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)

The argument that readers from southern Australia will be confused or incensed by Wikipedia describing the situation with the AFL, Hunt and Folau as poaching is not a very convincing one. Firstly, the use of 'poach' in this context falls perfectly within the dictionary definition of the word (to attract (as an employee or customer) away from a competitor), which is widely used and understood the world over. Melbourne's The Age therefore doesn't appear to share the same concerns about its readership[32][33], nor does Adelaide's The Advertiser[34], Western Australia's The Sunday Times[35], the ABC[36], the AFL Coaches Association, or afl.com.au, whose previously mentioned article described the poaching of Hunt as being "hailed as one of the great coups in AFL history", and with regard to Folau: "It was proclaimed as an even greater piece of poaching". The challenge for those who advocate this thread's ridiculous title remains showing us that the controversy around describing Hunt and Folau as having been poached by the AFL exists outside of their minds. Until then, the "root cause" of this "dispute" need not be a subject for speculation.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This is simple. The word "poached" is not-neutral. "Recruited" is neutral. Use it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This article provides a direct reference to 'poaching' being a pejorative term [37]; this should satisfy your need for a verifiable basis for objection to the use of the word. Now, I contend that 'recruited' is valid alternative word which meets all three of the core principles of verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view; by my reckoning, the challenge for you is to explain why it does not meet these principles – otherwise, you have no justification to remove it. Aspirex (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Aspirex, before I tell you everything that's wrong with what you say in your previous comment, could you please do me a favour and explain what I'm wrong about (or even what you find unconvincing) in my previous comment? Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong to contend that poaching is not a pejorative term. Now please explain what objection you have to the use of the word 'recruited'. Aspirex (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I already did.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't need you to tell me again why you prefer 'poached' to 'recruited'. What I asked you was what stand-alone objection you have to 'recruited'. Aspirex (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

So finally, after more than 9 days of discussion (and more than 30 references from me), the very first reference for the case that describing Hunt and Folau as having been poached by the AFL is somehow not neutral makes its long-awaited appearance. Let's take a look at it, shall we?

"Mines accused of poaching workers". abc.net.au. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 6 March 2006.

Written at a time when Hunt was just starting to play for the Maroons and Folau was still a schoolboy, not only does it have nothing to do with the case at hand, it has nothing to do with sport. Nor does the WP:SOURCE (the ABC) indicate that the word poach is pejorative. It merely quotes the Queensland Resources Council chief executive Michael Roche in a conversation about the mining sector's response to a skilled worker shortage as saying, "I find the term poaching a little bit pejorative." How does Mr Roche's personal opinion here form a basis for objection to the use of the word to describe the case of Hunt, Folau and the AFL? Are you suggesting that because he objected to it, then so too does some (as yet unidentified) party in the case at hand? I call WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The burden is on you to prove that it is not. Since practically every single reliable source in (and the odd one out of) Australia is saying Hunt and Folau were poached by the AFL, and zero are saying that they were not, it seems all your work is still ahead of you.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:19, 4 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[38][39][40] and Macosal[41][42][43] 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)

This is precious.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Poaching vs Recruiting

Just want to put in my 5 cents on the subject (I would put in my 2 cents but we no longer use 1 cent pieces here in Canada).

I know nothing of rugby but when I saw the term poaching I immediately suspected what it meant and got a chuckle from it as it would apply quite well to ice hockey here in north America. That being said, it does sound like a slanderous term and I doubt many would use it here. Still ... funny. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl-russian-league-agree-not-to-poach-players-1.740053 --Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

-Gibson Flying V ... that article is six years old ... but the emphasis is on the word being bad, and also seems to reflect as a practice from across the pond (Atlantic) as we would say. So still a term that would not be seen here in North America, unless a story reflecting something from overseas deemed it necessary and had to explain it. So I would have to add at this time it not only sounds slanderous but should not be used in an encyclopedia context as not everyone reading Wikipedia may know at first glance what it's meaning is. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. If the agreement is a good thing, that means poaching is a bad thing. Right? HiLo48 (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2186493-is-the-khl-poaching-alexander-ovechkin-evgeni-malkin-a-real-possibility
We write this encyclopedia (and journalists write news articles) on the assumption that readers know the dictionary definitions of the words that are used.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to keep it to simple English for the simple folk. Again though, an article with ties to Europe. You won't hear about "poaching" between leagues in north America. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the first sentence. Not the other two. [44][45]--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an Australian article.

Australia's own Macquarie Dictionary tells me that "poach" means: "1. to trespass on another's land, esp in order to steal game. 2. to take game or fish illegally. 3. to encroach on another's rights; take something belonging to another. 4. Tennis, when playing doubles to intercept a shot which should have been played by one's partner. 5. (of land) to become broken up or slushy by being trampled. 6. to trample. 7. to mix with water and and reduce to a uniform consistency, as clay. 8. to simmer in liquid in a shallow pan.

Unless we're speaking of eggs or mud, the word is obviously a negative one, and should not be used. "Recruited" is a neutral alternative.

I think this is simple enough. Can somebody else make the change please? I'm not game, for reasons that will be apparent at AN/I. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Poaching (disambiguation) can lead to Executive search which is in my opinion a vague interpretation, not truly what is attempted to be represented here by Gibson Flying V. He has agreed to use a simple term for simple people so recruiting should suffice, I will allow him the opportunity to make the change since I am at an opposing Commonwealth country LOL. All joking aside, a "Poaching in sports article" would solve this issue altogether. Again, wish to point out, and yes I understand it is an Australian article, but when using specific terminology to a generic area one should be mindful of readers from other geographical areas that may not be aware of its meaning. In the two examples that Gibson Flying V provided, the headline was quite derogatory in my opinion by using the term poaching, making it sound like hockey players were nothing more then cattle. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Then it seems we had our wires crossed. I thought you were saying that we should keep it simple at Simple English Wikipedia. Let's keep the discussion centralised above, shall we? I don't want to keep repeating myself.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Very well then, type in poaching in that link you just put up and find the sport relevance.--[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

?? You've lost me I'm afraid.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

-Basically, the way I read it, if you are that keen on using the term "poaching", you should create an article on Poaching in sports. Or maybe add a section in the Executive search article regarding sports teams. At least this way you would have a better case for your use of the terminology, but as it stands, poaching does not qualify as simplified usage as a more common word known to all is available in recruiting, and I have brought up the fact that poaching is confusing to the reader. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What I'm keen on is ensuring that Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Anyway, it's all up there in the main thread.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

OK obviously the civil and constructive approach didn't work. [Manual of Style] seems pretty clear that "poaching" would classify as Jargon and should be explained in the article and I see no attempts being made of this. I brought to your attention that "poaching" was a word that I for one never seen used in ice hockey in north America and you found me two articles, both related to European players, each article having a six year period between them, which basically proves my point. Speaking of points, it seems you are only concerned with your point of view WP:NPOV then to better the encyclopedia. Case in point with your attempt to ban another editor for disagreeing with you on this subject matter, where you also, dug up old case law to defend your point of view. I still think the term is offensive, and if you find that it's ok to use it just because the media does, maybe you should tune in to TMZ. Time for me to move on from this discussion. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

See previous comment. I'm not having the same discussion twice. You've made your opinion on the matter known. And serious accusations (e.g. POV-pushing, attempting to ban editors for disagreeing) require serious evidence. This discussion is not about me or any other editor, but about the wording of this article. Please try to stay on topic.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You are POV pushing. You took me to AN/I because you didn't like me saying that. That's just disagreeing. So many people have now disagreed with you. Will you take them all to AN/I? Have you ever had any doubt about your position on this matter? If not, there is something very, very wrong going on. HiLo48 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Many of those who have disagreed are pro-AFL editors who were specifically recruited into this discussion. The AN/I issue is not unjustified (there have been 10+ violations of various Wikipedia guidelines by HiLo in this and related discussions and no acknowledgement or remorse for any of them). That being said, GSV certainly has shown a reluctance to compromise or negotiate (a few parties here need to remember WP:BATTLE, although it may be too late). Surely "poached" cannot be the only acceptable word here? I still like "defected to the AFL" which for me sums up what has in fact occurred and is present in many RSs. Macosal (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Declaring that members of the Australian football project are pro-AFL is actually a POV statement, and shows a lack of belief that anyone here can be editing in a neutral way. I am a member of that project. I am asking for "recruited". What is pro-AFL about that? HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why then, did you go to them for comment on this? They are a group of editors "focusing on expanding Australian rules football-related articles in Wikipedia" - this doesn't fall under that umbrella. Surely Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league would've been more relevant? Why didn't you go there? I'm not saying anything about the editors on that project's neutrality, I'm saying you went there because they were the people you believed most likely to agree with your perspective (which was presented there in a far from neutral way). The biggest problem with recruited is that it has become part of a WP:BATTLE which makes me feel like it will be tough to achieve optimal consensus. What do you think of "defected"? Macosal (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't remember what I was thinking. It would have been at least partly a reaction to the totally irrational, unreasonable behaviour from GSV. Logic has gone out the window there. I know sports fans can be irrational, but his attitude on this is way over the top. HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Defected definitely would be on top of the list, it is after all the player who makes the choice to leave for more money is it not? --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Another option I've been mulling over today could be to restructure the paragraph into more of a list format, by stating Since the turn of the century, Maroons players have become big name footballers in other codes as well, including: Brad Thorn, Mat Rogers, Lote Tuqiri and Wendell Sailor (international rugby union); and Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau (both professional Australian rules football and rugby union). This still gets the main point across (i.e. it provides a list of Maroons players and the pther codes they played) and it entirely eliminates the point of contention; it does come at the cost of losing the fact about the 2003 rugby union world cup final, but in my mind that fell into the "interesting, but not critical" basket. Aspirex (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That could work. "Recruited" is neutral. Defected" is emotionally loaded. Not wise. Stick to approaches without value loadings. I don't know why this is so difficult. HiLo48 (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Very nice restructure suggestion Aspirex it would definitely resolve the issues at hand. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree that this could work. The key here is clearly to retain the same information (regardless of the wording) and this essentially is achieved. Macosal (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Should I ask why the fate of ONE player (Idris was a failure - doesn't count) in the hundreds who have played for Queensland, is causing so much grief?

Consider also that the act being described occurred at club level and has little relevancy to this article. This is an article about a representative team, a team that is selected from a pool of players, of which players playing for other codes are not eligible for.

How's the relevancy going? --Falcadore (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Who are you referring to when you say "Idris"? It seems like you mean Jamal Idris, who has never played in the AFL in the first place. I'd suggest the notable component is that these players (Hunt and Folau) went on to play professionally in another of Australia's major professional sporting leagues (and were also ineligible to continue to represent Queensland as a result). Macosal (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I meant Folau. Late at night and all. While that they played elsewhere is notable, its connection to the topic is tenuous at best. This article is about the Qld Rugby League team. What happenned between the Brisbane Broncos and the Gold Coast Suns at club level is outside this topic. Hunt and Folau were not paoched/recruited from the Broncoes, not Queensland rep team. Rep teams are assembled on a game-by-game basis and do not have players on a full-time basis. It's not far removed from saying a bank poached an executive from a golf club rather than another bank. --Falcadore (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I can't believe this is even being discussed, the term "poach" is so self-evidently non-neutral. What we have hear is one very obstinate POV editor who refuses to compromise on his pet wording. The word "poach" obviously has strong negative connotations, in its original meaning (to hunt illegally) it is a criminal offence, a form of theft. The connotation when used in a sporting context is that it is somehow illegitimate, dishonest or "dirty" to recruit players from one sporting code to another, rather than just business. Both here and at the NPOV noticeboard Gibson Flying V has essentially been in a minority of one.

For those unfamiliar with these sports and the use of the word "poach", an analagous situation in the business world is Marissa Mayer's recruitment from Google by Yahoo. A Google loyalist might say she was "poached" by Yahoo. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You appear not to have read any of the previous discussion on this. That's why I'm now saying (for a third consecutive time) that it should be centralised at one thread above.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have read the previous discussions and I see no editor unequivocally supporting your position. You are clearly trying to over-ride the consensus in order to push a POV. Relevant policies include WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:BIASED and WP:LABEL. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." I hope this is not intended to refer to the "dispute" on this talk page about whether Hunt and Folau could be described as having been poached by the AFL, because as far as I can tell, it doesn't exist off-wiki.

WP:BIASED: "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I hope this is not intended to refer to the reliable sources (such as The Australian, the ABC, The Age, Fox Sports, The New Zealand Herald or Sky Sports) that I have provided, because as far as I'm aware, none of them are known to be biased or non-neutral when it comes to the question of whether or not Hunt and Folau were poached by the AFL (which, by the way, doesn't even involve differing viewpoints anyway).

WP:LABEL: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I hope you're not suggesting that describing Hunt and Folau as having been poached is expressing a contentious opinion (and even if you were somehow able to convince us of this, that the term is not widely used in sources, or that no in-text attribution is being used).

Now, you've just proven what I suspected to be a complete failure to understand the issue here at all, and even though you said you'd read the preceding discussions, this now makes that extremely difficult to believe. Of course you're welcome to contribute, but would you like to take the time to read through everything more carefully then perhaps try and have another run at it? (Oh, and by the way, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY)--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I, right from the start, and now many others ARE saying that describing Hunt and Folau as having been poached IS expressing a contentious opinion. It's so obvious to the whole of the rest of the world now that I cannot comprehend how anyone can possibly think otherwise. That the word is used in sources is irrelevant. We, in fact, do not quote sources verbatim. We paraphrase in a neutral way. "Poached" is simply not neutral. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Poached" isn't even something people say in normal conversation, it's more of a journalistic cliche. I'm a Kiwi so I'm reasonably familiar with rugby and league, Aussie rules not so much. Anyway here we have a journalistic cliche whereby any time someone gets rescued at sea, they are "plucked from the ocean". Chickens and guitars are "plucked", people are "rescued". I have never heard anyone speak of people being "plucked" in real life, only NZ newspapers and TV channels ever use the word that way, and it always irritates me. "Poached" seems similar to me, more of an Aus/NZ journalistic cliche than an actual idiom used in everyday conversation.

GFV, can you show me any diffs where a wikipedia editor unequivocally supports your use of the word "poached"? I didn't see it in any of the threads I reviewed. The ANI thread is dead so maybe WP:DRN is the next step, but there is no consensus for preferring the term "poached" to "recruited". Teams buying players from other teams, or even different sporting codes - that's just the reality of professional sport. Calling it "poaching" is not NPOV. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Keeping verifiable facts in this article

Would User:Nick Thorne kindly explain this edit, in which he changed

Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau were both targeted by the AFL and recruited on unusually large contracts to play Australian rules football

to

Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau were both recruited by the AFL to play Australian rules football^[1][2][3]

References

with the narration: "restore NPOV". I don't see how the references provided fail to support the facts (not opinions) that Hunt and Folau were a) targeted specifically, and b) recruited on contracts that were unusually large. Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Unusually large compared with what? Baseball players? Most people who are recruited anywhere in sport are targeted specifically. Clubs don't go around making random offers to just anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, it seems somewhat odd that you are now championing the use of "recruited" to describe footballers who changed codes when in 2010 you were dead against using "recruited" to describe a footballer who changed codes. PS: Go you bunnies! (Like Martin Flanagan I don't actually barrack for any team - with the exception of the subject of this article - but just love football. For most of the time I lived in Sydney, I lived in Redfern, so I have a fully legit place on their band-wagon.) Pete "maroon in one eye, maroon in the other eye too" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hilo48 has a "right to be wrong" in 2010. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Shirt, that was a very different issue. It was about a field in the Australian Football Club infobox called "Recruited from", which expects another Australian Football club's name. That wasn't appropriate for someone changing codes. But I do admire your detective work. (And I've been brainwashed by a friend who grew up in Sydney, and whose car and house are now covered in green and red decorations.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me say this as clearly as I can.

Hunt and Folau were not "poached" from the Queensland Rugby League team. Anything beyond that is semantics. Look at the name of this article and consider what it is you are arguing over. --Falcadore (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic :)

Gibbo and Falcadore: why are you editing Wikipedia instead of watching the football? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't editing, Shirt58. I saw every minute of it. Brilliant stuff.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I will have to agree with the header of this section Gibson Flying V, and based on this, the line "Former Maroons Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau were both recruited by the AFL to play Australian rules football [10][11][12] (and both also played professional rugby union)." should be completely removed and reworded as based on my reading of the articles on both Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau's pages this seems quite misleading if not inaccurate. In Hunt's case it appears failed negotiations led him to the AFL and in Folau's situation there was a three league bidding war. Not only does the term "poach" have no place in that sentence but maybe instead of these players being recruited it is more accurate to say they agreed to terms with the AFL. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V, for the record, the reason I made the change was to remove emotive language and replace it with completely neutral words that conveyed the same information. Nothing more to see here. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Emotive language? I'm confused. Care to elaborate?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, there's the rub. That you don't understand this is exactly the problem here. Perhaps you need to reflect on what every one has been telling you and how you have responded. When several different editors keep telling you basically the same thing (that you don't want to hear) maybe it's not everyone else that's wrong. Either way, right or wrong, consensus is against you. Time to drop the stick. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a new thread about a new issue. And Wikipedia policy doesn't just go away because a handful of inappropriately canvessed editors WP:DONTLIKEIT. Your (failure to) explain your edit doesn't really surprise me. And the big hurry you appear to be in for me to "drop it now" I think speaks volumes. I can't imagine what it's like to have to keep relying solely on a head-count of editors and don't envy you being in that position one bit. Every time someone brings up a policy here, all it does is prove a point I'm making. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability and find a single line that supports your edit above. It shouldn't be hard for you to do, should it? Regarding consensus: it "is not determined by counting heads... irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" are to be discarded.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

GSV - have you thought about the fact that nobody had tried to use the word "poached" in this article until you did a couple of weeks ago? Nor in other relevant articles, such as those on the players themselves, the AFL, and the clubs they joined. The editors who worked on those articles all chose to use different language. HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

GSV, I don't suppose you see the incredible irony of your post. Never mind, I have explained my edit, that YOU don't like it does not negate that explanation. As I said before when a number of other people tell you the same thing, maybe it not them that are wrong. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I gave a biased opinion from a North American perspective, poached was a no go as far as I was concerned, I even did a bit of homework and brought forth some facts from other articles on Wikipedia. I think this issue may need to be addressed by higher powers now, seems to not be getting anywhere with one editor. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

GSV, in answer to your challenge to Nick Thorne from 19:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC), I've read Wikipedia:Verifiability, and in it lies an entire section that supports his edit, viz. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. This section states that "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". The use "targeted... and recruited on unusually large contracts" (as well as of "poached" in the previous discussions) represents an inclusion of disputed content (or, more precisely but fitting under the same umbrella, content expressed in a manner whose neutrality is disputed); and therefore, the verifiability policy explicitly requires you to gain consensus for the inclusion of that content and phrasing. Aspirex (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Once again User:Aspirex is to be commended for taking the time to give a proper response. The rest of you should take a page out of this editor's book. Everything said in Asiprex's post is accurate and on topic. It's especially helpful as it brings into focus what I think is where "the rub" here really is: the word disputed. Is it enough that the content is disputed at this talk page alone? I'd argue that it is not, given the link at the start of the section Asipirex quotes to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (also mentioned by User:Nick Thorne in his narration to the edit in question, making it doubly relevant), which reads:

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included.

The reason I'm so perplexed by this dispute is that it doesn't exist in reliable sources. They are unanimous in their view that Hunt and Folau were "poached" by the AFL (or, if you want to unpack the meaning of this word, "targeted... and recruited on unusually large contracts"). No one here has been able to explain who we're being unfair to when we describe the situation in that way (and even if they did, they would still need to be backed up by reliable sources doing the same). It should be clear therefore that the dispute here is not between you and I, but between you and reliable sources. And in these cases, reliable sources (are supposed to) win every time.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I would ask User:Aspirex about determining proper weight when the facts are of passing relevance. The players were not poached from the Queensland team, they were poached from the Broncos. --Falcadore (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As some here have said, I think the question here is whether the information is relevant, not whether it is verifiable. I don't think anyone could reasonably question the facts of the above statement (at least that they were certainly unusually large contracts, although I'm not sure how they were "targeted" any more than any given player who signs a contract with anyone), but there may be an issue about how relevant the facts are to someone reading this article. Do these facts "belong" here? I think it is probably relevant to the topic that the team had these 2 players who were recruited to the AFL, however, I am uncertain whether the nature of that recruitment is directly relevant to "Qld rugby league team" (including the fact that this team does not itself contract players). Certainly something relevant to the players' own articles, but here definitely falls into a grey area where consensus needs to be established one way or the other, regardless of verifiability. Macosal (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

GSV, in my mind, all of the policies and guidelines in Wikipedia (other than those relating to legal matters) exist for the sole purpose of solving disputes between editors; we're a community of strangers attempting to collaborate on a single finished product, and we're going to disagree from time to time about what to include or how to phrase it, so the policies were written to assist. Therefore, it is enough that the content is disputed on the talk page to initiate change; and it has to be. I struggle to understand your contention, because the way I interpret it, you're saying that editors who wish to initiate a content dispute on Wikipedia policy grounds need to find a reliable non-Wikipedia source which proves that the dispute already exists; this is circular reasoning which would prevent any discussion ever from happening.

By analogy with a typical sports notability dispute: if one editor can provide good sources to verify some minor statistical point, and a second editor believes it to be such an insignificant statistic that it should be removed from the page, the second editor shouldn't need to provide a reliable third-party source describing the insignificance of that statistic to validate his position – obviously no such reference will exist, as journalists have better things to do than write articles appraising the notability of different statistics. The fact that the second editor disagrees with its notability is enough to initiate the dispute, and then it is up to the two editors or others to use the Wikipedia:Notability policies to reach a consensus on its inclusion. Aspirex (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

After further consideration, I think the line "Former Maroons Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau were both recruited by the AFL to play Australian rules football[10][11][12] (and both also played professional rugby union)." should now be reworded to "The AFL's Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau are both former Queensland Maroons players." Let the reader go to their individual pages and read as to why, the information is well detailed there. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

As both Hunt and Folau hae left AFL an they still be onsidered "the AFL's Hunt and Folau"? I again ask what their AFL areers hae to do with this artile? --Falcadore (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Dropping the whole line altogether is of course the best solution but I am sure there is one editor who won't let that happen, just trying to find the middle ground. --[[User talk: Slave28|♪ℓ☮⚔☭ⅩⅩⅧ]] (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability now? The second section of that guideline is entitled Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article and refers such questions to WP:WEIGHT, which I'd just been quoting in my last post. So I'll have no more from you, Aspirex, about anything circle-related :) Sorry to keep harping on about it, but a more relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which was quite obviously written for the purpose of preventing editor interference with Wikipedia's goal of having information presented as it is in reliable sources. A far more apt sports analogy would be regarding whether a team's coach was sacked or resigned. If 100% of reliable sources say he was sacked (leaving 0% saying he resigned), Wikipedia should say so too, regardless of editors' personal views about the nature of his parting. It should be clear to anyone that I'm simply trying to edit in line with reliable sources. The only struggle to be had understanding anything here is with why I should be prevented from doing so. The questions I asked at the very start of this illegitimately prolonged discussion remain, 7 additional weeks and 9 additional editors later, completely unanswered. And I'm getting a bit sick and tired of trying to speculate about what the answer could possibly be.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The ligitimate answer to your question was and remains, it is not relevant to the topic as they were not poached from this team. --Falcadore (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

GSV, you are prevented from doing so because Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The onus is on you to gain a consensus for the inclusion of contentious material, and you have not done that. Nine separate editors over seven weeks, all experienced and all proffering their reasoned interpretations of the policies, should be sufficient to convince you that you will not gain a consensus with your current line of argument. Aspirex (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Some inappropriately canvassed (I'll never tire to remind you) editors inexplicably calling material non-neutral and material being actually contentious are not the same thing. Perhaps you then, Aspirex, can be the first one to step up and explain to which party all these reliable sources are being unfair when they say that Hunt and Folau were poached by the AFL. I assure you I'm not lying when I tell you I haven't the slightest idea. And I promise you I can be reasoned with (are my interpretations of policy somehow less reasoned than others'?). I've been waiting a long time for the answer to this and I'm all ears.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty sure the majority of respondants are now objecting on relevancy grounds, not on the merits of poached vs recruited. It is no longer an NPOV issue. --Falcadore (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

GSV, I hope you understand that I'm unconvinced when you say you still don't understand the issue; HiLo48 has accused you of "AFL-hating", and I find it hard to believe you can't join the dots between that accusation and the conclusion that the POV is against the AFL. The reasons why this POV exists have been stated many times, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and explain again exactly why the paragraph as a whole appears to be designed to portray the AFL in a negative light:

• The AFL players are described as 'poached', and this word carries with it the implication that the AFL pursued them in an immoral manner (which could mean anything from "less moral than normal" to "immoral" to "illegal"); it also carries the implication that the players were not complicit in the immoral nature of the behaviour. If I were to rephrase the statement in a way which portrays the players in a negative light and the AFL in a neutral light, I could describe the players as being mercenaries (and here are some references that do exactly that: [46] [47]). If I were to describe it in a way in which both the players and the AFL were portrayed negatively, I could describe them as "Hunt/Folau and the AFL brokered unusually large contracts for them to play AFL, even though they had never played the sport before". If I were to reword in the most neutral way possible, I would say "Hunt and Folau played professional Australian rules football". Both the AFL and the players could be portrayed in a positive light by explaining "Hunt/Folau were recruited to help to gain media exposure for the new AFL clubs in rugby-dominated states". All are verifiable, but the complaint is that the wording chosen is the one which specifically portrays the AFL itself in the most negative light.
• Secondly, the impact of this is heightened when juxtaposed with the description of the rugby union players. Rogers, Tuqiri, etc. are described as simply having "played" rugby union - the most neutral term of all which does not cast any moral aspersions on their recruitments. Readers could reasonably deduce from this juxtaposition that the AFL was poaching players and behaving immorally but the ARU was not. It's worth pointing out here that reliable sources describe Rogers and Tuqiri as having been 'poached' as well, [48] [49]; describing one as poached and not the other constitutes bias by omission.

You have said several times that you don't believe the term 'poached' is loaded. Regardless of how firmly you believe this, the weight of opinion of nine editors acting in good faith over seven weeks should be enough to convince any editor that an alternative and valid viewpoint exists outside his or her own. I believe we have gone above and beyond by providing dictionary definitions and external sources to support the view that a sizeable portion of the English-speaking community will take this term to be loaded. We have certainly gone far enough to break your original (somewhat offensively put) contention that the problem was "all in HiLo48's head".

(Just a note: since when did Brad Thorn and the All-Blacks play in the 2003 Rugby Union World Cup Final anyway? Australia played England in that game). Aspirex (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Biggest win/loss discrepancy

Why does Queensland's biggest victory and defeat not correspond to the games depicted on New South Wales rugby league team biggest victory and defeat? Qld page should be corrected. --Falcadore (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Queensland rugby league team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080615130833/http://www.abc.net.au:80/sport/content/200503/s1334421.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200503/s1334421.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queensland rugby league team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120317182126/http://www.australianrugbyleague.com.au/files/11726_ARL_Annrep_1.pdf to http://www.australianrugbyleague.com.au/files/11726_ARL_Annrep_1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)