Jump to content

Talk:Sport in Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Participation

[edit]

This article should have better information on sport participation in Australia.

There are surveys done by Roy Morgan and The Australian Sports Institute. While they differ they are broadly in agreement.

There is also a survey commissioned by cricket Australia. Is this NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 00:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that single post from you just there does not constitute discussion. You should not have re-added any content until some sort of consensus had developed here. That is bad faith editing.
Secondly, participation is notoriously difficult to measure, and inevitably misleading. Should we include all ages? If so, what does that prove? Soccer is well known for having high levels of junior participation (it is alleged mothers prefer it to "rougher" forms of football), which drops off dramatically at adult levels. How does one represent that in a national article covering all sport? We know that sports use such figures to demonstrate their success, and figures must depend on numbers reported by individual sports. Quite simply, I wouldn't trust them.
Thirdly, and logically from the paragraph above, I wouldn't trust material from a body representing a single sport, such as Cricket Australia.
Fourthly, defining a sport can be an issue here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removing reasonably well sourced information is also bad faith editing. Not every edit needs a discussion on the talk page.
The advantage with Roy Morgan and the Ausralian Sports commission is that they are not interested in pushing any sport in particular. They are asking a statistically representative group of people what they do.
If the cricket Australia information isn't trustworthy shouldn't it be removed to start off with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian Sports Commission survey has heaps of information as does the Roy Morgan Survey. Would it be worth having a table of participants from each as is done with the useful attendance figures here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please address my comments about juniors, and where the raw figures come from. And how do we measure what kids play at school, in their own time? Also please read WP:INDENT. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication as to how cricket Australia addresses these issues. Also, I did address you concerns in saying 'the Australian sports commission has a lot of information there. If you go and look at their link you can see their survey has a load of tables about juniors and whatnot. Perfect information is not required and we're not going to get that. Useful comparative information from independent bodies like Roy Morgan and the Australian Sports Commission is good to have. I came to this page for this information and was surprised enough to go and check and found what I'd thought to be the case was widely reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 01:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would a table with sources work that also included a disclaimer about how this kind of information was hard to verify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly address some of my concerns. And yes, the Sports Commission has a lot of data. It's just hard to summarise it all for a broad article like this. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks. I'll put it all in a table. There is also some ABS data in the article that will be in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 02:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But can you address the junior vs adult issue that way? It does matter. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The table is terrible! full of gaps. Are you saying no kids walk? It doesn't belong in a quality article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you accept the top 10 items from the Roy Morgan in one table. The top 10 from the adult Ausplay in another and the top 10 child sports in another table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 01:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any table with an obvious gap in it is unacceptable. Can you please bring anything you would like to add to this Talk page before actually adding to the article. By that I mean actually putting the table here first, not just talking about it. My personal view is that there are so many problems with collecting data of this kind that trying to publish precise figures is just little too ambitious. Definitions are a big problem. For example, does playing a sport at school count as participation? Does going bushwalking as a school Outdoor Education activity count as participation? Does backyard cricket count? These numbers are also used by proponents of various sports to promote those sports. Accuracy is not a goal of such people. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The New Zealand Sport page has straight numbers and is better than the Australian one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_in_New_Zealand#Participation . It's also worth noting that the current Australian page has outdated numbers and very dubious numbers from cricket Australia.

The following table is from http://static.ausport.gov.au/ausplay/?page=14

Adult sport activity Population Estimate Percent of population
Walking 8.4M 42%
Fitness/gym 6.3M 31%
Running and athletics 3.1M 16%
Swimming 2.8M 14%
Cycling 2.3M 12%
Soccer 1.1M 6%
Bush Walking 1M 5%
Golf 1M 5%
Tennis 0.95M 5%
Yoga 0.87 4.4%

On the same page there is also an adult's top 10 through organisation/venue which might be better.

That page also has a table for children. Alternatively the following page might be good for club sport activities.

http://static.ausport.gov.au/ausplay/?page=16

It might also be worth including the top 10 from:

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7182-decline-in-competitive-sports-participation-australia-december-2016-201703200905 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 10:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see the problem yet with your own uncertainty about the various sets of numbers that are available? We need quality in this encyclopaedia. it's very hard to get for these figures. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, none of these figures are authoritative but they are useful. However, the article contains outdated figures in the first paragraph, single figures from sports promotions bodies including the very dubious cricket figures and fails to show how any of these are related except for the outdated ABS ones. In addition there is no disclaimer about the accuracy of the figures. When I saw this article I was very interested to see the cricket figures and thought that Big Bash and immigration might have caused a big spike in cricket players. However, a quick bit of searching showed this is just not the case according to figures obtained by Ausplay and Roy Morgan, neither of whom are likely to pushing sport X or Y. Comparative figures from independent bodies that are reasonably close are better quality than the numbers that are there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 10:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have already been explained above. What IS participation? Kids? (Ages?) Holes in data sets. Where do Ausplay and Roy Morgan get their figures? I am not defending anything there already either. It could well be old and/or biased, and should be removed if it is. We just don't need more meaningless numbers added. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's defined for Ausplay in their methods description: https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/735232/AusPlay_Survey_questions_Dec_16.pdf . One thing that is easily definable and that is put in their method is 'did you pay for it through some organisation'. They then have this listed on page 16 of their results. This is clearly defined. The people who collect this data are clearly pretty serious about the numbers. Given that quite a large proportion of Australians participate in sport rather than just sit and watch it the perticipation section's small size and poor numbers downplay its significance. Particularly when there is a high quality data set like the Ausplay numbers out there. The fact that Roy Morgan's number correlate reasonably well also backs it all up. It's also worth noting that most of the sports that have pages have their own numbers that seem to be worse than the Ausplay ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 11:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem right. Who pays to go walking, cycling and bush walking? I do a lot of two of those activities. No idea how anyone could ever count my participation. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, taking back the indent level. The table I've included first here just asks 'did you do the activity in the past year'. They also have another table that asks did you do it through an organisation. Both should be included. Are you actually having a look at the references? --Siento (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" They also have another table that asks did you do it through an organisation." I've never been asked. Who does get asked? HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to find this information on the Ausplay Survey. They have an FAQ. Siento (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I'd like to see the following three tables from the Ausplay Survey.

Adults taken part in last year
[edit]
Activity Population Estimate (millions) Percent of population
Walking 8.4 42.6%
Fitness/Gym 6.31 32.1%
Running and Athletics 3.11 15.8%
Swimming 2.85 14.5%
Cycling 2.3 11.7%
Soccer 1.14 11.7%
Bush Walking 1.05 5.4%
Golf 1.02 5.2%
Tennis 0.94 4.8%
Yoga 0.86 4.4%

Also, there should not be any copyright concerns. Similar lists taken from Ausplay have been published by online news sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adults through organisation / venue in the last year
[edit]
Activity Population (millions) Percent of Population
Fitness/Gym 5.05 25.6%
Swimming 1.6 8.1%
Golf 0.89 4.5%
Soccer 0.83 4.2%
Yoga 0.65 3.3%
Tennis 0.61 3.1%
Netball 0.58 3.0%
Running and athletics 0.54 2.7%
Cricket 0.46 2.3%
Basketball 0.46 2.3%
Children organised out of school in the last year
[edit]
Activity Population (millions) Percent of population
Swimming 1.38 30.0%
Soccer 0.67 14.7%
Australian Football 0.37 7.4%
Gymnastics 0.34 7.2%
Netball 0.33 7.2%
Dancing 0.3 7.2%
Basketball 0.3 6.5%
Tennis 0.28 6.1%
Cricket 0.26 5.6%
Running and athletics 0.2 4.4%

Dispute

[edit]

This has been taken to dispute [[1]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 13:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


RFC on Population-Wide Metrics

[edit]
NO CONSENSUS
There is no consensus on whether the tables, in their proposed form, should be added to or excluded from the article. Editors supporting inclusion argued that the data was reliably sourced, while editors opposing inclusion questioned the methodology of the survey from which the data was derived. — Newslinger talk 00:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the sport in Australia page have participation statistics from Ausplay, a study funded and led by the Australian Sports Commission on sport participation. Siento (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


It has been proposed to add the following tables to the article:

The Tables

[edit]

The data is from the Ausplay Survey which is a survey funded and led by the Australian Sports Commission.

There should not be any copyright concerns. Similar lists taken from Ausplay have been published by online news sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Please !vote ‘’’Yes’’’ or ‘’’Include’’’ to include the tables. Please !vote ‘’’No’’’ or ‘’’Exclude’’’ to exclude the tables. A brief supporting statement is requested. Please do not reply to other statements or provide lengthy discussion. Do that in the Discussion section

  • No Far too much precision is implied by the numbers in the tables, suggesting an accuracy that cannot possibly exist. The activities obviously require clearer definition too. Using the very first entry as an example, what on earth does "Walking" mean? Does 57.4% of the population never walk? Don't say readers can follow links. They should not need to, and most never will anyway. The figures are therefore going to be very misleading. This is not the only problem, but the lead sentence here says "brief". HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes The page has poor or outdated statistics that include higher alleged precision currently. The Ausplay stats are the best available. Wikipedia generally has good approximate statistics, for instance on GDP, GDP at PPP, percent of population that is vegetarian, vegan and many other things. The sport page should at least have something of similar quality. Siento (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No in the strongest possible terms There is no information contained on the Ausplay web site about the methodology used in the survey, the number of respondents and other information in order to form an opinion about the reliability of the data. What does pass for editorial content on that site makes it quite clear that the reports are being made with a particular agenda, which is to encourage people to participate. Not a bad agenda, but the survey cannot be considered any sort of dispassionate attempt to understand the actual participation rates. From what it says, it appears that the survey consideres a person to be a particiant in a given activity if they have done it just once in the preceding year. This can hardly be used as any sort of reasonable measure of participations and will inflate the figures well beyond their usefulness and says nothing about the actual participation rates. That fact alone renders this whole collection of data meaningless as a source of information on Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne talk 10:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such surveys are inherantly inaccurate, see BMC Public Health (2018; 18: 895) Non-response bias in estimates of prevalence of club-based sport participation from an Australian national physical activity, recreation and sport survey the 2010 ERASS survey (a previous similar survey) data were found to be subject to considerable non-response bias and to massively over-estimate the prevalences of club-based participation in four major sports (my emphasis). - Nick Thorne talk 11:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Highly respectable organization for sourcing. I thought maybe these type of stats might be in a "Health in Australia" or "Fitness in Australia" article, but I didn't see any of these types of articles. As long as readers know where these stats came from, these charts should be included under the participation section or perhaps a subsection entitles "Survey of Australian sports participation." Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

[edit]

Provide your comments here. Be civil. Follow talk page guidelines.

From User:Siento above: "The page has poor or outdated statistics that include higher alleged precision currently." If they're rubbish, just delete them. "The Ausplay stats are the best available." That doesn't mean we must automatically include them. "Wikipedia generally has good approximate statistics, for instance on GDP, GDP at PPP, percent of population that is vegetarian, vegan and many other things. The sport page should at least have something of similar quality." See WP:OSE. It is not a reason to make the same mistake here. As I said above, the proposed figures imply a precision (NOT an approximation) that cannot possibly exist. That means they are not very good figures, so we should not include them, no matter what happens with other numbers in other articles. Does 57.4% of the population never walk? HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Figures on the population of countries, the actual size of a country, their GDPs, people's wages, The Gini Coefficient, vegetarianism and many other things are all approximations. Please start to attempt removing them if you object to them all. They are very useful. They give people a good idea of what is going on. The Australian government spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to collect these statistics. It's worth searching for 'sport in australia participation numbers' to see that they are the best around. Currently the figures in wikipedia are misleading. The 57.4% of the population refers to people who have said they walked for exercise in the past year. The New Zealand sports page and other sports pages include participation numbers as they should. Amusingly also the article has actually had a figure for walking for women for years but somehow this is OK. Also for anyone looking to vote on this issue please note how HiLo48 keeps raising that allegedly mothers make their sons play soccer and that he has been involved in a sport in Australia for decades and that he has fought a long battle to stop soccer in Australia being referred to as football as the Australian Sports Commission does. It looks like the sport he is involved with is not soccer and he has something against soccer. Modern figures seem to show that soccer is the most played team sport in Australia. It looks like it may be that his various arguments against accurate numbers are really just an attempt to avoid that fact being included in wikipedia. Siento (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have not mentioned soccer in this discussion, but since you have... Do you really believe that around one in 15 Australian adults play soccer? Remember, "adults" includes everyone over, what, 15? So it includes people over 80, women, men, the disabled, etc..... Soccer is not at all popular in my neighbourhood, so it must be a lot higher than 1 in 15 in some areas. Come off the grass. I don't believe it. Why do you? HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This must have been written by someone else then "Soccer is well known for having high levels of junior participation (it is alleged mothers prefer it to "rougher" forms of football), which drops off dramatically at adult levels.". Note also that I've repeatedly asked HiLo48 to read the methodology of the survey and asked him which tables should be included. There are no answers. Merely a repeated recalcitrant refusal to including the best figures available. There was an extensive attempt for mediated discussion on this issue as well. There HiLo48 said that the problem was that people frequently use this page to push for a particular sport and exaggerate the importance, this being something older Australians used to argue about. It appears this is HiLo48's problem also. It's also worth noting that HiLo48 does not seem to actually care about the numbers that are there. At no point in the years of the Cricket Australia figures being including has he wished to alter those. He complains about the walking figures from Ausplay and again, for years has ignored the walking figures in the article. Siento (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat "I have not mentioned soccer in THIS discussion". HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no meanigful data on that web site for the purposes you intend to use it on Wikipedia. The data is rubbish, by dint of their definition of participation. - Nick Thorne talk 10:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ABS figures that are included on the page are the precursor to the survey. The Ausplay site literally includes this information. The walking figure doesn't seem to have bothered anyone. Why haven't they been removed for years? Again, are the figures obtained by 'Cricket Australia' likely to be good data? I'm sorry, I don't have mates on wikipedia to back me up. Nick T is also involved in reverting edits where people have written 'football' for soccer. Another approach woud be to include just the second two tables. Unfortunately that would drop walking out as a form of exercises, which would be less than ideal. If you folks actually cared about the numbers in this article why haven't they been improved for years? Laughable claims like Melbourne being 'The sporting capital of the world' are included. And with other figures, the figures for AFL, for instance, are actually higher in the article than those obtained by the Survey. And yet they have been there for years. Siento (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're straying into WP:NPA territory. My comments were only about the proposed content, yet you make a point of discussing my editing history, which is entirely non-sequitur and about which your comments should be struck. None of your reply addresses the issue I raise. Instead you talk about things that have nothing to do with either this proposed change or my criticism of it. You're not doing your proposal any favours. - Nick Thorne talk 11:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Siento, you are arguing over multiple things. Firstly, you are arguing the merits of your proposed new tables. That's all that should be happening here, and some people disagree on their merit. It's right to allow discussion to continue on that, preferably getting other people to the discussion. Secondly, you are also arguing that some existing content is poor. That's an entirely separate matter, and not part of this RFC. You are just confusing things by bringing the matter up. Thirdly, you also want to argue about the name "soccer". That clearly has even less to do with this RFC. It has been discussed extensively over the years, leading to part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style addressing the matter. Do have a look at WP:MOSFIA. It is a pretty clear guideline. Attacking people for following it is fairly pointless, and won't help your case here. Fourthly, as for Melbourne being seen as the sporting capital of the world, that's also way off topic, and seems to be very well sourced in the article to the SYDNEY Morning Herald. So, back to the actual topic - two editors have now drawn attention to problems they see with your proposed tables. I suggest you stick to doing nothing but addressing precisely those concerns, rather than heading off on irrelevant tangents, and attacking other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ABS figures that are included on the page are the precursor to the survey. This is an argument for the deletion of existing tables as much as it is for replacing them. More so really if the accuracy of the application of those statistics, and the accuracy of gathering the statistics is seriously in question.
These statistics seem to be broadly studies of activity, rather than sport, so they are of only oblique interest to this article. Taking a walk is not a sport. Going to the gym is not sport. Yoga is not a sport. It is physical activity. The two terms are not interchangeable.
Please feel free to start your own article Recreational pastimes in Australia. --Falcadore (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, apologies for getting annoyed. It is a bit odd that figures for walking, riding and skateboarding have been in the article for years and yet no-one has removed them. The proposed tables are an update of these figures as the ABS no longer collects them and instead The Australian Sports Commission does. The third table would appear to contain items that are more clearly sports. The second has gyms and yoga in them but mostly matches competitive sport and has tougher criteria for participation. The first table matches the content of the current data in the article and is an update which is why it seemed appropriate. Including these tables but removing certain items would seem to be taking licence with the source material. As for the issue of Ausplay being biased toward sport it is worth looking at their summary report on children and it's clear that the worry is that sport and exercise by children and adults is decreasing. But perhaps the first table shouldn't be included but the second two should?
Apologies for raising the issues of football and soccer, something I really don't care about but was curious to see was something that had been edited by people with opinions on better participation data who hadn't edited the current data in years. With the quote about Melbourne being the sporting capital of the world the issue is that there isn't one and that the term is marketing spin. No city in the world has a representative in all the world's most viewed or played sports at the highest level. Sport is regional everywhere. This article from a Monash University academic describes the situation well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 10:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, wayyyyy off topic. There is no coherent discussion happening here on the subject of the RFC, and an awful lot on other things. This will all achieve nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't off topic.
This is an argument for the deletion of existing tables as much as it is for replacing them. Just because activity data has been in the article for years does not mean it should stay. This article was for many years not an article at all but a portal of links to other articles. Yes there is a point to be made about participation, but when the data highlights off-topic elements perhaps prose and a link achieves a similar result instead of no less than three tables that highlight off topic elements. --Falcadore (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's way off topic. The RFC asks "Should the sport in Australia page have participation statistics from Ausplay, a study funded and led by the Australian Sports Commission on sport participation." That's it. Nothing more. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to read some of the comments above and be aware that their opposition to the inclusion of well-sourced data is because they don't want any sport other than their preferred addiction to be given a higher preference. Doubtless these same folk vote for the same political party every election, eat the same brekky every day, and dress to the same side every time they scratch their nuts.

I think baseball should be at the top of every ranking of sports codes, but do you see me complaining here because it does not have the prominence I think it should? Well, I suppose you do, but I digress. --Pete (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with two parts of that comment. Baseball is a great sport, and yes, you digress. The RFC asks "Should the sport in Australia page have participation statistics from Ausplay, a study funded and led by the Australian Sports Commission on sport participation." That's it. Nothing more. Nothing about the voting habits of other editors, or their sports preferences. or my love for muesli. Let's just all stick to that quite simple topic, eh? HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think some here have an agenda other than improving the Wikipedia. That's my point. Like some of the edits on Donald Trump for example. Personal politics, personal preferences; these should have no impact on our encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I think some here have an agenda other than improving the Wikipedia." That's unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing personal. I was thinking project-wide, rather than this particular thread. If someone rejects good, well-sourced encyclopaedic information, I think they should need more reason than "I just don't like it" and some spurious Trumpian red herrings. --Pete (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's a good thing nothing like that is happening here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? On reëxamining the discussion, two things stand out:
  1. The only voices raised in opposition are two editors renowned for their anti-football views. Surprise, surprise, this data puts football ahead of other sports, something that we've known about for years.
  2. One attacks the precision of the numbers, the other wonders about the methodology. This is a government survey and we have their data. If there is any hard evidence that the figures are wrong, present it; don't throw mud just because you don't like the numbers they came up with.
An impartial observer might wonder that if some sport other than football - say, Aussie Rules - had a higher profile in these numbers then the two NO voices might suddenly be enthusiastically YES !votes. This is what I mean when I talk about agendas and Trumpian tactics. --Pete (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The only voices raised in opposition are two editors renowned for their anti-football views" Can't be me. I love football. Now, which version are we each talking about? Apart from in this post, I always choose words that avoid ambiguity here on Wikipedia. WP:MOSFIA suggests we all should. Anyway, this isn't about soccer. I didn't raise that matter in this thread. It has only been raised by editors choosing to attack others. As for them being government figures, it's quite amusing to see you placing so much trust in the government. Please discuss the topic, and stop attacking others. The RFC asks "Should the sport in Australia page have participation statistics from Ausplay, a study funded and led by the Australian Sports Commission on sport participation." That's it. Nothing more. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, not all editors are as high-minded as you. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only voices raised in opposition are two editors renowned for their anti-football views. I guess that includes me as the "other" editor. Sorry, Pete. I don't hate football, or soccer or any other form of football I just don't care about them. I'm an equal oportunity football dismisser. I dont care about pretty much any sport. What I do care about is accurate language usage on Wikipedia, correct interpretation of statistics and the following of Wikipedia policy. The numbers in the survey you seem so enamoured of are no doubt fine for the purpose for which they were compiled, which according to the information on that site is an agenda to encourage further involvement in physical activity. A laudable aim no doubt, but irrelevent to the usage proposed here. Exactly what questions were asked in the survey are entirely germaine to the uses to which the stats can be put. In this case, are you seriously trying to suggest that someone who has only done an activity once in the last twelve months can be considered to be a participant in an organised sport? Really? - Nick Thorne talk 22:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. If you only get one root a year, are you sexually active? Ah, rhetorical question there, Nick. Are you saying that any of the listed activities are preferentially affected? Surely there would be a bell curve of participation. Some would be occasional players, some would be addicted, most would be in the middle. If you have any solid information to the contrary, let us know, otherwise I'd have to say you are just blowing smoke, and I'm not sure why. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that activities are "preferentially affected". It simply that the numbers are pretty useless, and very misleading at best. I ask again "Does 57.4% of the population never walk?" Despite the appearance of precision, they are rubbish figures. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue Pete, is that there is no discrimination in the way the figures are compiled. For an activity like, say bushwalking, then maybe once a year could be reasonably said to be participation. However, in an organised team sport once a year is not really perticipation at all, is it? As HiLo48 says, the number quoted for walking is utter nonsense, unless it is given a whole lot more context than is visible, making the whole table unreliable for Wikipedia use. These figures were not compiled for the purpose for which it is proposed to use them here. To use them in the manner proposed is a gross mis-use of the statistics. - Nick Thorne talk 00:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are both battling the pink on this. If you can find a reliable source making some strong criticisms of these figures, then fine. Otherwise you are attempting to insert your own research into Wikipedia for reasons unknown. The bottom line is that we have good government-sourced data on participation rates on various physical activities, and your own views as editors are irrelevant. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading what I actually said, Pete. On the web site itself it states that the basis for inclusion on the survey is doing the activity just once in the previous twelve months. This is fine for the purposes for which the survey was conducted, but to try and use that data say anything about actual participation in sport is pure synthesis. The quoted figures simply do not do that. You are using statistics compiled for one purpose for something else entirely. I don't need to provide a reliable source to say that those figures are unreliablle for this purpose, the actual source says so itself. - Nick Thorne talk 05:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not take your own advice, Nick? See my comments above about bellcurves. And where is a reliable source making the points you seem to want to use as a basis for inclusion? Just waving your editor hands about doesn't help much. --Pete (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"You are both battling the pink on this." "Just waving your editor hands about doesn't help much." The RFC asks "Should the sport in Australia page have participation statistics from Ausplay, a study funded and led by the Australian Sports Commission on sport participation." That's it. Nothing more. Nothing about attacking other editors. You really should not even be mentioning them. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed Skyring Pete. I've never heard of you before. Love to know how you believe I'm anti, or even pro-football.
I'm opposed because the data is polluted with off topic elements. But you know that because you said you read the thread. --Falcadore (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rather a big gap in your logic above. If you think I've made a comment about you and football, please explain. But that's immaterial. This article is about sport in Australia, and the data is pertinent. Yes, it contains data on pastimes such as walking - presumably not the Olympic sport we all know and love. But it also contains data on sports in Australia from a good source. If we are writing an article about sport in Australia, rather than a list of organised sports, then the individual sports in themselves are not important. Whether football has a higher participation rate than cricket is not the plus or minus that supporters or detractors of those particular games might imagine. We're looking for the role of sport in Australian society and hey-ho, here are some good figures on that very thing. --Pete (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Falcadore Would you be in favour if it was just the last 2 tables? Then the tables would include fewer of the items that you don't want to see. Siento (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. Because it remains off-topic. Please refer to my initial response. Use prose (and linked references) first instead of tables. Tabulation is lazy editting. Ask yourself what is the point you are trying to make in including these tables (or their predeccessors) and why tabulated data is so important as a method of conveying this information. --Falcadore (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tabulated data is commonplace throughout Wikipedia. We could make a bar graph, I suppose, to present the information in a more visual format. If we were to summarise or otherwise manipulate the figures, then this would be original research, unless we found some reliable source that presented the information in an acceptable fashion. I'm not seeing well-source figures relating to sport in Australia as being off-topic for Sport in Australia. --Pete (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is commonplace. That does not alter anything that I just typed. The prefered method of conveying information on wikipedia is still prose. It is not original research if you provide a link. You can make individual points about the data without dumping all of it into a table here. --Falcadore (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how prose would be a more effective method without being selective and therefore inserting WP:OR. But I live to be enlightened. Perhaps you could put up some draft wording to illustrate the point? --Pete (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how being selective automatically makes it original research. --Falcadore (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, think about it. Who is performing the selection? Not our source, which provides all the data. Not our reader, who doesn't know what has been deliberately excluded. It must therefore be the editor(s), and whatever criteria they use for omitting data is going to be their own choice. No original research s one of the planks of Wikipedia, along with Neutral Point of View, which directs us to include all views so as to give a balanced presentation, rather than including bias because we think our readers don't need all points of view. We expect incomplete data and spin from politicians, not folk like ourselves, beavering away on a compendium of knowledge. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the implication that I have not done so. Much obliged.
If the statistics compilation has already been performed by someone else, pointing out one fact in isolation does not constitute original research. The research has already been performed by the author of the study. --Falcadore (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should follow that link provided above. Original research in the Wikipedia sense has a very different and far wider meaning. If you don't understand this, then perhaps you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. Your response above indicates ignorance of a cornerstone of this project. --Pete (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I don't need to follow that link. I never try to blur the edges with references. It's directly relevant or I don't use it at all. My opinion has not changed. I did not !vote above and now will not. What has changed is my opinion of my opinion. I do not care enough to fight anyone on the subject. I decided two years ago that wikipedia was not important enough to spend this much time on it. --Falcadore (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Falcadore and Pete - Please follow both WP:MOSFIA and the convention in the proposed tables when wanting to discuss a football code. Your comments above are just plain confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On checking the source material ([2] page 15), I note that "Football", "Australian football", "Rugby league" and "Rugby union" are the terms used officially. Perhaps it is time for Wikipedia to synch up with the real world, where confusion does not seem to be a problem? --Pete (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly not the place to discuss THAT off-topic digression. Anyway, with that logic, how can you support inclusion of these (government produced) tables, which call one of the football codes "soccer"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the government produced tables, which you may access by following the link I have helpfully provided. No need to thank me. I live to serve. --Pete (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I was quoting someone elses use of terminology, altering it could have altered the meaning. It was not clear to me which code was intended. So I reject your critique User:HiLo48 on that basis. You should read these things more carefully. --Falcadore (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Misunderstood. But I WAS confused. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Falcadore In the article in the section on participation as in many places in wikipedia, a group of related numbers are presented in table. The source material is in a table. There is also a survey from Roy Morgan that is also in a table. The New Zealand page on sport includes information on participation in tables. FWIW one of the main things I use wikipedia for is looking up various numbers which are almost always contained in tables and are certainly most useful when they are. Siento (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Nick Thorne and anyone who has wants the survey methods searching for 'ausplay methods' yields a page on methods. On one of the previous discussions about this issue which is earlier on this talk page I've even linked to the actual survey questions used. As a summary some 20 000 Australians were asked about their sport and fitness activities. All this information should preface the tables. This would appear to be about the best possible way to say where survey data comes from. Siento (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A direct quote from the survey questions: Please include activities even if you’ve only done them once or twice in the last year. There you have it, the exact reason why these figures are meaningless. - Nick Thorne talk 04:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Nick Thorne Do you object to the second two tables? If so for what reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 06:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See above comments re bell curves. This is basic statistics, Nick. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, OK, I'll play. What is the arithmetihmetic mean, the variance and standard deviation? Does the data even have a normal distribution? If you cannot answer these questions then talk about Bell curves is just waffle. - Nick Thorne talk 07:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, even if the data has a normal distribution, so what? The inclusion criteria are still "at least once in the last twelve months", so the figures are meaningless with regard to actual participation in organised sports. - Nick Thorne talk 09:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How are they "meaningless"? For any participation-type question like this - playing a sport, driving a car, going to church - respondents can only give a binary answer. Outliers such as the little old lady who only drives once a year - to umpire the annual church picnic cricket match - and the taxi-driver interrupting his twelve-hour shifts to attend daily mosque and plays in several weekly leagues to keep fit are both going to tick the same participation box. A reasonable assumption is that outliers are few, and most respondents would be somewhere in the middle. Unless in a professional league, most participants in any given sport would play on a weekly basis for a limited season, is my guess, because I see the local sportsgrounds active on weekends and sometimes evenings under lights, and idle during a weekday, unless it's a school oval when the reverse pattern applies. You seem to be pushing the notion that most participants are outliers, and that makes no sense at all. --Pete (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Outliers do exist. Any guess at how many exist for these studies is original research. This makes the apparent precision of the numbers in the tables very silly. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Outliers exist. That's the point. But they are outliers. Trying to pretend that it's all outliers is ridiculous, don't you agree? Bellcurves are basic statistics, not original research. --Pete (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is "trying to pretend that it's all outliers". HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, not all distributions are normal distributions, without access to information beyond that obtained from the simple yes/no question it is impossible to say anything about how many of the responses were of the once a year type or the regular participants. The distribution could just as easily be a bi-nomial distribution with clusters at the once a year end and another at once a week. The fact is we just don't know and the surveys are conducted in such a manner that we cannot know. Any suggestions such as a reasonable assumption is that and most participants in any given sport would play on a weekly basis for a limited season, is my guess and I see the local sportsgrounds active on weekend are obvious and pure original research. You say You seem to be pushing the notion that most participants are outliers, no I am not, I have never said that at all. What I have said is that we cannot possibly know anything about types of participants in the activities based on the data of this survey because the inclusion criterias is so low. No meaninngful conclusion can be drawn from such data, at the very least it would need to have asked how often the respondants participated in the activities and then we might have some figures on which we could use statistical analysis, but instead all we have is a binary question. Useless. - Nick Thorne talk 23:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the most stupid thing I've ever heard, Nick, but it comes pretty close. You want to reject a government survey because you have no way of knowing if it's nonsense or not. If you have any evidence that it's invalid, then put it forward. I've asked you this before, and all you've done is reach inside your own head to say you don't like it. Some facts, please. --Pete (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lay off the personal attacks Pete. This is your first and last warning. The facts have already been provided, there is no data about the respondants to draw any conclusions about them. Just because a survey was conduscted by a government agency does not lend it any credibility if the stated methodolgy is flawed. - Nick Thorne talk 01:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to this policy document: When there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack.
My comment was aimed at your ridiculous argument, not you personally. Again. If you have any evidence that it's invalid, then put it forward. I've asked you this before, and all you've done is reach inside your own head to say you don't like it. Some facts, please. --Pete (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is in the numbers themselves, with their implied accuracy. THAT is nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What accuracy? The population figures are given to two decimal places, but that's in millions. Every digit of precision is ten thousand people. That's pretty blocky. That's bigger than the towns of Renmark, Clare, and Hahndorf combined. That's not a high level of precision if you can hide nineteen superjumbos full of people sitting shoulder to shoulder into the rounding error! --Pete (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More OR, eh? HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice pivot. Let us address the point that you raised about accuracy and precision. Tou said the figures were too precise, and it turns out that they are about as precise as Tullamarine. That is, not a lot. Could we look at this, please? --Pete (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say the figures were too precise. Misrepresentation is a poor discussion technique. It never helps. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me! Are these not your words? Far too much precision is implied by the numbers in the tables, suggesting an accuracy that cannot possibly exist.[3] Please explain the contradiction. --Pete (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are my words. Your earlier "paraphrasing", however, changed the meaning considerably. I hope it was an accident. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. Far too much precision is implied by the numbers in the tables, suggesting an accuracy that cannot possibly exist.
2. I did not say the figures were too precise.
Perhaps you could pick one or the other, hmmm? --Pete (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing about precision, I'm arguing about accuracy. Perhaps you should read the article you linked to. No matter how precise these figures are expressed it does nothing about the undelying problem that the survey does not discriminate between very casual particpants and regular ones, so its accuracy is unknown. All the assumptions you have made about this are original research for the plain and simple reason that nothing has been recorded in the survey in order to make such comclusions. - Nick Thorne talk 10:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. HiLo has inserted himself, and he is arguing about precision. He seems to be mightily confused, making a complete about face, but I guess we'll sort that out, probably intertwangled with this thread.
"HiLo has inserted himself, and he is arguing about precision. He seems to be mightily confused, making a complete about face." Not playing that game. I have said all that needs to be said ON the topic. Activity has shrunk to misrepresentation and insults from you, and responding to them. Not productive. I will only comment again to defend myself, hoping that isn't necessary. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1. Far too much precision is implied by the numbers in the tables, suggesting an accuracy that cannot possibly exist.[4]
2. I did not say the figures were too precise.[5]
These are your words, unaltered by me, HiLo. If you are unable to explain the contradiction, may I ask why? Is it about face? I ask because your !vote in the survey above is supported by the first quote, and if you have now changed your position, perhaps you should also change your !vote, lest you inadvertantly mislead other editors. --Pete (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The survey is straightforward. Anyone who participated in a sport is counted as a participant. You haven't provided any evidence that the data is flawed in any way, but you have waved your hands around a lot. How many times must I ask you for evidence that the study is flawed that doesn't come from your opinion? --Pete (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in playing stupid word games with you. I have answered this question several times already, your refusal to hear is not my problem. I have said all I intend to say on this sunject. - Nick Thorne talk 01:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I keep asking is because you haven't addressed the point. This is a government survey, and you haven't produced any external criticism of their methodology. The reason you give for your !vote is that you don't know if it's reliable or not. So, it's just your opinion, and last time I looked, Wikipedia wasn't a democracy and works on policy. If you have a reliable source for your opinion, that would be different. --Pete (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The reason you give for your !vote is that you don't know if it's reliable or not." Wrong again. I will take you to ANI if you persist in misrepresenting my comments. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peace. Perhaps you could rethink your methodology for reading talk pages? My response to Nick was not in response to you, HiLo. --Pete (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the ERASS, precursor to the Ausplay survey, BMC Public Health (2018; 18: 895) Non-response bias in estimates of prevalence of club-based sport participation from an Australian national physical activity, recreation and sport survey said the 2010 ERASS survey data were found to be subject to considerable non-response bias and to massively over-estimate the prevalences of club-based participation in four major sports (my emphasis). The authors plan to review the Ausplay data similarly, but there is no reason to assume that there will be any significant difference. This speaks directly to the accuracy/reliability of this sort of survey data. - Nick Thorne talk 01:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nick! Two points: 1. It's a different survey. Do you have anything for this one, the subject of discussion here? 2. If it's a precursor and it's been criticised, then why would you conclude that Ausplay would take no notice of pertinent criticism? I mean, if someone takes the time to criticise your work, do you shrug it off? --Pete (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. Next time read the link before commenting. The article was about the inherent inccuracies of all such surveys and used the ERASS survey simply as an example. I'm done here, unless you can come up with something substantive. - Nick Thorne talk 11:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument makes no logical sense. At best, it's synthetic. At worst, it is sophistry. Given your long anti-football crusade stretching back years, I'm not quite so accepting of your bona fides as I once might have been. --Pete (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How can anyone respect the arguments of someone who blatantly, pointedly, and ambiguously defies Wikipedia's Manual of Style every time he mentions soccer, ignoring long-standing consensus? HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reasonably familiar with the MoS, but I wasn't aware that football - the official name of the global sport - was mentioned. Then again I wasn't aware that snooker and pool were quite so heavily defined, so I'm open to your illumination. Do you have a reference, please? --Pete (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSFIA. But as seems so common with supporters of this proposal, you have again forced the discussion way off-topic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so. My question was in response to your reference to the MoS, which turned out to be something else. I refer to football in discussion by its official name, as I think that having a global name for the sport is less confusing than calling other - regional - sports by the same name. The topic for discussion is the inclusion of government data in this article, and I think we've pretty well come to a stopping point if we've moved onto other things. --Pete (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"...we've moved onto other things." Oh, that happened very early in the discussion, almost entirely led by those wanting the new tables included. Funny that. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For example, in discussing the reasons given by editors for their !votes. That is a system that works well. !votes in one section, with concise reasons, and discussion in the following section, where we can examine various questions raised. For example, whether the figures are too precise, a matter on which, apparently, one person may hold two conflicting views at the same time. --Pete (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
The second table has the heading "Adults through organisation / venue in the last year". What on earth does that mean? Does this mean how many people Cricket Australia claims play cricket? Similar for the other sports. If so, that's completely unreliable. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is easy to work out for anyone interested. From the survey that has been repeatedly linked have a look at page 4. See the question: "In the last 12 months, did you do any of this through an organisation – like a club or a gym; or at a venue – like a pool or an oval?" which is summarised as I did in the table. This information can easily precede the tables. This is easy to suggest. Siento (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As well as at least that much explanation, you definitely need a better heading. No reader, no matter how interested, should have to work out what our content means. Can you not see that there is a reason I and others have been asking so many questions here? Readers must never be forced to do their own investigation to find out what any of our content means. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you see that when questions are answered and new questions are raised it seems that there is a double standard here compared to the material already in the article? Given that you have repeatedly removed information from the article the questions becomes why do you apply one standard to this new content and a different one to the participation data already in the article? You object to walking in the table and yet haven't cared about walking in the article despite editing it repeatedly over the years during which it has contained walking. Siento (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This post is entirely off topic. All you are talking about here is other editors, you should be talking about content, in particular the RFC question. If you don't have any response to the substantive questions about the content relating to the RFC that's fine, just don't keep trying to make this about other editors. - Nick Thorne talk 13:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Siento. You framed the RFC. Please stick to the topic YOU chose, and avoid personal attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Can someone confirm that for me? Is Australian rules football less popular? T3h 1337 b0y 04:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Popular" is an ambiguous word. Popularity can be measured by number(s) of active participants, or attendance at competitions, or TV viewership, or in many other ways. The one significant difference between cricket and Australian rules football is that the former is equally popular all over the country, while the latter is only very popular among around half the population on a geographic basis. See Barassi line. Note too that cricket is a summer sport, and Australian football is a winter sport. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sport_in_Australia&oldid=1210511814"