Talk:Queensland rugby league team

State of Origin results section?

Dare I ask why is it necessary to have this table in this page again? It's already been presented in the State of Origin page, where it is probably more appropriate.

Also I dispute the following sentence as POV:

As the twentieth century progressed, New South Wales proved to be the dominant team. Sydney teams funded by poker machine revenue attracted many Queenslanders south of the border, and the "residential" selection policy meant that the Maroons would often be losing to a New South Wales team with many Queenslanders in it.:

This is based on two untested assumptions:

• NSW clubs can only afford players because they're funded by the pokies.
• NSW are only dominant because they used Queensland players.

This explanation conveniently ignored NSWRL's higher rate of development, as well as a well-established junior representative structure. True, some politics are involved, but to attribute NSW's success to poker machines (and the influx of Qlders) is premature at best.--Alexio 07:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Article name

At the moment we have Queensland State of Origin Team and New South Wales Rugby League team. I propose we rename, possibly to:

• Queensland state rugby league team and New South Wales state rugby league team

(this would align with Australia national rugby league team) -- Chuq 01:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Aye: I don't have any objections to this change, provided that pre-Origin history of both sides are comprehensive yet not lumbersome. We need a good account of each state's performances and histories before 1980; however we don't need a table of results stretching back to Dally Messenger.--Alexio 13:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Against it. Origin in Queensland is very specific. Ehinger222 10:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Shows how much I know about rugby league. So Queensland has another rugby league team? And this team only plays State of Origin? -- Chuq 04:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm against it. Queensland Origin team refers to the team that plays State of Origin, Queensland Rugby League team covers the teams that play in the Under 17s, Under 19s, touring sides, etc, etc. My 2 cents anyway Steeden 00:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So the 'State of Origin' team is a nickname for the states senior rugby league team? Or to put it another way, what games does the senior team play apart from the State of Origin games? -- Chuq 07:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for two articles. It can all be dealt with on one page. As it is now it's doubling up. Either put it all on one page or change the content on each so there's no overlap.--Jeff79 03:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for two articles for the one team. And what's with the capital T in team? Queensland rugby league team and New South Wales rugby league team should be two the articles, somehow the authors managed to get neither right.

The first letter of all nouns in a title should be capitalised.--Jeff79 05:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. Only proper nouns should be capitalised. -- Chuq 07:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's just in any sentence. We're talking about titles.--Jeff79 09:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I mean. See Naming conventions -- Chuq 11:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this page should be moved to Queensland Maroons (which currently redirects to this page) because of

• That is the way the team is referred to. No body uses the teams "QLD state of origin team" most people use "maroons" or "queensland".
• stats sites use "Queensland Maroons" and it is a widely accepted fact. The Maroons are like any other team, eg Broncos for Brisbane, Eels for parramatta, so what is the difference.
• The NSW page is a stub, but can be moved to New South Wales Blues (rugby league team) like the bulldogs page.

SpecialWindler 11:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue needing attention now is the fact that there are two articles for the same team. Whatever name is decided on, there should only be one article. The fact that there are junior versions of a team doesn't warrant a separate article being created for them. Admittedly, I haven't fixed it yet coz it is a hassle. But once a general concensus is reached we should act on it. Regarding the article name: I think Queensland rugby league team is ok as long as Queensland Maroons links to it (which is does). Maroons isn't really an official name like Broncos or Bulldogs which are the emblems of the teams. Maroon just happens to be the colour of their jerseys and is more of a nickname.--Jeff79 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am planning to do a project on Queensland Maroons and related pages over the coming weeks, and will fix this problem. I want this article to be more than a stub (which it is). SpecialWindler 09:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Queensland state rugby league team would be best, for the same reason that the national team is at Australia national rugby league team - in fact most major sports teams are at (Country) national (sport) team. As I said the only reason I haven't done it is, although I've been around Wikipedia long enough to see how naming conventions work here, I hardly know anything about rugby league! The main reason I brought it up is because at the time, between the 2 teams, there were three articles using three different naming conventions! One reason I would suggest not using Queensland Maroons is because then you would have to use New South Wales Blues, which would result in a naming clash with the state cricket team, and although there is nothing wrong with using New South Wales Blues (rugby league team) and New South Wales Blues (cricket team), it would be better to avoid it if possible. (Ideally, New South Wales Blues would be a disambig page between the two.) Of course there is no reason that you can't make redirects for as many different alternate names as are needed. -- Chuq (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The word 'state' is completely redundant. People aren't going to be confused with Queensland the country or Queensland the city's teams. Of the countries that have states, very few have representative sporting teams for those states, making the blues and maroons the only examples you'll probably ever find. The national thing I can understand because of place names like Georgia (not that anyone would ever be confused with the Australia national team as opposed to any other kind of Australia team). Naming conventions exist to eliminate confusion where it may arise. Don't go overboard with them. Let's not worry about the name just yet and focus on merging these two needlessly split articles.--Jeff79 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

True, I think the 'national' or 'state' is to specify that it is a state representative rugby league team - not just a rugby league team thats happens to be based in the state. For example, the Brisbane Broncos is a Queensland rugby league team, but it's not the Queensland state rugby league team. Still, I'm happy to go with whatever is decided as long as they use the same convention. Regarding states having teams, there is also Australian domestic cricket and English cricket is county based which is similar. -- Chuq (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have merged Queensland Rugby League Team with this page. (though there was not to merge) SpecialWindler 09:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. If I had to choose between "Queensland Maroons" or "Queensland State of Origin team" for the name of this article, I'd go with Queensland Maroons. Because some of the information on this article is related to non-state of origin teams, but most Queensland teams have played in Maroon (although that wasn't always the case). Most interstate rugby league-related articles acknowledge Super League's Queensland team, and I think this one should too. They wore Maroon, but they did not play 'State of Origin'. Therefore, I still think "Queensland rugby league team" is best because it:

• is simple;
• represents the article's actual topic (teams that have represented Queensland in rugby league, regardless of their jersey's colour, in both origin and non-origin arenas);
• leaves no room for misinterpretation;
• matches the corresponding New South Wales rugby league team

--Jeff79 08:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(Actually, nevermind about the jersey colour business. That was before rugby was split into union and league, so outside the scope of this article. Still, I think the case for "Queensland rugby league team" holds up.--Jeff79 09:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

If we can't have two articles per team (Origin/non-Origin) then I think using Chuq's proposal ( Queensland state rugby league team and New South Wales state rugby league team) is the best solution. Bongomanrae 09:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's the same as Queensland rugby league team with the word 'state' needlessly added. It's not like "Washington State" where you need to differentiate between the city and the state. There is only one Queensland. Nobody's going to be confused about which one we mean.--Jeff79 10:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding 'state' lets the user know that it's a representative team, and more importantly, follows the naming convention we use for national Rugby League teams. Bongomanrae 11:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've already said. No one will be confused with Queensland the country or Queensland the city (mainly because they don't exist). The word 'state' in the title is competely redundant (and looks silly).--Jeff79 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what we are saying. The 'state' is to show it's a representative team, it isn't there to avoid confusion with a city or country. Bongomanrae 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I don't understand. Article's names are usually changed when it's necessary. I'll be extremely surprised if a) anyone ever types 'Queensland state rugby league team' into the search and b) in any article's text the words 'Queensland state rugby league team' appear as a link. However the opposite is true for "Queensland rugby league team". You've gone overboard with a naming convention that does exist to avoid geographical confusion.--Jeff79 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(a) This is an encyclopedia. If we used article names based upon what is most commonly typed into the search box then we'd have an incomprehensible mess on our hands. (b)Thinking logically, a user would find the 'state rugby league team' from Queensland or anywhere else for that matter, very easily because of the naming conventions that are commonly used. Bongomanrae 02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

... Sorry, I don't know how to respond to arguments that feeble.--Jeff79 03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff has it right, the state is completely unnecessary, cumbersome, and not in common usage. The redirect should be the other way round, not that anyone is going to ever type in 'Queensland state rugby league team'.

Queensland Flag

Might as well put an image of the Queensland flag in at the top there.--Jeff79 03:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Maroon

I don't like that bit in the introduction about the pronunciation of 'Maroon' which looks like it should be in an article about the word. I think it's out of place in this article, which is about football.--Jeff79 22:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No objections, so removed it.--Jeff79 01:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it noteworthy? If not, don't note it. If it is, it has to be noted with the team, because it is a peculiarity of the football team, not of the word (colour).

It could be argued that it should be noted on a page about Marone, as being a peculiar pronunciation of Maroon to the team, but that's a longer bow still. 60.226.133.172 02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Australians pronounce the word the same regardless of whether they're referring to the team or the colour.--Jeff79 06:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Need to contact some Victorians about that then. If that is the case, it should be noted in the Maroon Wiktionary entry then.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maroon#Pronunciation - Only mentions the English pronunciation (roughly: maruun), and not the Queensland-centric (roughly: marone). I've never heard of people talking about "Marone" 5, even in Brisbane. [I know it's WP:OR, but it leads me to the conclusion that it's a pronunciation linked to the team, not a difference based on dialect.]

It's notable, but more trouble than it's worth. Probably best discussed at the RL portal. 60.226.133.172 13:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My newly-created Userbox

I created a new userbox that anyone's welcome to use. I think it's pretty cool:

File:Queensland Maroons home jersey 2007.svg"You can take this user out of Queensland, Ron, but you can't take the Queensland out of this user."

--Jeff79 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You may need to change the image - unfortunately copyrighted images can't be used on user pages! -- Chuq (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? even logos?--Jeff79 19:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure anything which is used under "fair use". i.e. logos, screenshots, etc. can only be used in articles. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy, point 9. (I only found out about this when someone else pulled me up for doing it!) -- Chuq (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! And here I was all proud of myself :( --Jeff79 01:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You can still use the same colours, and a generic picture of a ball, or map of Qld or something! -- Chuq (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Simple duplication of content. Clear-cut merge.--Jeff79 (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you!  The Windler talk  04:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

DoneJeff79 (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move to Queensland rugby league team. Jafeluv (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Queensland state rugby league team → Queensland representative rugby league team — Relisted to generate more input. —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I daresay this is the only instance one would find on earth with the combination of words "Queensland state rugby league team". As per the discussion above I think "Queensland rugby league team" alone would suffice, but as with a similar decision for the naming of "Auckland representative rugby union team", "representative" would be preferable to the ambiguous and hence meaningless "state".Jeff79 (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This move proposal seems ok. LunarLander // talk // 02:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just move it to "Queensland rugby league team"? Such as Auckland rugby league team. Mattlore (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you Mattlore. Perhaps that's what I should have named the proposal. Just as long as the status quo ends.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Queensland rugby league team, too.  florrie  10:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing the reasoning for an additional word between 'Queensland' and 'rugby league team' is that a reader would be confused about whether it's a Queensland rep team, or a rugby league team from Queensland. However this is pretty flimsy as the sentence will provide context, especially if it includes the wikilink. i.e. "He played for the Queensland rugby league team" or "While at Valleys, a Queensland rugby league team, he was selected to play for the Maroons".--Jeff79 (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV editing by User:Gibson Flying V

I had really hoped I wouldn't have to bring this here, but use of the word "poached" is simply opinionated editing and hence unacceptable. It will obviously be challenged by other balanced editors who come here (if any but obsessed fans and me ever do). Why not use more moderate language now? HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the negative implications of the word "poached" with regard to the AFL, Folau and Hunt are entirely in your head. What is negative about it? On whom does it reflect negatively? I honestly don't know. Sources certainly don't seem to have a problem with it ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]) and neither do I.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We are trying here to create a quality encyclopaedia, not a daily newspaper desperate for readership. We should avoid emotive language wherever possible. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You'd do well to shed some light on what implications of the (extremely widely used) word "poached" could be seen as unacceptable. I'm not trying to be funny, I just truly don't know what your problem with it is. So again, I invite you to explain.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Macquarie Dictionary: To trespass on another's land, esp. in order to steal game; to take something belonging to another.

Dictionary.com: (all the above, plus) ...to take without permission and use as one's own: to poach ideas; a staff poached from other companies.

Note the use of "steal", etc. Very negative connotations. That's makes the use of the word a POV edit. And that's unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

a staff poached from other companies. You've justified it by your own hand, these people weren't selected because of their prowess on the AFL field (having never played the game), but for their profile as NRL players.

But when sources are basically unanimous in describing it as poaching ([10][11][12][13][14][15]) it becomes acceptable to do so here. The words "murder" and "suicide" obviously hold more connotations than the word "kill", but Wikipedia isn't prevented from using them when sources use them, unless there are significant contradictory sources. As far as I'm aware, yours is the only complaint about describing Hunt and Folau as having been poached by the AFL.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And yours is the only view here suggesting it's fine. This is one of those frustrating conversations where you asked for evidence to support my point, I provided it, and then, having been defeated on that point, you try a different (and mathematically pointless) tack. I think I'm ahead on points at this stage. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"And yours is the only view here suggesting it's fine". Every time the word "poach" makes it into a published source it is a suggestion that it's fine. (Did I really have to type that out?) You're aware of Wikipedia:Verifiability, right? The claim that the situation with the AFL, Hunt and Folau should not be described as "poaching" seems an awful lot like original research to me. You've gotten no further than where you were when you started with your completely unfounded accusation of bad faith. And I think it's now safe to assume that you're going to believe you're defeating others' arguments and ahead on points no matter what, so maybe keep your delusions to yourself (or keep typing them out, it makes no difference really). --Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I can see your point regrading all those media reports, but it still doesn't feel neutral to me. I've asked our colleagues over at the NPOV Noticeboard for their thoughts on this. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, Your attempts here and here to gain consensus against the widely accepted term 'poached' in a professional football context both failed. Please do not start edit-warring over it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It didn't fail. Everyone at the Neutral_point_of_view Noticeboard apart from you agreed that "poached" is non-neutral. One editor suggested it could maybe be used if "most RS use such non-neutral terms". They don't. I Googled "Karmichael Hunt recruited to AFL" and got 15,000 hits. "Recruited" is obviously neutral, and very common. You cannot argue that "poached" is neutral, so it goes. Don't revert again. It has been judged non-neutral elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolute bollocks, this is a "poach" through and through. Googling "Karmichael Hunt poached to AFL" gives 22,000 hits, this is the most term most commonly being used to describe the move in RSs. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that when they move from one rugby code to another, you simply say they "played" that sport, but for Aussie Rules, it's "poached"? Massive anti-Aussie Rules chip on shoulder methinks. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If I may make a different point. In the days of district/zone recruiting in the VFL, there was a specific offence known as 'poaching' which referred to illegally attempting to recruit a player from another team's zone, without that team's permission. If you want an example, the article on Stephen Allender provides some references to a case when this was applied. The cases of Hunt and Folau do not fall under this definition, as all recruiting overtures were made entirely legally. This makes the use of the word 'poached' ambiguous – in that it is unclear whether it refers to the specific Australian rules football offence of poaching or an equivalent (which could be inferred from context), or if it reflects the more liberal modern usage of the word. We should be using an alternative wording which makes it unambiguous that there was no offence committed. Aspirex (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you also intend to make comment on the players Rugby League poached from Rugby Union? Karmichael Hunt's move to AFL was a club vs club affair between the Broncos and Gold Coast. Queensland State of Origin team is of little connection, and highlighting Hunt is a little curious as he wasn't even the #1 Fullback in the team because of Slater.

You are fighting over a comment in the article which adds little. Delete the sentence, it adds so little. --Falcadore (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

My approach to this is extremely simple: I just defer to sources (which takes editors out of the equation). I've provided 15 so far. Shall I provide more? How about some that dispute that they were poached? So far it's zero. All your work is still ahead of you.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't care what the sources say or not. Hunt and Idris (which was a complete failure let's not forget) playing AFL is not relevant to the topic. Paoched vs recruited does not matter. Delete the unimportant sentence.

Hunt was poached by Gold Coast Suns from the Brisbane Broncos. Not relevant to the topic at hand. DELETE. --Falcadore (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, fine: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. The real challenge here, of course, is finding a publisher that is not willing to describe Hunt or Folau as having been poached. Best of luck.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is simple. "Poached" is non-neutral. We can either use that non-neutral word, or a neutral word like "recruited". WP:NPOV is the obvious relevant policy. Or, as has now been suggested above, just get rid of the peacockish chunk of text altogether. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

How about, as a compromise, we replace the words "Former Queensland players" with "Tri-code pioneers". This ensures that the statement contains a term with positive connotations to offset any negative connotations of poaching, making HiLo48 happy; and, it uses a term widely used to describe Hunt which can be found in a wide range of sources ([28] [29] [30] [31] etc.), making Gibson Flying V happy. Aspirex (talk) 23:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hunt and Folau, and Sailor, Rogers & Tuqiri previously, were enticed to other sports primarily to generate column inches. This is why a pejorative tone might be justified, and as demonstrated, often used. But neither of the organisations involved is going to come out and say that, thereby giving wiggle room by those wishing to whitewash it.

Maybe "defected" is a good word here? Does everyone agree that "defected" sounds appropriate? I've seen it used a lot in RS. Given the history of the dispute (which has already gone too long) it seems hard to imagine either original editor accepting the other's opinion and I feel that this word sums it up pretty well. Macosal (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

That Hunt and Folau were poached by the AFL is not a point of contention at all, as the sources show. Therefore there is no need for editor intervention when wording a statement to that effect on Wikipedia. I don't think any more really needs to be said on this that hasn't been already. That aside, HiLo48 has compromised any possibility of getting an outcome that makes them happy by a) failing spectacularly to assume good faith, b) edit-warring, c) blatantly forum-shopping and d) repeatedly making personal attacks. Rather than even humouring this editor by the discussing the possibility that we disregard Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy in their favour, I'd actually be very surprised if they now manage to escape punishment for this little episode.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but this section of the article is a bunch of statistics tables, current team, list of captains and a team of the century.

What has the AFL to do with this content? What is the connection?

Johnny Brown (rugby league) played Rugbly League at rep level and also played in the Qld Sheffield Shield side. That isn't notable as well is it? Wally Lewis did some motor racing after retirement. We need to mention that? What does any of that have to do with who was a Qld captain or was good enough to be in the team of the century? Can someone... anyone, explain that.

How did Hunt and Idris playing AFL become more noteworthy and relevant to the section on players than those who played Rugby League for Australia? --Falcadore (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, some of those players are mentioned (note the preceding sentence). I guess the distinction which is being drawn re Lewis is that he did not leave League in order to do motorsport (and presumably was not at a top level). Macosal (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Point is, playing AFL has NOTHING to do with the content of this section of the article. Nothing at all. So why is the sentence there to begin with so that we can argue over it? --Falcadore (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It serves two purposes. One is to add to the evidence of the "famousness" of some members of the "Queensland rugby league team", clearly peacockish wording, and hence not desirable in an article. The second is to attack the Australian Football League, obviously a non-neutral position to take, again, not acceptable. The irony is that if these players had not chosen to play Aussie Rules, they would have been less famous. But I'm with you Falcadore. The whole little section is undue nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We are supposed to write concisely and on topic and this sentence is neither. The merits of recruit vs poach are irrelevant next to the fact that the sentence as written has no place. The section is not about how famous the players are. This section tabulates their success and reputation within the code. In the 1990s Julian O'Neill was one of the most famous but that had very little to do with onfield performance. Fame is a highly subjective quality for a professional athlete and should not be used in this manner.

Let's have no more of this nonsense debate over the merits of recruiting and poaching. Remove the sentence. --Falcadore (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Four rugby league players made it to the 2003 Rugby World Cup final, 3 for the Wallabies and one who has gone on to become one of the great All Blacks. Two rugby league players were singled out and poached by the AFL. As far as I'm aware, these are the first rugby league players to ever achieve these things. This has naturally made them more famous as they've become big names in sporting markets outside rugby league. All of these players played for the Queensland Maroons. This phenomenon is not replicated with Blues' players or with any other Australian sporting team that I'm aware of. Players from the Maroons are obviously in high demand not only within their own sport. This might be because they're very popular in places outside Queensland such as Papua New Guinea and New Zealand where, for whatever reason, the Maroons have tended to get more supporters than the Blues. In the section of this article entitled "Players", I don't think it's inappropriate to mention this, without making claims about sporting pedigree or other speculations as to why. These things have happened with these players: fact. They have become unusually famous: fact. All of them played for this team first: fact.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"Famous" is peacockish wording, and hence not desirable in an article. "Poached" is non-neutral, and hence unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Fame has nothing to do with the section of this article. You are continuing to argue the merits of poach and recruit when the sentence is out of place in the section. Can you both please instead of continuing your own arguement explain how AFL fits into the section of the article? --Falcadore (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The whole paragraph is inappropriate, non-encyclopaedic, peacockish fanboy stuff, and doesn't really belong in the section at all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Since this is an article and not a list, we should WP:USEPROSE. The prominence of the one mere mention (*gasp*) of the AFL can be diluted by filling this section out properly, which is certainly a good idea. If the word 'famous' bothers you so much it can easily be substituted with 'notable' or 'well known'. I'll get right onto it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You are being confrontational. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gibson, you keep circling back to verifiability, but that is not the whole story here. A direct sporting analogy here is describing a team as having "choked". Like the use of poached here, it would have wide verifiable use in print media; but, the tone of the word is obviously pejorative, and it would be unreasonable to use it in a straight-forward expository way in an encyclopedia. I would argue that it is valid to address a team's reputation for choking in a paragraph dedicated to the topic, but it would be inappropriate (and I would argue clearly inappropriate) in tone to simply state, for example, "Buffalo choked in four straight superbowls" as a standalone fact without another word of explanation. The same goes for allegations of poaching here; a pejorative term, valid in an explained context, but inappropriate when used in an otherwise unexplained statement. Aspirex (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Aspirex, your contribution here is commendably sensible and on-topic, and it's a real shame that it was ill-begotten. So before responding to your comments I feel I should just point out that by making them you're somehow indirectly condoning the blatantly underhanded means that were used to bring them about here. Still, I suppose that isn't your fault, and the opportunity to discuss this like an adult with other cool heads is refreshing. Now having said that, it is a pity to hear you say I "keep circling back to verifiability", as I've actually been standing right here alongside verifiability the whole time and haven't budged. It's others that are trying to take this discussion in other unhelpful directions. Nevertheless, your point about certain terms' standalone usage seems to be a worthwhile one. Whilst elsewhere on Wikipedia the term "poach" doesn't appear to have been used in relation to the AFL, Hunt and Folau, it is used in relation to professionals in sports and business. And (remaining as I do right here with verifiability), sources do not say, as you do, that there were "allegations of poaching here". They just say there was poaching, full stop. Nor do any sources I'm aware of even come close to implying that poaching is "a pejorative term" when used in relation to the AFL, Hunt and Folau (hence my confusion at the start of this thread about on whom the word was supposed to be reflecting negatively). These views appear to be original research, and I'm almost certain you're aware that editing in accordance with them is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. That AFL-related Wikipedia content fails to use this term that's so popular amongst sources (including afl.com.au, let's not forget) is, I would say, a shortcoming of the Aussie rules Wikiproject, not the Rugby league Wikiproject. As you suggest, the end of this usage's isolation would be a solution, and a welcome one.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, this whole dispute is caused by a semantic difference between northern Australian English and southern Australian English. As I commented earlier up the page, poaching was a specific offence, known by exactly that name, in the not too distant past of Australian rules football recruiting – in the Stephen Allender case of 1981, South Melbourne was fined $20,000 for poaching, which was a pretty huge fine in that era – and so the word is widely understood to have a pejorative connotation in Melbourne. If no such rule ever existed in Sydney and Brisbane, I can understand that no such connotation would exist in those states.

Additionally (to go a little bit off topic for contextual reasons) some of the more "romantic" football concepts, like club loyalty and one-club players and things like that, are viewed very differently between the two competitions. Free agency was only recently introduced in the AFL, and fans in Melbourne are only just coming to terms with the notion of players shopping around freely for the best contracts they can find, and clubs being able to recruit by aggressive contract offers – there is still a negative stigma associated with it, and it will be years yet before it subsides. Although I'm not exposed to much NRL media, I know that sentiment towards this sort of recruitment is much less negative in the NRL – as far as I'm aware, there is not much bad blood if a player goes out and signs elsewhere for more money. (As an illustrative example: the fact that an NRL player can sign for a new club while still playing out the season with his existing club is viewed with a lot of confusion and disdain in Melbourne – such is the cultural difference associated with recruiting) If that's the case, then I can start to appreciate that Sydney/Brisbane media could use the word 'poach' to mean "recruit a player from another club by outbidding of the existing contract" in a literal and neutral way, and that it could be widely understood to be an entirely normal action for a club or league to take.

So, this would suggest that a difference in regional dialect between the south and the north has been the root cause of all of this. This is an NRL article, but the statement in question relates to both NRL and AFL. The collaborator in me says that we should be seeking a wording agreeable to both projects under these circumstances. Aspirex (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we have an unarguably non-controversial alternative, "recruited". Any problem with that? HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Gibson - Look here ^^^^^^ HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

POV wording again

I just tested Gibson Flying V's POV behaviour here, and he convinced me how biased his editing is. In his view, players who move from Rugby League to the AFL are poached, but players who move to Rugby Union are not. This is completely illogical, inconsistent, and biased. The word "poached" is obviously used to make a point. HiLo48 (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, Wikipedia policy states that personal attacks are something that no editor (myself[32][33][34] and Macosal[35][36][37] included) has to put up with. Perhaps I was too subtle before, so let me be very clear now: Please stop. The next time you make a personal attack, and that includes any accusations regarding my conduct (e.g. being rude/confrontational, not accepting input from others, point-proving) or speculation about my views/agenda (e.g. hating AFL, POV-pushing) you will be reported.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You have no ground to stand on. You have avoided discussion on this. You are virtually alone in your views, which are obviously non-neutral. "Poached" is simply NOT a neutral word. There are many neutral alternatives. You simply ARE pushing a non-neutral point of view. OK, I cannot read your mind, so I cannot be sure that you hate the AFL for getting two of your favourite players to leave your favourite code, but right now I cannot think of any other reason for your behaviour here. Maybe you can suggest one. I know sports support is often an irrational thing, but we have a quality encyclopaedia to build here, and you're not doing that. HiLo48 (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)