Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Australian rules football |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | Unknown |
Parties involved | User:JPD, User:PIO, others |
Mediator(s) | User:MBisanz |
Comment | Closed as at an insurmountable impasse |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Australian rules football]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Australian rules football]]
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.
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.
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.
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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 - Wikipedia: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)
As per my comments on the discussion page of this mediation [1], 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 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)
MBisanz studied sources inserted by me in talk:Australian rules football#mediation 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)
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)
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#attendance 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)
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)
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)
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
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 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)
If you don't understand my former explanations, responsability is not mine!!!!--PIO (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I Pio propose this vote pertinent articles
All you can vote these sentences
I vote #2 -fourplay. Cricket is not more popular than Rugby League
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.
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)
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)
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#Audience 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)
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)
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.--THUGCHILDz 18
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)
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 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?--THUGCHILDz 23:48, 21 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)
But you are whole or no?--PIO (talk) 18:21, 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)
I inserted Australia in national sport#Countries with various most popular sports citing Australian rules football, rugby league and cricket. This action is non plus ultra.--PIO (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so I've completed my review
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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
I'm gonna agree (I think?) that [4] 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)