrong to use those tools in a dispute I'm mediating, since I'm an involved (albeit neutral) party to the dispute.  If a person believes another is edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANI.  They can and will respond very firmly with binding sanctions to incidents of disruptive edit warring.  MBisanz  talk 16:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm really getting tired of this. WTF? What's the point of this thing if at the end all PIO is going to do is what he first thought was right and not listen to anyone else?--THUG CHILD z  23:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there seems to be a strong consensus for wording that mentions multiple sports, cricket, arl, rugby, etc. I share your concern THUGCHILDz that its not best practice to throw around allegations of edit warring, you might take a look at Wikiquette alerts for ways to address that problem.  I also see the comment of "locking in" the consensus version.  Since we're all auto-confirmed users here, semi-protection wouldn't do any good and full protection of these major articles would be appropriate.  Right now I'm counting at least 3 regular users strongly supporting the multiple-sport wording.  I'm seeing a conensus in that direction and would support an WP:AN report against a single user who would try and continuosly change that wording (WP:3RR isn't permission to revert 3 times everday, etc).  Any thoughts or am I reading things wrong?  MBisanz  talk 00:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No you're right and he's been warned before too but doesn't seem to care.--THUG CHILD z  00:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

THUGCHILDz ignores again this vote for wording that mentions multiple sports, cricket, arl, rugby as national Australian sports and pushing cricket as most popular Australian sport but cricket is certainly not most popular Australian sport!!!! I reported him in this comment. May you stop his edit warring on national sport?--PIO (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello! can you understand what the heck people are saying? Do you properly understand English? Or is this just a big misunderstanding? Because they aren't talking against me dude. They are talking about you. And, That Version does mention multiple sports. And on what bases are you claiming that cricket is certainly not the most popular? Read the comments above again again and again until you really understand them, if you are having problem.--THUG CHILD z  16:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

But you are whole or no?--PIO (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * HUH? That doesn't make sense at all.--THUG CHILD z  19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

PIO, I expect we can agree that THUGCHILDz is in fact whole. Otherwise, for example, if he/she had been dismembered in some kind of unpleasant chainsaw-related incident, it'd be kind of hard to edit Wikipedia. Generally speaking, I have to say I'm not sure where you're going with this. There is consensus, not behind your view that Aussie Rules rules, but behind a compromise wording. Also, I don't understand your allegations against THUGCHILDz. I don't see anything in this editor's contributions except efforts to get a wording that a) correctly represents the facts and b) we can all agree on. Now, let's analyse the problem that has brought us to this point. That was that you want to say that Aussie Rules is premier, number one, amongst sports in Aus. That simply is not the case, unless you look only at a few isolated statistics, while disregarding others. What about criteria that are extremely important, maybe essential, for Australians, such as 'Sports in which the rest of the world have to hand their arses to us on a plate'? You'd be surprised about how important that immeasurable factor is. I have maintained from the outset that you need a certain insight or feeling for a country's state of mind (or perhaps better in this case state of heart) to sense what a country itself sees as its national sport(s). Frankly, my friend, I don't think you have that. I don't know where in Italy you live (I think you mentioned it once, but I've forgotten) but if you have a few hours next weekend, I would seriously suggest that you could go to the best international sports bar where they have satellite TV, and have a beer or two with some Australians and ask them. They may be rugby fans watching rugby, or cricket fans catching up on the highlights, but an hour talking to them would be a real eye-opener for you. Ask them what Australia's national sports are. I don't think you would find rugby (of either code) fans saying "our sport is king, f++k all the others", or cricket fans saying "the winter sports are nonsense". That's not, in my experience, the way it goes. There are very few Australians who only like one sport. I think they'd say honestly and openly something along the lines of this: "Generally we like sport. We love it, especially sports that Aussies are good at, and where we beat other countries. We make national heroes of our best sportsmen and women. We like team sports more than individual stuff, but, for example, we loved Thorpe and Freeman". Then, on the contrary to what you think, they'd be happy to tell you that there is a very strong case to be made that cricket is the most popular sport in Aus. The greatest Australian sporting hero of all time is undoubtedly Don Bradman. There is no doubt about that at all. In terms of the current situation, if the national side were not the best in the world by a distance perhaps cricket might be less popular. But Ponting and his team are easily the best, and so as international representatives Australians identify with their cricket team more than any other body/unit/organisation/whatever. Get this, PIO: On the world stage, Australia's greatest representatives, bar none, are the cricket team. Unfortunately, there is no comparison that can be made here with ARL as it's not an international sport. For example, there is no Aussie Rules player who has undone the best players of every nation in the way that Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath have done in the last ten, fifteen years. So, what am I suggesting? Well, firstly, that you should see that everyone is happy with either the short version or the longer version at the top of this section, neither of which say that ARL is Australia's national sport; b) you are very lucky that the cricket fans have agreed to this, as I think they could muster many many more arguments than you that cricket is the true national sport and c) if you continue to revert to your own opinion in this article you will just annoy people. Most importantly, it is just not measurable or quantifiable exactly what a country's national sport(s) is or are. You just have to go with the consensus. Lastly, if I may, I'd add that if you make any other edits anywhere that allege that football (ie soccer, association football) is not the most popular sport in the world then I'm afraid you'll seem like a flat-earther. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen27, I inserted a message in your talk: read it in Italian language.--PIO (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a small clarification - ARL was the name of the top rugby league competition in Australia for a while, it shouldn't at all be used to refer to Australian rules football, which is often known as AFL (the name of the premier competition in that code). JPD (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm a Yank, so I didn't know that. Can we all try to stay in some form of English?  There is the EmailUser function if you want to communicate privatly.  MBisanz  talk 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I inserted Australia in national sport citing Australian rules football, rugby league and cricket. This action is non plus ultra.--PIO (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Expanded scope
Ok, so I've completed my review
 * National_sport Its alright, but I like the wording you've all developed here a little better. But it doesn't blatantly contradict other wordings, os it would be alright.


 * Culture_of_Australia Seems to place too much weight on ARF. I'd say the intro to that section would be re-written to the language we've developed here, incorporated the Olympic material, which is good stuff.


 * Sport_in_Australia could be better worded to show that there is some dispute over what is the most popular sport.


 * Australia is probably the best written in that it placs each sport in proper context and weight.


 * Australian_rules_football could stand a little improvement in word choice, but the overall message seems on target.  MBisanz  talk 02:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Wordings

 * "Australians have a vast range of sporting interests and as such there is no 'one' national sport. Rugby League, Cricket and Australian rules football are all claimed to be the national sport by various people." This was put forward by other users. - fourplay

This is clearly the current status in the world outside wikipedia summarised, and seems supported by the majority of editors of the article. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oddly for most of the time since federation, from an admittedly cursory read of books online and at the local library, the national sport has consistently noted noted as Cricket with only occasional references to other sports. Regardless of people's arguing about various reports, attendance levels etc... if you pick up a book that refers to this is it most likely to say that Australia's national sport is cricket. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Peripitus and even if other sports are claimed to be the national sport, how can a sport be a nation sport if they are not popular nationally? Plus I see no reason why it can't be said like it was before that the national sport is cricket or you can put the national summer sport is cricket and the national winter sports are rugby league and australian rules football.--THUG CHILD z  06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Rugby league goes through autumn, winter and spring.. So if you want to use seasons then you'd have to say cricket is the national summer sport and RL is the national autumn, winter and spring sport? Perpitus you must only be reading in the cricket section of the library. fourplay

Oh god will you stop it all! It's obvious we can't declare one national sport, because this is why we're discussing it here. Cricket supporters will NEVER agree to a version where rugby/AFL is declared as the national sport and so on. Let's just all agree to the proposed wording?! Guy0307 (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Folks - I've spent some time looking through online sources and compiled here what they say. Have a look. I cannot see there is any doubt that the majority of the world says that Cricket is Australia's national sport. Some say Australian Rules Football (but this is a limited set), almost noone says Rugby of any brand. Soccer people declare that they are NOT the national sport. The only other references of significance are numerous claims around the 2000 Olympics that Swimming had usurped cricket. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this proposed wording for the wrong article? This mediation is about the Australian rules football article, not the national sport article. But keeping off-topic, I've also seen reports of Netball ad Fishing being the most participated sport/pasttime. Cricket has had a national competition for a lot longer than any of the football codes, which is why older books have it listed. Haven't got time to wade through the details of the Aussie rules article references.The-Pope (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I did think I was mediating a Football article, not a national sport debate. I'm really not prepared to expand it, given my lack of knowledge of how sports work in Australia (I can compare facts for Football superlatives).  MBisanz  talk 05:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you can lock it now as "Australians have a vast range of sporting interests and as such there is no 'one' national sport. Rugby League, Cricket and Australian rules football are all claimed to be the national sport by various people." There is really nothing else that needs to be added or said. - user:fourplay


 * In my opinion it should be stated that Australian rules is the most popular sport in terms of attendances and TV ratings (or at least domestically) obviously with the correct sources which are easy to find. We don't have a national sport to identify us with as. But it would be better if this was re-arranged "Australians have a vast range of sporting interests and as such there is no 'one' national sport. Rugby League, Cricket and Australian rules football are all claimed to be the national sport by various people. Cricket is often described as the national sport, since it draws significant interest nationwide[10]. While Australian rules football is the most popular in the south and west, and rugby league dominates in most of New South Wales and Queensland.[11]" to "Australian rules football dominates/is most popular in the states of Victoria, Tasmania, WA, SA (NT?) while RL is most popular/dominates NSW + QLD" Jabso (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good deal.--THUG CHILD z  07:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jabso, AFL isn't the most popular sport in terms of TV ratings though, rugby league is. Also what's the point in saying "Rugby League, Cricket and Australian rules football are all claimed to be the national sport by various people." and THEN saying "Cricket is often described as the national sport." We already know it is claimed to be the national sport by various people. It's just repeating itself. I would also say "significant interest" is what rugby league gathers in NSW and QLD and what AFL gets in Victoria. Cricket only draws moderate interest nationwide.

"Australians have a vast range of sporting interests and as such there is no 'one' national sport. Rugby League, Cricket and Australian rules football are all claimed to be the national sport by various people. Rugby League is often described as the national sport, since it draws the highest amount of viewers nationwide.

"Australians have a vast range of sporting interests and as such there is no 'one' national sport. Rugby League, Cricket and Australian rules football are all claimed to be the national sport by various people. AFL is often described as the national sport, since it receives the highest crowds of any sport nationwide.

There is no need to repeat. fourplay

I think any of these proposed wordings work well enough for our purposes in that their direct and specfic as to what popularity is.  MBisanz  talk 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * MBisanz, can you lock it as "Australian's have a vast range of sporting interests and as such there is no 'one' national sport. Rugby League, Cricket and Australian rules football are all claimed to be the national sport by various people." because Thugzchild is like PIO and keeps editing it in crickets favor. He is editing it already.  Thanks. [Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourplay]
 * And we should just go with whatever you say? And no I'm in no way like PIO, I'm an established editor and a contributor to this project. I put it in the compromised way of mixing the two in. And it's is the consensus as AlasdairGreen27 mentioned already.--THUG CHILD z  07:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't have the technical power to lock it, but if there is a consensus among several editors for one of the compromised versions, you might want to take it over to WP:RFPP. They do have the authority to interpret consensus and the power to protect a page.  MBisanz  talk 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we stick to the right topic, or is this now also the mediation for the national sport article? If we are sticking off topic, then why is RL listed first in the "agreed" wording? It is the least national of the three listed - and it seems to have only one source to support it's inclusion at all (TV viewers in 2007 for the NRL Grand Final)... remember this is for a sport that doesn't have representation in 3 states (with 20% of national population) and would be less popular in those states than rugby union, soccer, tennis and swimming.  2005 TV stats show otherwise (Hewitt vs Safin was the biggest - 5.5 million, vs 3.7 for the NRL in 07, with the 2005 AFL GF WC vs Sydney seen by 4.3 million vs 3.3m for 2007's Gee vs Port) and Grand Final TV viewers are extremely biased by which teams are playing (ie if the Sydney Swans are in the final, then it is watched by a bigger audience than if the Port Power are in it), let alone the NRL night/primetime final vs AFL daytime final.  I'm not agreeing to this wording and I'm not going to be suggesting a new one here, but in the rightful place of in the actual article/discussion page when I finalise all the references. The-Pope (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the year 2007, if you want to go make a national sport page for 2005, go start one. Rugby League also has representation in just about every state. Just because a team from WA for eg. doesn't have representation in the NRL doesn't mean it isn't played. Anyway, "rugby league is not national" yet it still gets more viewers nation wide than all these so called "national sports" ? Funny that. What stats does cricket have in its favour? Highest crowds, no. Highest TV ratings? No. Highest participation? No. A phone survey which has been repeatedly debunked and one that also listed swimming as the national sport, check. - fourplay


 * Actually, it is the year 2008. It would be silly to make statements about tv viewing based simply on any year, even the most recent, because there are dramatic changes each each year. We can say that the most attended sport is consistently Rules, and that the most watched tv sport event varies between league/tennis/rules. Having said that, I think looking at the most watched tv event is a pretty lame way of looking at tv audiences - if we had something like the average weekly in-season tv audiences totalled over all events for that sport, we would have a statistic which gives a better idea of how many viewers each sport has and doesn't depend on who happens to be playing in this year's grand finals. Unfortunately, noone seems to provide this figure, or figures analagous to the ABS attendance figures, which count the numer of people who have attended a game throughout the year.
 * As for your comments about cricket - have you noticed yet that the Sweeny report didn't list swimming as the national sport? It didn't list anything as the national sport. It lists how many people have been interested (in the most general sense) in each sport. It is hardly surprising that cricket and swimming rank higher in this sense than they do in tv ratings. It all makes sense if it is spelt ouit liek this - the problem is when journalists or Wikipedia editors decide that this tells us what the national sport is. There just isn't one single way of determining the most popular sport - it's as simple as that. JPD (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree (I think?) that is an unconvincing source. It only lists individual TV events from what I can see. I'd expect that if we want to say "ARF has the highest viewership" it would be based on something like a sweeps-style thing presented in the US. For instance, an individual program might have very high ratings, but isn't the overall number 1 for a season, since its other episodes weren't as popular.  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Cricket is the only major sport with a domestic competition with representation from all states, regularly (ie every year, not just now and then) plays internationals in every state and one of the three highest profile, if not the highest, national representative team (old joke is that the highest position in the land is the test cricket captain, the PM is second) and there isn't any state-by-state differentiation between it's popularity - it's fairly constant nationwide. Australian rules football was created in Australia (this is one of the criteria in the leading paragraph), has a highest level domestic team based in 5 states, plays games each year in all 6 states plus 2 territories and has the highest game attendances (on average). Tennis has the highest single game TV audience in the past 8 years. I think Rugby Union has the highest profile national representative football team (highest profile tracksuit, maybe not anymore!) and soccer would be the next highest (exact order dependant on world cup success or failure), with soccer also by some surveys having the most players. Netball has the most female participants and swimming the most participants overall. So why are we only listing 3 sports in this "consensus by who" statement and is there any more justification for RL being there other than it had the highest rating game of last year, given that it is the biggest sport in only 2 states, second level sport in 1 state but one of the smallest sports in the other 3 (20% of the population)? How do we squeeze this paragraph into 2 or 3 succinct lines! The-Pope (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to leave a generalised comment that doesn't have to be regularly updated and most importantly remains uncontentious for example. "Australia has a wide interest in sports and is represented through various sports. Rugby League, Cricket and Australian rules football are all claimed to be national sports due to their popularity which differs depending on different regions of Australia and time of year." I've deliberately left out specifying which region as ultimately it will cause a dispute with people and I think it is fair to say that time is an important aspect in Australia's national sport I mean currently Cricket has pretty high news coverage in comparison with other sports right now but that is because it is currently "Cricket season" and the controversy that is surrounding the sport right now. EDIT - I would be happy for anyone to add additional sports in the list as well for example tennis is more popular when Australian open is around and swimming can garneurs strong support during the Olympics, Commonwealth games and world championships --Sin Harvest (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there would be serious disputes about the different regions (although it is true that many have been ignoring the NSW Riverina when describing things in terms of state boundaries). I agree that we want a general statement that doesn't nominate one particular sport, but that still leaves the question of what criteria are used for including each sport. JPD (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think regions would cause much of a problem either but I was thinking along the lines of "better safe then sorry" and make sure we don't have some kind of edit war a month after this mediation case is dropped. --Sin Harvest (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we are moving in the right direction, we have a broad statement that seems like it needs some word-smithing. I'd say to limit it to 5 sports in order to avoid a hard to read sentence.  MBisanz  talk 04:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so things seem to have slowed on this issue. Have we settled on a wording or at least a wording we all can live with?  MBisanz  talk 23:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)