Talk:South Sydney Rabbitohs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article South Sydney Rabbitohs was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Australia / Rugby / Sydney (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon South Sydney Rabbitohs is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Rugby league.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
WikiProject Rugby league (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon South Sydney Rabbitohs is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!
If you wish this article to be re-assessed, go to our Assessment Department and add it to the list.
If you wish this article to be peer-reviewed, go to our Peer Review Department and add it to the list.
If you rated this article you may want to leave some comments here on how the article can be improved.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

older entries[edit]

The original page is involved in a copywright dispute so I moved all the material that was not disputed here as it was not fair for other people to have their work deleted.GordyB 11:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you're not going to tell us anything at all about the club's history, will you at least provide a link that will?

suburb?[edit]

what suburb are they based in? -- Astrokey44|talk 11:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The League's Club is in Redfern. They are from and still train at Redfern Oval. Dankru 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The ownership structure of South Sydney is not "unique" as this article claims it is. The structure is virtually copied from the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles model with only minor variations. (UTC)

"Pride of the League"[edit]

Not once have I heard Souths referred to under this nickname, apart from Rabbitohs fans themselves. If someone is able to find a source such as a newspaper article where they are in fact referred to under this name and use it under references, I'll leave the nickname in the header. Otherwise I don't see why it should be kept in the article at all, unless it is moved elsewhere to somewhere more appropriate such as a reference to fans, etc. --mdmanser 07:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Souths are referred to as the "Pride of the League" on the Sydney Olympic Park website:
http://www.sydneyolympicpark.com.au/Home_of_sport/home_teams/south_sydney_rabbitohs
The late Offical Historian of the South Sydney Rugby League Football Club, Mr Tom Brock, collaborated with Ian Heads in the writing of the official history of Souths, "South Sydney, Pride of the League", published in 1994. This is mentioned in Mr Brocks's biography:
http://www.sporthistory.org/TomBrockbio.htm
Also see the mention of "Pride of the League" under the heading of 'The History of the Rabbitohs and the Indigenous Community - By Ian Heads' on this page from the official Souths website:
http://www.souths.com.au/fanzone/viewnewsarticle.asp?ArticleID=1639
See also the heading of the Rabbitos Radio site:
http://www.rabbitohsradio.com/news.html
See also this the bottom of this page from the Tigers webite where its mentioned: "In 1925,South Sydney was dubbed 'The Pride of the League' and the Rabbitohs are known as this to this day."
http://www.thetigers.com.au/South%20Sydney%20Link.html

--Sattlersjaw 06:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL@SOUFFS!

Edit: Serious question Sattler - when will South Sydney stop being so crap and actually become competitive again? I mean, do you invisage ANY form of success in the next 40-50 years?

How about you let us all know once you have gazed into your crystal ball.--Sattlersjaw 01:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Famous fans[edit]

Please see South's 2007 Corporate Partnership Brochure - on page 16 there is a photo of Shane Warne with his own personalised South's jersey, and on page 17 there is a photo of Tom Cruise (wearing a South's scarf) at a South's game with Russell Crowe:

http://www.souths.com.au/sponsors/Brochure_2007.pdf

How about a list of famous fans in the "Supporters" section. Ray Martin, Mikey Robins, Russell Crowe and Andrew Denton come to mind, and I know there are numerous others.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Major Overhaul[edit]

Since the Sydney Roosters article is now featured, I figured I'd go on and help promote another National Rugby League team article to the same position. Given that there was already a lot of information on this page that seemed of good quality, I thought I'd give this one a go. So far I've done quite a bit to consolidate the history section, move around a few other sections and add in an honours section (see history for a summary). If some of you guys, such as Sattlersjaw, can find a few references and put them into the article, I'll help you guys finish this article thoroughly. Cheers, and all the best, mdmanser 08:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to improve this article. I have added some relevant citations and references, a brief section on stats and records, changed some headings and made some other minor edits. Any further suggestions to improve the article are most welcome. It would great if this article can eventually be of a quality to get featured status as well. Sattlersjaw 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'll do some more work on the existing sections to give them the same feel as their corresponding ones on the Sydney Roosters page. I'll also expand the records section and hopefully do some more research on the stadium section too. But as you might figure out, my weakness would be locating references relevant to the club (as a Roosters fan I had no trouble doing it on that page). But I have to say, this article won't need much more work to get it to a featured standard compared to other club pages given the amount of work you've already put into it. That'll definitely help speed things up towards promotion. --mdmanser 07:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed Text From Page[edit]

I've removed a couple of news-related sections, but I'll paste them here in case they may be used in the future:

Alliances[edit]

Alliance with North Sydney Bears[edit]

On the 28th July, 2006 it was announced that the Rabbitohs had formed an alliance with former first grade foundation club the North Sydney Bears. Under the agreement the North Sydney Bears will act as the Rabbitohs’ feeder Club in the NSW Rugby League Premier League competition, allowing the Bears access to players contracted to the Rabbitohs who haven’t been selected in the NRL side.

North Sydney Bears General Manager Greg Florimo was quoted saying “We’re very excited to be involved with the Rabbitohs, particularly looking at the moves Souths have made recently, the move to privatisation and the strong recruitment drive that has taken place are very positive moves and we’re looking forward to being a part of the future.”

Alliance with Brisbane Eastern Suburbs Tigers[edit]

NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

On the same date a further alliance was also announced withn Queensland Cup Club Brisbane Eastern Suburbs Tigers. Rabbitohs CEO Shane Richardson stated in relation to this alliance: "There is a wealth of talent in Queensland and we are looking forward to working with Easts in Brisbane in identifying the players we want to come through the ranks and play with our South Sydney junior players at the Rabbitohs in future years... these alliances we have formed will allow us to compete with other NRL Clubs that have established ties in the Queensland market."

Sponsorship[edit]

On 19 December 2006, Members Equity Bank was announced as the club's major membership sponsor for the next 3 years. This is the first ever dedicated membership sponsorship in the NRL.[1]

NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

On 8 February 2007, it was announced that Virgin Blue has signed a two year sponsorship deal with the Rabbitohs. The Rabbitohs are the first rugby league team Virgin Blue has sponsored.[2][3]

Privatisation of the Football Club[edit]

Russell Crowe the Hollywood actor, has been a fervent Rabbitohs supporter for years, helping the club during their exile from the NRL. He has been criticised at times for an over-involvement suggested by his attempts to speak to the team during half-time. When Sydney Rugby League reporter Danny Weidler asked him why he did not buy the club, Crowe initially answered that there would be too many issues. However he and Peter Holmes à Court eventually tabled a bid worth $3 million. This was bitterly resisted by former football club chairman George Piggins who thought the bid insufficient. During an extraordinary general meeting of members on 19 March 2006, the pair won the necessary 75% of the vote.[4]

The club was officially handed over to Peter Holmes à Court and Russell Crowe on 7 June 2006.[5] Holmes à Court and Crowe own 75% of the football club through Blackcourt League Investments. The football club members own the remaining 25% of shares through the South Sydney Members Rugby League Football Club.

The privatisation is partial only and the broad membership retains full rights and effective control[6] over such items as:

  • club name ("South Sydney District Rugby League Football Club") and nickname ("Rabbitohs");
  • rabbit logos;
  • team colours;
  • home ground being a venue within the South Sydney District (excluding Telstra Stadium);
  • team song;
  • entry into a merger, joint venture, amalgamation or any similar form of arrangement with any other rugby league club;
  • any decision to publicly list the share capital of the South Sydney Rabbitohs on the stock exchange.

None of the above items can be changed or implemented without the approval of at least 75% of the club membership.[7]

Through these above arrangements Holmes à Court and Crowe have effectively gained management control over the club whilst members in have been vested with true protection and control over the club's key heritage elements.

The Football Club is now united and moving forward under this unique ownership arrangement.

Redevelopment of the Leagues Club[edit]

On 29 November 2006 the South Sydney Football Club was successful in its proposal for the South Sydney Leagues Club (which had previously been in voluntary administration), with Leagues Club members approving the Football Club's $13.1 million plans for the Leagues Club's redevelopment by winning an overwhelming 67% of the primary vote.[8]

This ensures that the Leagues Club would remain at its current location in Redfern, be totally redeveloped with new Football Club offices, a Hall of Fame, state-of-the-art gymnasium and with new retail and commercial businesses operating from its premises.[9] The successful proposal further ensures that the Leagues Club would be left debt free and with substantial cash reserves.[10] Private property group and Rabbitohs sponsor Trivest has subsequently formed a joint company with Souths to redevelop the South Sydney Leagues Club, with the deal valued at $35 million.[11]

This would turn the financial fortunes of the Leagues Club around so as to put it in a position were it can meet its charter of providing ongoing annual funding to the Football Club (something the Leagues Club has not provided for the last 20 years).

Suggestions[edit]

This is a very good article already - and, comparing it with Sydney Roosters there's not a lot that I can see that needs to be done aside from a thorough copy-edit and link check (the external citation link in fn 14 isn't working for example). However, I have a few random suggestions:

  • The famous fans in the Supporters section needs to be thinned out a bit more. I still think a few of the famous fans listed are pretty spurious (being present a single game and/or being a friend of Russell Crowe and hanging out with him at Telstra Stadium one night while in Sydney promoting your new album/film dosen't qualify someone as a Supporter).
  • I realise the Club Song is in the separate History article (as it is in the Roosters articles) but I don't really understand why this is the case - shouldn't it be in here with a broad overview of the club's supporter culture? Seems out of place in the history article.
  • Should the section on Privatisation and the Leagues Club be incorporated into the History section as subsections? Or perhaps the Privatisation section could be renamed 'Ownership' or 'Governance'? Also, what does this mean:
"broad membership retains full rights and effective control over such items as... home ground being a venue within the South Sydney District (excluding Telstra Stadium)."

Does this mean the membership retains control over where Souths play their home games?

  • Don't we have a better picture of Aussie Stadium than the Waratahs one?

CumberlandsAshes81 22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Some good points there:
In response - (i) external citiation in fn 14 has been fixed. Maybe someone else can also do a thorough copy-edit and link check as someting else may have been missed. (ii) yeah, some of the fans are probably just friends/associates of Russell who aren't "real" supporters - Tom Cruise and Snoop Dog (both now removed) are the most obvious. (iii) Agree club song appears out of place in History article. Not sure where it should really be shown. (iv) Re privatisation, the membership does in fact retain control as to the venue for home games (excluding Telstra Stadium and a couple of games at Gosford per year). The venue has to be within the South Sydney district unless 75% of the membership decides otherwise. Whilst Telstra Stadium is the home ground this won't be an issue as Telstra is specifically exempted.

Sattlersjaw 03:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good changes, Sattler -- The supporters section seems right now (no entries that will raise eyebrows). OK - in terms of the 'power' of the membership to mandate the home ground be in the Southern Districts - does this mean that the power invested in the membership to do so will only be exercisable when the current agreement with Telstra Stadium expires? When does that agreement expire? Or does the fact that Telstra is exempted from the power mean that the power is, in fact, useless, while ever management wants to play there? I'd like to see a pic of Redfern Oval (obviously it's currently a vacant paddock) or an 'artists impression' of the new ground - I know there are a few floating around of both the future and past versions on the net (not sure if any of them are public domain - maybe Sydney City Council has some public domain ones) CumberlandsAshes81 13:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the Telstra deal expires at the end of 2008. Unless the Telstra agreement is extended for a further period, I understand that Souths will look at moving back to Aussie Stadium. Since playing at Telstra is specifically excluded from the members' right to mandate a home ground, then the members' consent to play at another ground would only be relevant if (1) the ground is not Telstra Stadium, and (2) the ground is outside the South Sydney district. Currently within the South Sydney district the only viable home grounds for NRL games would be Aussie Stadium or the Sydney Cricket Ground. The revamped Redfern Oval would be too small in terms of ground capacity (around 12,000). So when the Telstra deals expires, if Souths plan to play their home games anywhere else other than Telstra, Aussie or the SCG, then 75% of the memberships approval would be needed before this could happen. Unfortunately the Redfern Oval pics on the City of Sydney website are copyrighted and need the CSC'c consent to be reproduced.Sattlersjaw 04:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I remember all the shenanigans with the outfits from 78 onwards (78 was a minirevival - I think Darrell Bampton was captain and they started wearing green shorts, but as a Doggies supporter I never paid it too much attention...........we need some refs for this bitcheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

FA nomination?[edit]

I don't really know how it works but when is it planned to nominate this article for FA class? I'm not really sure what else can be added. I would say more pictures but it is practically impossible to find any that we have permission to use, let alone remain undeleted as a result of a ruthless interpretation of the Fair Use policy. CumberlandsAshes81 04:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is a History of Souths book that would be worth looking at. looks a bit thin on the inline refs side of things (not saying that any FA reviewer would resort to inlinerefcoutitis but then again..........) I might hav a look for the book in hte next week or so. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I was asking mdmanser this very question just now and thought his response might be worth posting here Sticks66 14:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I have to say it's looking fantastic. Sattlersjaw has done a great job throwing those citations into the article - that part should pass the FA department. But if I had to make any comments it would be that the Culture and Statistics section need to get rid of the subheadings like that. I would think split the Culture section and make the Statistics section into mroe consolidated paragraphs like you see at Sydney Roosters. Small things like that cause a big uproar at WP:FAC. I wouldn't nominate it just yet because Sattlersjaw looks busy updating a few things, but it looks presentable. One more thing - we need an independent copyeditor to get the grammar and prose up to top standards - the guy who helped me on the Roosters article may accept another invitation if I ask him to help out. Keep in touch with me and Sattlersjaw as things progress. All the best. --mdmanser 13:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what he's talking about with the sub-headings in Stats. The Roosters similar section flows much better. I put those sub-headers Points etc in Souths article so will remove and see if it reads better. I wonder if sattlersjaw you agree with md on that same issue with regard to the Culture and Tradition ? Or you CumberlandsAshes81Sticks66 14:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I agree and have made the necessary changes to remove the subheadings and split what was there into separate sections.

Sattlersjaw 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

FA Londo06 22:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Only club excluded?[edit]

Sorry to be a pain but I think this is incorrect: "...in 1998 and a 14-team competition by 2000, South Sydney were the sole club from 15 applicants to be cut from the premiership at the end of the 1999 season." There were three classes of criteria that clubs needed to meet in order to take one of the 14 licenses: 'basic criteria', 'qualifying criteria' (which provided licenses to the one-team city clubs) and the 'selection criteria' which was applied to the remaining 10 applying clubs. While it is true that Souths were the only team out of the final 10 to miss out on a license based on the 'selection criteria',North Sydney Bears had already been exlcuded based on the first criteria (solvency). This is why when the Northern Eagles folded the license reverted to Manly whose license the Northern Eagles were using. So, it should be '16 applicants' and 'both Souths and Norths being excluded'. CumberlandsAshes81 11:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to refect this better - though the sentence now seems a bit long and clumsy. What do you think? You are welcome to stream-line it so that it reads better.

Sattlersjaw 13:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Opposed 5May07 as anFA[edit]

Copied below the support/oppose comments from that saw the article considered but fail as an FA; posted here since you otherwise have to go to Featured article candidates page to see them Sticks66 13:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A concise, accurate, comprehensive and well-written article that is thoroughly referenced and which I believe meets FA requirements. Sattlersjaw 00:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose The logos lack Fair Use Rationales, and the second logo looks like it was sketched on paint. Also many words are linked multiple times (Eric Simms for example is linked five times, three of them in the same section), the rivalries section is very short and the statistics section is nothing but lots of one line paragraphs full of numbers without providing any context for them, and the line "The Rabbitohs have won the most first grade premierships, 20 in all. They have also won the most reserve grade premierships, again 20." feels quite oddly written. Laïka 07:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done, Have added Fair Use rationale to both logos. Have removed multiple player and club links to their respective Wiki pages from the body of the article. Have rearranged and slightly revised the Statistics and Records section to put some context behind the club and individual player achievements shown. Have revised the abovementioned sentences in relation to first and reserve grade premierships so as not to make their reading feel "odd". Sattlersjaw 11:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply. Will also look at expanding rivalries section. Sattlersjaw 11:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes check.svg Done, Rivalries section has been expanded.
  • Object. The fair use rationale on Image:South Sydney Rabbitohs logo.jpg is not sufficient and is not article specific. Also, please remove it from your user page, as images claimed under fair use are for the article space only. I do not understand why Image:Minties jersey.jpg is historically significant, and am not convinced it qualifies for fair use in this article. Pagrashtak 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply. (1) Yes check.svg Done The fair use rationale (now updated and expanded) is at the very least the same (if not more comprehensive) as for the logos in articles for other NRL clubs including that of the Sydney Roosters (which is a featured article) and the Brisbane Broncos (which is a candidate for featured article status). (2) Yes check.svg Done I would have thought that the logo would be specific and relevant to articles on the South Sydney Rabbitohs club and related articles on its history, its team/players and its honours and achievements. However, I have removed it from the other related club articles and left it only on the main club article page (South Sydney Rabbitohs) for the purpose of meeting fair use rationale. (3) Yes check.svg Done Logo removed from user page as requested. (4) The so-called "minities" jersey is historically significant as it depicts past jersey designs and colour schemes which are symbolic with the club. The image is fair use as it is only used to depict the club's past jersey design and is restricted to this article. Sattlersjaw 00:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The fair use tag on Image:Minties jersey.jpg says that it is being used "to illustrate the event in question". However, you have said above that you are only using it to show the old jersey, not the event. Are you asserting that no public domain or freely licensed pictures of the past jersey exist, and it is impossible for any to be created? Pagrashtak 05:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, point taken. I'm not sure if there are any public domain or freely licensed pictures of the past jersey around - will need some research to determine. In the meantime, I will remove the image from the article page. Yes check.svg Done Sattlersjaw 05:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. On a par with the currently Featured Sydney Roosters article. Good to see someone got the Ian Heads book, the ISBN would be nice to stick in...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • ISBN now added.
  • Oppose. Footnotes need a lot of work; see WP:CITE/ES. Footnotes should use a consistent format; all sources should include publisher, author and publication date when one is available, and a last access date for all websourcesYes check.svg Done 5 May 2007. Ditto for References, which should also be alphabetical Yes check.svg Done 5 May 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Alas, too late . we've been opposed.Sticks66 13:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Redfern[edit]

  • The first British inhabitants had often called the waratah a "red fern" instead, hence giving the suburb its name, and ultimately the local rugby club its emblem.

Well, no. The suburb was named after surgeon William Redfern, the first white owner of the land [1]. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the particular interpretation found in the Redfern Wiki article is only one interpretation of how Redfern was named and hardly the definitive version. As Sean Fagan describes: "The origins of the name 'Redfern' are not entirely clear - some local history points to the name coming from Dr. Readfern (spelt with an 'a') who owned substantial property in the area in the mid-1800s. However, more likely, the first British inhabitants called the waratah, which was prolific in the area, a 'red fern'. In the 1890s the local rugby club played under the name 'Redfern Waratahs'. Articles in Sydney newspapers in the early 1900s make reference to the waratah in comments about the district's cricket and rugby union clubs." [2]I guess some note should be made that the 'red fern' origin is only one possibility and this other version of the origin of 'Redfern' should be in the Redfern Wiki article. CumberlandsAshes81 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

  • I'm going to take some time to read the article and give it a GA Review, in this subsection. If I don't get to it in 24 hours or so, feel free to message my talk page and remind me. Cheers! Smee 08:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC).

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of June 16, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Article is well written, and the language and syntax is easily understood.
2. Factually accurate?: Sourced to an impressive (64) citations, and (12) references in the works cited.
3. Broad in coverage?: Comprehensive coverage, especially of the History, and Statistics.
4. Neutral point of view?: Article is worded in NPOV language, however see below for steps towards FA status.
5. Article stability? Article seems to be bereft of edit-warring, however there is some random anon IP editing in the history, might want to just keep an eye on that, for additions of unsourced material, or removal of sourced material.
6. Images?: (7) images used in the article. All appear to be used appropriately, however see below.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — Smee 04:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Some pointers as the articles moves along in quality.
  • NPOV - Some of the syntax in the intro and such is a bit wordy and a bit praiseworthy, I would suggest going for a Wikipedia:Peer Review after this GA, and see what others think.
  • Images -- I would strongly suggest moving all free-use images to the WikiCommons, and really working on beefing up the detailed fair use rationale for those images that are fair use.
  • Peer Review - As already stated, the next best step would be to go for a Wikipedia:Peer Review, sometime after absorbing this GA review.

Thank you for your time, I hope some of the above pointers help. Yours, Smee 04:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC).

"The Rabbits?"[edit]

I have never, ever heard Souths referred to as "The Rabbits", as the opening sentence states. And I've been barracking for them since 1970. Anyone calling them The Rabbits would immediately identify that person as a foreigner and/or someone totally unfamiliar with ARL. I am leaving the opening sentence as is for now, but I'm changing the infobox to say "Rabbitohs". --Jquarry 02:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you Google the string <Rabbits "South Sydney" -Wikipedia> there are hundreds of references, especially in news headlines. Gus Gould sometimes calls them the Rabbits on Ch 9 (when he's not referring to Ray Warren). It may not be used by Souths supporters, but it is used in the media. Rexparry sydney 05:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
On that argument you should also include "the Bunnies" as 'also known as'. ~ Florrie talk 08:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I've been supporting the rabbits all my life - since 86 - and all through school and home life they have been known as the rabbits, rabbitohs or bunnies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.156.214 (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn... am I that far out of touch? :-\ JQ (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have followed Souths my whole life, and admittedly find it amazing that a "fan" could never have heard the reference Rabbits. I respectfully suggest anyone who considers Rabbits a "foreign" term in reference to the club doesn't understand its history and origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.190.190 (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:South Sydney Rabbitohs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this page:

The article is fairly well referenced but there are several dead links in the references section. The links are: 11, 26, 35, 38, 40, 41, 42, 51, 53, 58, 59, 60, 64, 67, 69, and 76. 16 dead links, these must be repaired if the article is to stay at GA.

I'm also a little concerned about Reference 74, which is the NRL home website. It is cited 8 times in the article (mostly in the Statistics and Records section), yet when I link to the article I come to the home website. Since most of the information is drawn from the statistics and records portion of the website I think it would be best to link to that in the article rather than the home page. Currently the link does not really help the reader get more information. H1nkles (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

74 has been replaced by the club's official records page. It's probably less independent, but I can only assume the records were moved from the NRL's website to the club's website. I've checked that all claims are listed on the new page, and they are. GW(talk) 19:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

One question, have the Rabbitohs been involved in any negative publicity? The article is very positive towards the club, which is fine, but I'm wondering if there have been any negative periods beyond just stretches of bad play? I'm thinking about controversies, perhaps shady dealings to get certain players, instances of gambling or points shaving, any players caught using performance enhancing drugs, that sort of thing. As I read this it sounds like I'm looking for dirt, which isn't my intent, I'm just trying to find a little more balance to the article. If there is nothing then that's fine, but for a team that has existed for over a hundred years there's bound to be a skeleton or two in the closet.

The primary issue from a GA standpoint is the dead links, if those can be repaired I will keep the article, the balance question is more a suggestion that can be taken or dropped as the editors see fit. I'll hold the article for a week pending work on the links. H1nkles (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All the relevant dead links have now been fixed whilst a handful of obsolete links have also been deleted. Sattlersjaw (talk)
Re controversy, my understanding is that the main controversial issues affecting the club during its long history are already in the article - i.e. its exclusion from the competition in 1999-2001, court battle for reinstatement, subsequent privatisation due to financial problems, subsequent falling out between owners Russell Crowe and Holmes a Court, underperformance on the playing field just before and after exclusion and bitterness over player losses and gains with rival teams - apart from the above, there has for the vast majority of the club's existence been far more positives than negatives - and these positives are of course also highlighted. During the history of rugby league in Australia there have been many more clubs with worse troubles than Souths, and not many that have the same long history of achievement.
Hope this helps in your assessment of the article. Sattlersjaw (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that the dead link issue is the main focus of your review H1nkles (and good on you Satts for fixing them so quickly). I would be concerned if you were suggesting that the GA status might be in jeopardy because there isn't enough dirt dished on the club in the article. But that's not really being suggested is it ? -Sticks66 11:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No I am not insinuating that I would delist it for lack of dirt. My comments were intended to insure that all aspects of the club's history was in the article. Everything looks good except for link [52], it's a live link but appears to go to a non-specific website that has nothing to do with the reference. Please confirm this though as I may be mistaken. At any rate the article is fine and will be kept GA. H1nkles (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

South Side Story[edit]

Shouldn't the South Side Story documentary get at least a mention somewhere in this or the History article?--Jeff79 (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable supporters[edit]

OK, we now have up to a dozen additions and reversions of the "notable supporter" section in this article. This cannot go on. Can I suggest that before adding it back that some discussion on the talk page takes place. If the edit warring continues, I will fully protect the page until some consensus is agreed upon. Perhaps the views of a third party need to be sought - a request for comment perhaps?

My own personal view (although I don't have strong feelings either way) is that I see little encyclopedic value in a list of every celebrity who happens to support a particular sports team - that to me is the very definition of trivia as defined in the MoS.Where a particualr celebrity has a close and tangible connection to a club (owner, board member etc.) then there may some encyclopedic merit but wouldn't that be better incorporated into the body of the article?

Regardless of my mild personal aversion to "celebrity" sections in sports teams articles, I am happy to follow a wider consensus but the continued edit warring must stop now. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Talk:Sydney Roosters, and the claim that the list of people were pro-reinstatement activists is nonsense as the attached refs didn't say that anyway. Third this is a GA, and isn't supposed to be a joke, same as the Roosters FA. If these people were stakeholders, ambassadors, Shahrukh Khan etc, then they would be in the main prose anyway YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

recent edits[edit]

recent edits reverted because they were opinion based and not cited. --RichardMills65 (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


This is my first time doing anything, on a talk page and thusly I'm unsure how to add anything to these pages, so I thought I'd just edit this(seeing as it seems to be on a similar path to what I'm on about-wait on a second glance it's not really, lol). Sorry if that was a mistake.

2 things I think would help improve this article.

-More of a mention of the events of the 2012 season. It featured the teams first finals victory in a quarter of a century. Also only their second finals appearence since 1989.

-"South Sydney failed to meet the National Rugby League's selection criteria to compete in the competition and were subsequently excluded from the premiership at the end of the 1999 season." I understand that there are links to other articles but the text itself glosses over the supposed controversy surrouning the criteria. I feel that some basic mention of this would better inform a casual wiki user that probably wouldn't go that extra mile for the background information. The article would lead someone not in the know to assume that there was no particular controversy surrounding the exclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rated Rabbitman (talkcontribs) 12:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Scott

Confused - pre-1908 history?[edit]

The emblem section is suggesting continuity with a pre-1908 rugby union club however no connection is made in the history section. Hack (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

GA status[edit]

For a Good article this has quite a few tags. Would someone interested be willing to give it a copyedit so it can keep its status? AIRcorn (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay did some editing myself. Still some citations needed (mainly for the recent stuff). Is probably a bit short in references in other areas, but I just tagged the ones I deemed most necessary. AIRcorn (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Foundation[edit]

Yes, Souths are a foundation club, but the title is fluid and applies to Wests as much as Souths and Easts. Although I wouldn't persue it, technically Parramatta (merger with Cumberland) and St George (Glebe absorption) are foundation clubs as well. That is, by the basis that Souths are. Basically, I think the Souths - Easts only foundation is bull, and shouldn't be heralded in their articles.150.203.190.160 (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Rabbitohs Membership Partnership with Members Equity Bank for Three Years
  2. ^ Virgin Blue announces sponsorship deal with South Sydney Football Club
  3. ^ Rusty nails airline deal for club by Michael Stothard, 9 February, 2007, news.com.au
  4. ^ See pages 3 (Chairman's Report) and 15 of the South Sydney Members Rugby League Football Club Ltd 1st Annual Report for the Year Ended 31 October 2006.
  5. ^ New Era at Souths Begins Today With Official Handover Ceremony from the official South Sydney website.
  6. ^ See clause 6.6 Matters which require member approval of the Constitution of South Sydney Members Rugby League Football Club Ltd for the heritage items under control of the membership.
  7. ^ See definition of Special Resolution in clause 1.1 Definitions of the Constitution of South Sydney Members Rugby League Football Club Ltd
  8. ^ Football Club Proposal Wins Leagues Club Election With 67% of Primary Vote from the official South Sydney website.
  9. ^ High Concept by Trivest Becomes Away Major Corporate Partner from the official South Sydney website.
  10. ^ South Sydney Football Club Acquires South Sydney Leagues Club Debt from the official South Sydney website.
  11. ^ Bunnies' double deal on sponsors article by Brent Read, 2nd March, 2007, Foxs Sports website.