Talk:Soccer in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Football (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australian football (soccer) task force.
WikiProject Australia / Association football (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Soccer in Australia 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australian football (soccer) task force.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.

Changes from "Socceroos" to "Australia national association football team" in club articles[edit]

In several A-League club articles Macktheknifeau has unilaterally changed the word "Socceroos" to "Australia national association football team". (Sometimes with the word "player" tacked on for sanity, but hardly for clarity and simplicity.) I see these changes as pointy, confrontational, and not in line with the agreed naming of Soccer in Australia There is a centralised discussion on this matter underway at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Macktheknifeau doing sweeping, pointy changes again. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Crappy source[edit]

What are we to make of a source that uses the name "soccer" at times to refer to the round ball game, but then apparently (and I'm guessing really) also uses the name "football" for the same game, in a country where four professional codes called "football" by their fans are played. It takes a fair bit of OR to drag a conclusion on participation rates out of that. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The word soccer is used 7 times in the article, in every case in a definition (never stand-alone). In fact there is a clear definition of "football (outdoor)" as "Includes outdoor soccer only" on page 9 of that source. That doesn't seem at all confusing/ambiguous?... Macosal (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The name is completely ambiguous. I'm not impressed with a publication that clearly favours soccer in its naming convention. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Which source are we talking about? Hack (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the language. My worry is that it isn't clear that the one source is sufficient for the claim. The source being used [1] is ok, with a decent sized sample, but had a 23% response rate, covers the period to 2010, and doesn't include people under 15. Using ABS data, such as here, released in 2012, Netball appears to have a higher participation rate than soccer (although this isn't definitive - it does show a very different result for tennis, though). Other ABS reports, such as this one from 2011-2012, (similar sampling methodology and ages, but much higher response rate), have netball slightly in front. Given the different values, it seems safer to me to leave the claim out. - Bilby (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The first ABS source doesn't state how many women play soccer - which obviously means that no real conclusion can be drawn from it. The second also appears to have soccer with higher participation when you combine the number of male and female participants (although it's hard to say given there are no actual numbers included). Also none of these sources look at under-15 year-olds. Additionally, the tennis numbers seem to be very similar between the sources? Macosal (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
You're right about tennis. :) The third source doesn't give numbers, but it shows netball, when both sexes are combined, as slightly above soccer when both sexes are combined. I guess the issue is that we don't have definitive figures. I certainly wouldn't want to say that soccer does not have the highest participation rate of team sports based on any of those surveys, either. I'd just rather leave the claim out, given the limitations of all the survey methods and the data we have available. - Bilby (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
That third source virtually needs a ruler to judge - looking at the data from which that diagram is sourced (here) soccer has 489.1 thousand participants to netball's 450.2 (so would seem to be consistent with the first source as to the order). Macosal (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It would still contradict the first source. I'm not saying that soccer doesn't have the highest participation rate of team sports - just that to make a claim that strong, we need sources which aren't open to doubt. No source we have seems definitive on the question, especially given that we're interpreting the data to come to that conclusion. - Bilby (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the stats around this do appear pretty inconsistent (in number, if not in result) the below post by Mkativerata makes sense to me. Macosal (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Another problem is that of lies, damned lies and statistics. In no state of Australia does soccer have the highest participation rate. In NSW and QLD, it runs second to Rugby League, and in every other state and the NT, it runs second to the game I call football. To claim it has the highest participation rate in the country is simply misleading. Would Macosal be happy if I added that clarifying fact to his claim? HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how that is misleading? But yes any sourced fact which is relevant is worthy of addition (although the source given does directly contradict your unsourced claim). Macosal (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't contradict my claim at all. Soccer simply does not have the highest participation rate in any state. Do you not understand how the figures work? HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at the stats tables in the source (I did). NSW: soccer: 370,000; league: 121,000. NT: soccer: 10,000; AFL: 5,500. Do you understand how the figures work? I'd suggest having a look at the stats you refer to before resorting to personal attacks next time. Macosal (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry. It's a confusing source. I have no idea where to look. I find it very hard to believe that soccer is that far ahead of League in NSW. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Largely due to physical requirements of league as a participation sport, almost negligible number of female participants in league and availability of union as an alternative, I'd suggest (similar trend in QLD). Stats are in the tables at the end of the source. Macosal (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Then the female factor also makes the claim deceptive. Can I write that soccer is way behind Aussie Rules on the south western side of the Barassi Line. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
At this point it seems like you are trying (quite hard) to push a POV. Also why should female participation not be considered? Does any statistical anomaly contained in a stat make it misleading? Besides which, the number of females in football is less than half the number of males... Macosal (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
And you're not? LOL. I would not try to draw any such conclusions from the very limited data we have available. Just been discussing how inappropriate your conclusions were. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
There's plenty of data... It just seems like you're searching for loopholes with the statement that soccer is the most participated-in sport (without bothering to check the stats...) Macosal (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This debate is a very good illustration of the danger of using primary sources in this way. It is not the case that any sourced fact which is relevant is worthy of addition. Inevitably questions will be raised about the way in which we interpret and apply primary sources, running the risk of engaging in our own original research. I think that the article should only make claims of this kind if they are consistently supported by secondary sources, such as reliable news outlets or academic publications that interpret the statistical data. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A good point, given the inconsistency of statistics discussed above. Macosal (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?[edit]

Does anyone know the purpose of the neutrality tag at the top of the article? Such tags are meant to be accompanied by conversation here on the Talk page, but there is nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Presumably because the wrong name is employed. Our sources use "football", rather than "soccer", and under WP:COMMONNAME, that's the name we should use. I quote: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change.". --Pete (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It was added by User:LauraHale some time ago due to a perceived lack of coverage of women in the article. Spinrad (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Correction, it was added by User:FloNight (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)