Talk:Netball and the Olympic Movement

Rationale for British English

The rationale for this article being written in British English is that netball is played primarily in Commonwealth countries. --LauraHale (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Rational for Olympic recognised sport

On the netball talk page, there was some s uggestion this phrase should be hyphenated. In doing a google check, searching on Google Scholar and on Google Book, the use of the word recognised was not hyphenated. The lack of hyphenation is also consistent with the wording used on Olympic sports. --LauraHale (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Both the article and the above paragraph are false and show a misunderstanding of the facts. Netball is not an "Olympic sport". Netball is not an "Olympic recognised sport". I think that someone is misreading the sources and is grinding an axe to distort the facts. Hey, netball never has been played in the Olympics and given the cap on Olympic participants it will not be added to the Olympics in the foreseeable future. The article should be corrected. 12.151.196.162 (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

cite hansard

This template is not compatible with {{reflist}}. Comments have been on {{cite hansard}} and {{reflist}}. They are aware of this problem and are attempting to fix it to make both citation templates compliant with each other. That is why the linking between the two references sections doesn't work and there are occasional formatting errors when cite hansard is used. --LauraHale (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Netball at the Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC) This article is a quick fail for the following grounds:

A) It does not offer a comprehensive treatment of the subject. Explain that "funding" refers to funding through the IFNA and does not include local sponsorship etc. The article could list all of the NGB's that have jurisdiction over netball (but again, that would overlap with the IFNA article).

B) It is not accurate - it is based on a misconception. The International Olympic Committee recognizes International Federations (IFs). After a 20-year campaign discussed in the article, the International Federation of Netball Associations (IFNA) was recognized, not Netball as a sport. The factors used by the IOC to recognize the IFNA turned more on its assessment of the IFNA than of the "merits" of netball as a sport. Hence, the recognition battle is more accurately reported under that article. The degree of overlap between the two suggests a merger.

C) Verifiabiliy - I suggest we use the best possible sources for these statements. For example, while Taylor wrote a social history of netball, press coverage of the IOC may be a more reliable source for some of the matters covered.

D) Clarity - Change the heading "National Chapters" to "National governing bodies" (again, this highlights how this is really a discussion of the IFNA's chapters).

E) POV - reading the article give the impression that the author(s) seem to believe that Netball should be an Olympic sport. I have no opinion but I believe arguments on both sides can be presented without speaking in the voice of Wikipedia.

F) Words to watch - please remove them.

G) Stability - this article is so new (created a day and a half ago) that it has not yet had the opportunity to be vetted by a wide variety of interested Wikipedia editors. Currently there is on-going discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#Olympic_recognised_sports as to whether this article should be renamed or merged. I suggest waiting at least a month to see how these discussions settle down before renominating.

Good luck with the article, but a great deal more work is required to bring it to GA standards.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Netball and the Olympic Movement/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: }

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Hawkeye7, thank you for volunteering to review the article. However, I respectfully ask two questions: (1) do you feel that an article that is only two days old is sufficiently "stable" (particularly since we have a merger proposal pending), and (2) do you feel that your four edits during the article's brief life were "substantial?" diff and diff and diff Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Your merger proposal doesn't appear to be a problem at present: Talk:International Federation of Netball Associations#Merger Proposal.

It is now just a discussion, where you have received some feedback, and it is over until you want to take it to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Twenty-four hours is not enough time to get a representative sample of opinions. Also for most of that time, an editor was removing the merger templates without discussion or talk page notice. Article is now queued up at WP:PM and I suggest that any GAN be postponed until the issue is decided. In addition, the article has been moved (without widespread discussion) by the reviewer. There are so many edits going on that I cannot see how anyone could claim that the article is stable. Racepacket (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It is up to the reviewer to decide whether it is too unstable. Instability can be a problem, but if the reviewer considers the article to be moving rapidly towards the goal, it is his time being consumed. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

1. Lead
   • "has been seen" -> "was seen"
   • Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Possible bias against netball as a women's sport
   • Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
   • "Possible" is a WP:WEASEL word here. Delete per WP:ALLEGED
   • Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
3. "The critics view the exclusion of netball from the Summer Olympics as part of a pattern of exclusion of women's sports." What critics? Who? Suggest re-wording as a statement of fact. eg "The ommission of netball from the Summer Olympics has been part of a pattern of exclusion of women's sports." (and use "exclude only one in the sentence)
   • Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
   • Second paragraph requires reference (and is too short - consider merging in) (and perhaps better "Evan at" in the last sentence, so as to avoid repetition.)
   • Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Tense in third paragraph "is structural" vs "recieved", "rationalised" vis "are" Stick to the present here.
   • Should ice hockey and softball be mentioned? Water polo?
     • Mentioned elsewhere or no sources have been found by the contributor to this topic as yet. Ice hockey may also be a special case as it Winter Olympics may be different. Sources are generally lacking related to this topic. :( If we ever go further with it, would definetley make note to try to get more information about that. --LauraHale (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
5. The Olympic Games
   • Suggest renaming "Olympic recognition"
     • Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
   • I know IOC is defined in the lead, but define it here, with the abbreviation.
     • Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
   • "One attempt was made in 1989" Any information on earlier attempts?
     • Checked multiple sources and spent a few hours hunting around IFNA and OIC websites. Could not find additional references. :/ --LauraHale (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
   • "get the sport included" I think you mean "played" here
     • Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
   • Move the fourth paragraph into the previous section
     • Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
   • And the fifth (about Rugby). I would add however that while these are mainly men's sports, the 2016 schedule calls for teams for both sexes. It remains to be seen how the rugby will work out. Sorry; back to the review:
     • Fixed kind of by referencing that these sports are mostly known for their play by men. --LauraHale (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
   • Geary and Broomhall are mentioned in the quote but do not appear in the bibliography
     • The refeences are from the quote. Do I need to dig out the references to them from the source? --LauraHale (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
   • I don't suppose that we know how netball stacked up against the table conditions? That would make a nice extra column
     • Not addressed in the source. I know netball met these qualifications and got their recognition renewed. The exact details do not appear on the site. --LauraHale (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
   • The section ends a bit abruptly. Anything to say about the process of acceptance? (have a look at Rugby at the Olympics
     • I have not seen any sources that could be useful here. :/ The games have not been accepted and the acceptance of recognition issue appears to be best defined by IFNA's commitment to maintaining this status. (It could also possibly involve Olympic committmet to improving women's participation but that appears to be framed around everything but including women's sport.) --LauraHale (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Funding
   • Unlink IOC here
     • Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Any chance of a generic picture? Netball icon?
   • • Added an info boxed. It was there at some point but got removed. :( --LauraHale (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Add the Olympic portal.
   • • Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Notes 2 and 3 require references
   • • Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Undone edits

I've modified a number of the edits made by User:158.59.127.249 as they come from Virginia where a blocked contributor with issues with this article comes from. I'm probably a little too emotionally invested in the situation to fairly evaluate this situation. If the change of wording was appropriate, I won't take it personally if my reversions of the possible block evader are undone. --LauraHale (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

A lot of the claims in the section "Bias against women's sport" (which I would argue deals with a more wide ranging issue and doesn't belong in this article anyway) rely on a source that is nearly 30 years old. I don't think, with the changes that have been made since this time, that such an old source can be deemed suitable - newer ones could and should be used to back up statements like "Exclusion of netball from the Summer Olympics is part of a pattern of exclusion of women's sports" and "The issues facing netball are part of a larger problem involving female participation in the Olympics". These things might have been true in 1982 but where is the evidence that they still are?

Additionally I have issues with terms such as "sports Rugby sevens and golf, primarily played men", the source used here does not mention that they are primarily played by men - without such as a source this phrasing seems to be pushing a non neutral POV. I'd also like to see mention of Softball at the 2000 Summer Olympics as you list sports only open to men but ignore one only open to women.

Finally there are claims made in the article which the sources given simply do not back up - "This makes it eligible to be played in future Games" cites sources 15 and 16, neither of which contains any such information as far as I can see.

In short if these issues are not fixed then the article should be listed for GA reassessment as I would argue that it fails both the "Is it factually accurate and verifiable?" and "Is it neutral?" criteria - Basement12 (T.C) 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with Basement12, as matter of fact similar concerns were raised by me on the peer review of this article, which still are unresolved. I see many instances of non neutral POV pushing in this article. --Bill william compton^Talk 15:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A few more problems...

1. Reference 22 is for Crocombe (1992), there is no such source in the bibliography - there is a Crocombe (2007).
2. "Netball was also represented in the Dominica Olympic Committee almost from the moment the organisation was founded" - firstly this is very poorly worded. Secondly the source merely says "Joyce Rabess (Netball)" was involved on a precurser to the DOC in 1986, no indication of how/why she reprsesented the sport or how the sport was incorporated, and points out that the committee she was on never even met. She isn't mentioned in relation to the DOC itself until 1994 when it was recognised by the IOC, by the looks of it DOC had existed in some form since 1988, so hardly "almost from the moment the organisation was founded".
3. Table "Conditions to be met for inclusion in the Olympic Games" - there is no indication of how these criteria relate to the netball situation. If the table is to be used there should be discussion of wher netball does/does not reach the conditions.
4. In the Olympic recognition section "the netball leadership" is referred to - who are they?
5. "Prime Minister Gordon Brown" is not English as described, he is Scottish or British

There may well be other issues as well but until someone makes a start on correcting these, or a GAR is implimented I won't do a full review - Basement12 (T.C) 15:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for the table from the Olympics

The table found at the Olympic website containing information about the qualifications for becoming an Olympic recognised found in the Netball and the Olympic Movement#Olympic_recognition is included based on the following fair use rational:

• Description: A table that contains conditions for sports in order for them to be included in the Olympic Games
• Portion used: The text covers less than half a page on a seven page document.
• Source: http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_1135.pdf
• Articles: Netball and the Olympic Movement, Women's sport at the Olympics
• Purpose to use: The purpose of using this extended quote is to reflect as accurately as possible information about the Olympic's policy on what it takes to get included in the games, to avoid changing meaning that could accidentally happen if rewording or trying to paraphrase in prose form may result in. The purpose is also to help allay any potential controversy regarding whether the Olympics recognises sport or federations.
• Replacable: No. May need to be replaced if the Olympics change their policies.

--LauraHale (talk) 06:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read the review above, the reviewer was confused that this table was a quote. That should be made clear to the reader. There is a major flaw of logic here. The fact is that Netball is NOT an "Olympic sport" and this table has nothing to indicate that Netball is an Olympic sport. Yet, it is included in a sloppy argument in an effort to create a false conclusion that Netball is an Olympic sport. Perhaps the article should just state the fact that the IOC has never recognized Netball as an Olympic sport, and leave out the table, because it only confuses the reader in an effort to imply that somehow Netball is an Olympic sport. 67.167.96.6 (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

problems with the lead

The opening of this article gives exaggerated significance to the sport. The most important fact about Netball in relation to the Olympics is the fact that it is not in the Olympics. It never has been, and there's no plan for it to be in the Olympics. The title could give the impression that it might be in the Olympics, so the lead needs to make clear it is not. Also, why do we say it hasn't been played in the summer Olympics, when we could just say Olympics, without qualification? I made a change, which was reverted with the explanation "text was used in DYK", which seems irrelevant. --Rob (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Netball is the world's most popular sport for women and girls, so it is hardly possible to exaggerate its significance. The most important issue is the relationship between the Olympic movement and its claim to be a inclusive global advocate for sport. This is rendered problematic by its dealings with women's sports, perticularly netball, which have been led to the Olympic movement being charged with regional bias and sexism (although not as much as the wikipedia). The response from the Olympic movement is that netball is an Olympic sport, one which receives funding from the Olympic movement, especially through its solidarity program, and from governments on that basis. Hence the link to the summer Olympics. Wording has to be very carefully chosen in view of acute sensitivities of both the Olympic movement and the wikipedia about regionalism and sexism. The title of the article and the wording of the lead were subject to some discussion by the sport project. No doubt, the current push to add netball to the Olympic program will be reflected in additions the article as they occur. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm, yah it is very possible, as you've just demonstrated. Please keep your POV to yourself. We should reflect what neutral reliable sources say, not what you personally feel. Now, Could you please point to where on its website the the IOC says that "Net ball is an Olympic sport". I can find places on various Netball web sites that suggest this, but for some reason, don't seem to find it on the IOC web site (but they seem to mention other sports). Note, my dispute her is with your characterization of it as an "Olympic sport". I'm not currently disputing the phrase "Olympic recognised sport", which I did leave in my last edit. Also, I don't care about "acute sensitivities".I care about following policy, and ensuring we follow what third party reliable sources say. It's not our role to promote the cause of Netball or gender equity in sports. It seems fairly obvious to me that the IOC gives less recognition to Netball than what you feel it should. That's a problem you should take up with the IOC, not Wikipedia. --Rob (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Netball is undoubtably NOT an "Olympic sport", Olympic sports are those actually contested at the Olympic Games. Recieving funding from the IOC does not mean the sport is an Olympic sport and even the phrase Olympic recognised sport is contentious - the IOC recognises federations not sports ([1])- the phrasing should refer to IFNA as an "IOC recognised federation" and even if refering to the sport (which I would say is incorrect) it should be "IOC recognised" not Olympic recognised. - Basement12 (T.C) 01:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Both of you are warned about your tone. Please remain civil, courteous and respectful. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I hope you aren't implying that I was anything but. And if you are I'd suggest you take a look at WP:AGF. It seems that any effort to question or comment upon the content of this (and a number of related articles) is met with a very defensive and unconstructive attitude. I've raised many issues over this article and in a different discussion (here) have agreed that time should be allowed to fix the problems. That includes finding sources, from the International Olympic Committee, if the phrase Olympic recognised sport is to be used. - Basement12 (T.C) 03:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay. When you checked the sources, you found that netball does indeed describe itself as a "recognised" Olympic sport, so "undoubtably not" is untrue. There were two problems with this. Firstly, the IOC keeps talking about recognising sports:

"To make it onto the Olympic programme, a sport first has to be recognised: it must be administered by an International Federation which ensures that the sport's activities follow the Olympic Charter. If it is widely practised around the world and meets a number of criteria established by the IOC session, a recognised sport may be added to the Olympic programme on the recommendation of the IOC's Olympic Programme Commission." [2]

Secondly, the recognition of organisations is just as true of the sports that are on the programme as it is of those that are not. So the implication of that argument was there were no Olympic sports at all, and the sports project understandably recoiled from this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

So, if I describe myself as an Olympian, does that make me an Olympian? The question is, how does the IOC describe Netball? They (the IOC) are the authority. It's a very simple question. Yet, I have looked and have not found any description by the IOC[3] of Netball as anything "Olympic". Have you looked, and what have you found? I followed your link to the IOC and saw 35 Olympic sports listed, none of them Netball. --Rob (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Go to http://www.olympic.org/ioc and on the right you'll see the drop down box "International Federations". If you select it, you'll see lists of "official sports" and "recognised sports". The latter includes Netball. It also includes Softball and Baseball. (We found a number of references in IOC books too, I'm just using the web site so you can follow.) So, following the IOC's terminology, it was decided to use the term "Olympic recognised sport". Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

But actually clicking on that link takes you to a page with the heading "Home > The IOC > Recognised Sport Federations > Federation " and the page is details of the governing body. If netball is an Olympic recognised sport, and was made so in 1995 as claimed, then the documentation from the IOC session and other IOC documents, would use that exact wording. Having to rely on one unclear heading on a dropdown box on a website when the IOC produce a wealth of official documents seems odd. Its worth pointing out that even the IFNA website puts inverted commas around recognised (Netball became a "recognized" Olympic sport) - Basement12 (T.C) 10:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read your first comments in this section. You clearly struck a negative tone yourself when you implied Wikipedians that weren't with you were "about regionalism and sexism". Please consider replying to valid points, instead of attacking the messenger. You have to accept that other editors may challenge content in this and related articles. You haven't really replied to any of the reasons given for my edit, or explained your revert. You've just said how popular Netball is, why it deserves better treatment, and how we are "warned" for challenging anything. --Rob (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

• When making contentious claims the body of the article itself should attribute who is saying something, so the reader knows they, not us, are making the claim.
• "Parliament of New South Wales" is not a valid source. Obviously it's the speaker, not Parliament that is speaking. The Parliament web site is a valid source to say what such a member said. However, a member of parliament speaking is a source of opinion, not fact. It should be clear to the reader who is saying something, without them having to go to the footnote, and then read the source themself.
• First National Bank[4] is used as source twice in just one sentence. It's basically a press release of the FNB promoting the great things they do in sports. It's not a reliable source of fact. Also, citing the same source twice in the same sentence, kind of looks like citation padding.
• IFNA is used multiple times, including for claims establishing it's Olympic status. It's obviously not a neutral part in that regard. --Rob (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

Netball is such a minor sport, very unlikely to make the Olympics, and it has a an article dedicated to it? Does not make any sense at all. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 16:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with you. There was a proposal to merge it into the article about the International Federation of Netball Associations (which was the only group lobbying to promote netball) but the suggestion was rejected out-of-hand. Even if the sources could be stretched to read that at one time some people wanted netball in the Olympics, given the cap on the number of Olympic participants and the increased acceptance of basketball as a women's sport in the Olympic movement, the chances for netball becoming an "Olympic sport" are slim to none. Does the author have a recent article evidencing any discussion of adding netball to the Olympics? 12.151.196.162 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Olympic recognition is not the same as being included on the Olympic programme. There is no misreading of the sources. --LauraHale (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The table does show a difference between the IOC recognizing the IFNA as a Sports Federation and including Netball as an "Olympic sport." The above comment by LauraHale confuses the IFNA with the sport of netball. They are two different things. There is no evidence that netball is an "Olympic sport." There is nothing in this article that is not already better covered in the Wikipedia article about the IFNA. 67.167.96.6 (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources for possible use

this one could be used in the article. --LauraHale (talk)

IP address re-writes

Please discuss the article before making any substantial edits to the article. The sources cited in the article do not support the substantial rewrite. There are multiple sources that say netball is an Olympic recognised sport. This is not controversial. --LauraHale (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• The sources cited do not support the assertions made in the article that are attributed back to them. For example, there are no sources to support the claim that netball is an "Olympic sport", only that the IFNA has been recognized by the IOC as a "sports federation." Greater care is needed in the construction of this article.

The LauraHale/Hawkeye7 meatpuppetry is very troubling and reflects very poorly on both individuals. 69.193.53.138 (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Given Hawkeye7's role as the good article reviewer, meatpuppet collusion with LauraHale would be a very serious breach of good faith dealing with the community. Please tell us what your relationship is and why you are doing tag-team wholesale reverts today. 198.228.200.153 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There are serious sourcing problem with the claim that the IOC went further than it's 1995 action that recognised the IFNA as a sports federation. Making a false claim can never be "non-controversial". Please read all of the talk page to this article, and then repeat your claim that there is no controversy about the edits LauraHale/Hawkeye7 is making today. 198.228.200.152 (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Meatpuppetry is a very serious accusation. Hawkeye and Laura are not the kind of people to abuse editing privileges and scratch each other's backs without warrant. Please assume good faith. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the quick timing of the alternating reverts look like they were trying to trick the other editor into a 3 revert rule violation. As it is the Arbitration Committee has prohibited Hawkeye7 from taking administrative actions on behalf of LauraHale because of their relationship. 68.188.61.6 (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • For an editor complaining of possible meatpuppeting, I find it interesting that all three IPs began editing the article (after having done almost nothing on the encyclopedia before) within the same timeframe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Organization

LauraHale and Hawkeye7 have now convinced another administrator to lock their personal essay from further editing. The article needs a complete rewrite by people other than those two individuals who have asserted WP:OWNnership over the article since it was first written. Many people have questioned the need for an article on this topic separate from the Netball and International Federation of Netball Associations, but by force of will LauraHale and Hawkeye7 have forced it into a separate existence and a GA rating. It is the classic example of a "POV fork".

If the purpose of the article is to educate the reader as to the relationship between the sport of netball and the Olympic Movement, the organization needs to be revised. First, the article concedes that netball is played by women, men and mixed teams, yet the article starts with a section on how one commentator feels that the Olympic Movement discriminates against women. This is later contradicted by the table that shows that the criteria for including women-only sports are less rigorous than men-only sports. The article should start with an objective history of how netball has interacted with the IOC. This should avoid any implication that netball has met any criteria being discussed. If a criteria has not been met, say it. Don't just imply it or create the implication that it has been met. Be honest with your readers.

Be clear about the criteria for men's teams and whether or not the IFNA or anyone else has requested that men's netball is to be included in the Olympic Programme. Be clear about who has made a motion at an Olympic organizing meeting to include women's teams and whether a vote was taken, and what the outcome was. As best that I can determine no recent votes were taken because there is no showing that the criteria for Programme inclusion has been met. The article should retain the table, but should make it clear that this is a quotation from an Olympic document. Adding your own footnotes to each row of the table confuses this. Even Hawkeye7, above, was confused that the table is a quote and asked LauraHale to expand the table as a result. Hawkeye7 is correct, however, that the reader should learn what criteria are satisfied, what criteria have yet to be met. Instead the article confuses the reader by whining about "The Olympic Movement (as if it were one monolith) is out to get women's sports."

A neutral person from WikiProjects Olympics should read each footnoted source and compare it against the text in the article. There are some improper sourcing and some unreliable sources.

The article should present the fact. It should not be a personal opinion essay. It is causing on-going embarrassment to Wikipedia on other critic websites. 68.188.61.6 (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• "lock their personal essay from further editing"? It's open to almost any editor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Read the talk page above. They revert everyone who tries to fix the article. The version is now a personal opinion essay, not an objective presentation of the facts with footnotes to the sources that support the reported facts. Who cares that ONE commentator -- Dyer -- thinks that the Olympic Movement discriminates against women? The facts are that there are less demanding criteria for including a women-team sport into the Olympic Programme than the criteria that apply to men-team sports. If LauraHale wants to write an essay about womens sports, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Look at the edit history and the number of edits reverts by LauraHale and Hawkeye7. Thank you. 68.188.61.6 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I did, and I saw some POV pushing and reference removal in the version that was reverted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
      • You are free to take a fresh look. There are three levels of problems. 1) Organization of the article - it starts with a digression on "women in the Olympics" and then tries to dig out of the hole. 2) Faulty logic - focus on one commentator, rather than presenting both majority and minority viewpoints. 3) Poor sourcing. Instead of citing to official actions taken by the IOC, it references to a speech by a politician that does not really believe that netball is an "Olympic sport" but says that a "technical" argument could be made to stretch the facts to make that claim. (The politician is wrong, but why are we relying upon that speech as the source for this article?) People other than LauraHale and Hawkeye7 should rewrite this article from scratch. Otherwise, this article should be dropped and any material moved into the Netball and/or International Federation of Netball Associations. 68.188.61.6 (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Logical flaws in the article

• Just because one commentator, Dyer, thinks the Olympic movement is unfair to women, that view is not universally accepted.
• Just because two Olympic gold medalists want netball to be included in the Olympics Programme, that does not mean that most Olympic gold medalists want it. The feelings of the gold medalists are not relevant to the decision.
• Just because netball does not receive fair treatment by the media in Tanzania, that does not have any relevants to the IOC decision about netball. One would expect the "Media" section of the article to discuss the role of the media in the Netball - Olympic Movement relationship, not the problems that netball has with media coverage. A general discussion of media coverage of netball belongs in the Netball article.
• IFNA does not necessary reflect the sentiments of all netball stakeholdler groups. The IOC is only a small part of the "Olympic Movement".
• There is considerable debate within the Olympic Movement regarding the size of the Olympic Programme and the length of the Summer Games. It would make more sense to discuss netball in terms of the limit on Programme growth rather than in terms of discrimination against Women. There is an assumption that netball is out of the Olympics as motivated by gender discrimination rather than motivated by a decision to limit Programme growth. (This is comes from the bad structure of the article.)
• Just because a criteria for inclusion in the Olympic programme is listed, it does not mean that netball meets or does not meet the criteria. Tell the reader the facts: which criteria are met? How many nations "short" of the criteria is netball at this time?
• Do not assume that inclusion of netball is a "good" or a "bad" thing. Avoid such normative positions.
• Netball and basketball have a common history. Some can argue that the fact that both men-team basketball and women-team basketball are in the Olympic Programme makes it less likely that the votes will be there to add netball to the programme as well.
• Funding changes over time, particularly due to the global economic challenges since 2007. If the article will cover finances, it should show overall Olympic development funding over time. Overall netball development funding over time, and the percentage of netball funding from Olympic sources over time. Dropping in a few dollar figures just because you found an isolated data point is not helpful and mislead the reader. 68.188.61.6 (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have read this entire talk page, and I find the criticisms made to be valid. It is a shame that 1) the article has been locked and 2) there are one or two people who keep adding distorted, biased content to this article. I also join those who question why this article exists as a separate article. It appears to be a point of view fork controlled by one or two individuals. Additional work is needed to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards. 158.59.127.249 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

New source

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/olympics/7314392/Women-winners-on-the-pitch-not-the-sky

Notice of future reassement

I plan to do a reassessment of this article in the near future. I am well aware of the background to much of the dispute here, but hope enough time has passed that we can work through some of the articles potential flaws in a collegial way. It will take me some time as I am not the fastest editor in the world and I want to look thoroughly at some of these sources. AIRcorn (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Balance

The article says that the number of competitors and the number of sports is unevenly distributed for women and man. I agree as far as competitors go, but events? I thought that was even now. A source request was reverted; could someone verify that that source is still up to date? L.tak (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

1982

A 1982 is used as a reference that there is a "a pattern of exclusion of women's sports.". In assume that is an opinion, rather than a unequivocal fact, and in view of the age of the ref (I was 4 years old when it was written down), it might be a recent and widely held view anymore. I therefore specified "In 1982 by Dyer" in the text to reflect this, but that was reverted. Do we have more refs to show this is a universal and recent view? Otherwise I think the "In 1982 by Dyer" should be readded or the statement should be removed. L.tak (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As I am concerned with using this source for such a general statement, I have added the specifics again in the article as this section did not receive comment in 1 week (and the article reassessment page also didn't show a new source; and indicated there is another editor with a question about the removal....). L.tak (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Restructure the article

The article is "bad" for a "good article." First, briefly explain what netball is and its roots in Victorian England who felt that Basketball was an unlady-like sport. Next, explain that the IOC has adopted objective criteria for evaluating sports, including the number of nations where it is practiced. Next, document how netball does or does not meet the criteria. Next, identify the groups pushing for netball (i.e., a group of MEN and women who want to make a livelihood off the sport.) Explain how much money is at stake and who is funding the IFNA. Explain how Olympic participation in Basketball by women was allowed in 1976 and how women playing an "unlady-like" sport in the Olympics was more of a statement of equality than adding a sport that reinforced the Victorian view of women. However, this is just one argument among many and should not be over-emphasized just because one author pushes it. Document how much money is at stake in terms of annual funding from the IOC and how well-funded are the advocates of netball. The objective literature is out there; you don't need to rely on the transcript of speaches before the NSW Parliament.

I understand that companies sometimes pay people to put them in the best possible light on Wikipedia. But the theory of crowd sourcing is that enough other people will edit in the opposite direction to remove the biased edit. Reading this article and its edit history shows a serious breakdown of that corrective process. 184.49.146.219 (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphan sentence?

Probably because of some other editing around it, the final sentence of the first paragraph in the section Netball and the Olympic Movement#Women's sport at the Olympics seems to have lost its context. Anyone want to try to repair it? Or maybe just delete? HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole section is terrible POV pushing on sports completely unrelated to netball. There is an implicit inference of cause and effect or an implication of discrimination. The fact is that there was an era when the number of sport and the number of athletes in the Summer Olympics was growing, and the size of the Summer Games have reached a point where the number of sports and the number of athletes have sabilized. The argument that Netball should be treated as if we were still in the growth era is a serious logical flaw. 50.76.30.17 (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why it only seems to be IPs who find logical flaws in this article. It couldn't possibly be because you've been blocked? Stuartyeates (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As I believe the huggle messages automatically left, you should have an adequate and verifiable source for the changes you have made. If you don't, then please see this page. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 06:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)