Jump to content

Talk:Football in Australia

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:58, 16 March 2014 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Football in Australia/Archive 5) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reworked article

I have reworked the article so it properly clarifies the state of football in Australia. I think this is what would best serve readers in understanding the football landscape in the country, as it is really a divide of regions and of culture. The article is located on my User:2nyte/sandbox. Thoughts and opinions are very welcome. I did spend a couple of hours doing this so constructive criticism would be the best kind, if any. Thanks.--2nyte (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just began looking at this, and have been immediately turned off by your irrational hatred of the word "soccer" being blatantly on display, yet again. "Soccer" is the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the round ball game in Australia, and you choose to use a name that most readers will have never heard of. You have used this "rewrite" as just another platform to promote your obsession. It really is sad. I can't be bothered reading any further. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following was taken from User talk:HiLo48: we have to cater for people who know nothing about sport in Australia. In an article that specifically goes into "soccer" now being referred to as "football" and the dropping of "soccer" by the governing body, it is confusing if we continue to use "soccer". Readers may not know the word "association football" at first glance, but the article explains that the term is a synonym for "soccer" - there is also a hyperlink to the sport. Similarly, many people reading the article may not know what Australian rules football, rugby league or rugby union is; that is why the sports have hyperlinks. We have to cater for everyone, especially on an article as important is Football in Australia. The football codes in Australia and the cultural/regional divide is a very hard thing to explain - we have to be very clear and very precise when explaining it. Using a term like "soccer" may add unnecessary confusion. Wording is very important to me - how we communicate information, how we explain something; the intricacies of a word can result in someone understanding the concept or not.--2nyte (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above; I understand that the use of "association football" is controversial for some, though its use is purely academic, as is its usage on Association football and various wikipedia articles. I would greatly appreciate if users would rather comment on the main content of the proposed article rather than the usage of "association football".--2nyte (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see a concern where the source(ABS[1]) states Soccer that the data should be represented consistantly with the sources usage. Gnangarra 03:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2nyte, you say "Using a term like "soccer" may add unnecessary confusion." Convince me. HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of notes from a quick read. Soccer should be used in the first mention "association football (soccer)". The parenthesis = subset argument against this style for article titles doesn't apply in text. Ok to use just association football after that. A good idea to get away from the pissing contest of my code is bigger than yours by making the main sections regional and cultural based. The cultural section should also cover the socio-economic divide between traditional rugby league and union support (if sources can be found, would be very surprised if there aren't plenty). The-Pope (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The-Pope, I didn't know there was/is social divide between rugby league and rugby union. - I just looked online about this though I couldn't find anything solid about it, only some opinion pieces and references to the game in England. - Links to articles/sources would be helpful. Also, is it necessary to specify "association football (soccer)" in the opening? Why is this clarification needed? A hyperlink takes readers directly to the sports page (as with the other sports in the opening), and it is sated in the Terminology section that "Association football has been typically referred to as "soccer" in Australia".--2nyte (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, use the word "soccer" alone in the lead. I know you have an issue with it, but do you recognise that very few other people do? HiLo48 (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, the issue I have with the use of "soccer" on wikipedia is that its usage does not represent the sports current situation in Australia; the majority of national media has dropped the usage of "soccer" in preference to "football", as have all governing bodies of the sport and hundreds of clubs all across the country. There is no reason not to represent this change, to drop "soccer" and use the unbiased alternative, "association football" - which is in the Australian-English Macquarie Dictionary. The use of "soccer" is no longer fitting for an academic purpose. "Soccer" should not be used by default on wikipedia when "association football" or even "football" can be used in its stead.--2nyte (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you are quoting a source, then you should be using the sources terminology especially when its data, if the ABS is using Soccer then it is fit for use for academic purposes Gnangarra 12:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no loss in merit from the source by referring to the sport as "association football", it is just a better fit in the context of the article and in the current situation of the sport. Furthermore, the relevance of the source in this circumstance is in its data and not its terminology.--2nytetalk) 12:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a lot of relevance in ABS using Soccer as that show the term isnt considered offensive... The point is the source doesnt use the term association football and therefore a person checking would need to make some connection between the two or question the contents verfiability. Gnangarra 12:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made no accusation of "soccer" being offensive. And to your second point, the article clearly states in the Terminology section that "Association football has been typically referred to as "soccer" in Australia".--2nyte (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Association football (soccer) should be used in the lead of THIS article (no opinion about what you use in dedicated round ball articles) because the term 'association football' is not universally used or understood in Australia - nor in many parts of the world (this article isn't going to be read by Australians only) and it clarifies without any doubt to people all over the world (especially in the US) what game we are talking about. A link is good, but inline clarification is better, in this case, IMO - and it with a single word paraphrases the opening line from the Association football article: Association football, commonly known as football or soccer,. And as Gnangarra said, it matches the reference document, which actually uses the exact phrase "association football (soccer)" in it's lead, and just "soccer" in the tables. The terminology section is too far away from the lead to be useful for this explanation. The-Pope (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand the point made, though I still question the necessity of clarifying "association football". Even though the term is not universally used, it is the term for the sport on wikipedia (also in the Australian-English Macquarie Dictionary). Do we really need to specify to readers in the opening line that "association football" is "soccer"? Will they not come to that conclusion on their own (through further research on wikipedia if need be)? The only reason we would need to add it is if readers cannot connect the two themselves (which is made quite easy by they hyperlink).--2nyte (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why hide "soccer" at all? If it would be easier for some readers if we use that word openly, we should use it. You really are showing an irrational attitude towards the word. We are not here to do the FFA's marketing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2nyte said above "There is no loss in merit from the source by referring to the sport as association football." My point is that there is no loss of merit in referring to the sport as "soccer". It's far and away the most common name in Australia. It will be understood by everybody, anywhere in the world. "Association football" won't. 2nyte clearly DOES have some psychological problem with it. Most Australians don't. NONE of my soccer playing friends do. Please recognise that your view is not universal. It's a niche view of those with strong commitment to a campaign by the administrators of the sport. It's not a view of those who love the sport, just a small minority of them. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is where I disagree, I do believe there is loss in merit. In general public referring to the sport as "soccer" continues to be perfectly acceptable, though in an academic environment, when the history of the sport is emphasised then the usage of "soccer" becomes redundant. An example would be a news reporter saying "From now on asylum seekers will only be known as illegals... in other news asylum seekers have just arrived in Australia" - the second reference of "asylum seekers" becomes redundant, because it has been established the term has been replaced by another. With this in mind the common use of "soccer" in Victoria becomes redundant in an academic environment. Although the use of "soccer" in general public may not have changed (again, that is perfectly acceptable), it is unnecessary on wikipedia when "association football" or 'football" can be used in its stead. "Soccer" should only be used on Australian wikipedia articles when quoting or referencing a specific text (which can be argued in this case).--2nyte (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Association football" or 'football" cannot be used instead of "soccer"! Well, "football" definitely can't. It's ambiguous in the Australian context, especially in this article. "Association football" could be used, but nobody know what it means, and you would only do so if you desperately trying to avoid using "soccer". HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, just humour me for a minute and answer this: why doesn't the general public/media in the Australian rules side of the Barassi Line refer to the round ball game as "football". Why have these people resisted the change, as it were, a change that the rest of the country has accepted.--2nyte (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because "football" means "Aussie Rules". And it's by far the most common name for Aussie Rules. It's meant Aussie Rules, and only Aussie Rules, for 150 years. The round ball game is called "soccer", and nobody has a problem with it. Change is unlikely in the foreseeable future. The ball used in Aussie Rules is called a football. The round ball is called a soccer ball. In Aussie Rules the tactic of kicking the ball when it's on the ground without picking it up first, usually because of pressure from opponents, is called "soccering the ball". Towns and suburbs have football grounds and soccer grounds. One can tell the shape and purpose from the name. Towns and suburbs have football clubs and soccer clubs. Schools have football teams and soccer teams. (I linked to some soccer oriented school websites a week or so ago to demonstrate that.) The words have simple, single, clear, distinct meanings. The language works very well. Why should anything change? (Obviously, every time I've said "football" above, it means Aussie Rules, because that's how we think, and it demonstrates the usage.)HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, so from you answer you are saying that there is a bias in the Australian rules side of the Barassi Line towards Aussie Rules (in calling it "football") and against the round ball game (in resisting to call it "football"). Like it or not by calling the game "soccer" on wikipedia we are being biased. This bias goes against WP:NPOV. Though by referring to the sport as "association football" there is no bias.--2nyte (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're heading down a dangerous path there, declaring that people on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line are biased and displaying a non-neutral POV in Wikipedia terms. For goodness sake, they're using a form of the language that's been theirs for longer than soccer has existed! When do you plan to try this line at Talk: Soccer in the United States‎? HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, that doesn't make it any less biased. "Soccer" is the definitive term for the round ball game in the United States, though in Australia it is not; here "soccer" is just a preference to many people because they are biased towards Australian rules football. On wikipedia, in an academic environment, we must remain impartial to bias, that means we must refer to the round ball game as "association football" or "football" - the unbiased terms for the sport; otherwise we are showing bias towards the other codes.--2nyte (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute bullshit. It got nothing to do with a bias towards Australian football. The way I described the language, when you asked me to, is how virtually all people use it on that other side of the Barassi Line. Soccer fans talk that way too! People who hate Aussie Rules call it football! Will you please stop blaming the AFL and it's allegedly biased fans for all this. Perhaps you can blame the bunch of blokes who first codified Aussie Rules back in 1859. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how you explain it, it's still considered bias against the round ball game. The state governing bodies of the round ball game and hundreds of clubs in Victoria, South Australia, WA, Tasmania use "football", though many other people are resisting to call it "football" because of the bias towards Australian rules football. It doesn't matter if it's been that way for 150 year, it's still bias. And we must have neutral POV, therefor we must use either "association football" or "football" when referring to the round ball game on Australian wikipedia articles.--2nyte (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make this clear. People who hate Aussie Rules call it football! You cannot, by any stretch of language or the imagination, call that a bias towards Australian football. You're talking utter nonsense, and doing your case no good at all. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, let me make this clear. In Australia if you call Australian rules football "football" and call the round ball game "soccer" knowing that round ball game has been renamed to "football" then that is bias towards Australian rules football and bias against round ball game. The same applies on wikipedia.--2nyte (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I note that football and footy are also used in the "northern" states to refer to rugby league. Hack (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 2nyte's claim that using football for the round ball game is "a change that the rest of the country has accepted" is questionable at best. The two Australian sports that have a Footy Show in their respective parts of the country are Aussie Rules and Rugby League. 2nyte's experience seems to be as a very strong and loyal fan of the round ball game. I wonder if he spends any time in rugby league circles? HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rugby union supporters also refer to their sport as football, but that usage outside rugby circles is uncommon. Hack (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that referring to either code of rugby as "football" has become uncommon outside rugby circles, though "footy" is still common in general public. This is shown through its reference in media, where "rugby league", "rugby union" or "footy" is used when referring to either code of rugby, and "football" is used when referring to association football.--2nyte (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, couldn't let this one go. I wonder if the judge who said to the court, "It may merely be a reflection of the people who go to the football..." and "Mr Holmwood is not the first person to streak at a football match..." was in "rugby league circles".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How many people who are not fans of the game, or media outlets without a financial interest in the game, refer to association football as football? Hack (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And even if 2nyte is scratching his head in confusion about the naming of Friday Night Football, the rest of the country isn't.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both rugby league and rugby union are still referred as "football" in general public, though its usage has lessened. As shown in both sources Gibson Flying V provided above, the sport is referred to as "rugby league" in the articles, and both The Daily Telegraph and Sydney Morning Herald use "football" when referring to association football if you look at their recent articles.
Also, I'm not scratching my head in confusion, I do understand the linguistics of Australia-English and our use of "football" in the various codes. I myself have referred to more than one code as "football" when speaking to different people who support different codes, its part of our culture. And don't think the name Friday Night Football has changed in the last 20 years; no reason to as the program is targeted to people in rugby league circles.--2nyte (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed more parochial ignorance on display there. Please look at Friday Night Football (Australia). HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I love how 2nyte says things like "Both rugby league and rugby union are still referred as "football" in general public, though its usage has lessened." as though it's a fact.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. What I see is that there was a campaign to change the name of "soccer" to "football", that had some success, but that has now effectively stalled. The reality of language usage (among those horribly biased people) on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line means that it really can't go much further. I wonder if the Sydney based FFA bosses realised this would happen? Their acolytes here certainly can't believe it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you lot still arguing over code naming and associated issues? This ongoing arguing without resolution is not acceptable.
It is plain to me that this article should revert immediately to a disambiguation page pointing to the various Code in Australia articles. If not, then we begin formal Wikipedia arbitration - at the very least beginning with an RFC. --Falcadore (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, back to the article itself. Does anyone have any more input on the proposed article. The input so far has been on including the social divide between rugby league and rugby union (which I can't find information on), and the opposition of using "association football" rather than "soccer". But is there any other major issue or inclusions for the proposed article? Are there any opinions on the basic structure of the article, or does anyone not like the general idea?--2nyte (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a solution in search of a problem? Why are we changing anything? HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I wanted the article to be a disambiguation page is because I thought the article did nothing to explain football codes in Australia. The article (and its current form) serves no purpose; the History section has no context, as does the Terminology and Participation sections. The Professional football, Media coverage and National teams sections should just be removed as they are just pointless dribble adding no context to the general football codes in Australia issue. My proposed article has context and direction; it gives readers a general understanding of the football landscape in Australia - the division between regions and cultures, and how popularity sways from the professional game to the amateur game. With this information readers can then take the knowledge and context to the respective code in Australia articles. I think my proposed article simplifies the important information and puts it all into context.--2nyte (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that's where we have a problem. You don't want the article to exist at all. You want it to be a disambiguation page. You also really want an article discussing "Football (anywhere)" to be about "soccer". I don't see the problems you claim about the current article. I don't think your POV on the basic existence and purpose of the article allow you to take a purely objective view. Any argument you present is really hiding other, stronger views. You haven't made a case for change. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I said I wanted (previously) for the article to be a disambiguation page as it had no value. The current one also has no value, that is why I am proposing a reworked version of it. I think I made a quite legitimate case for change in my previous comment.--2nyte (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, I guess we disagree on that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree on what? Do you think the article should remain as is? Don't you think it should be reworked as proposed?--2nyte (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty happy with the article as is. It could do with some refinement, but not a major rewrite. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, the article is a copy and paste of different wikipedia article; some sections do not have any context, other are clearly unnecessary random facts. Every bit of information on this article can be found on the individual *Football code* in Australia articles, there is no purpose of this current one, that is why I proposed a new one that give further explanation to the football culture and the divisions it creates; that should be the purpose of this article. If you disagree, can you explain what purpose this current article serves, as well as that of the History section, the Terminology, Participation, Professional football, Media coverage and the National teams sections. I think readers gain nothing from it (as I specifically said above).--2nyte (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for "Football codes in Australia" article name

Why can't we simply call this article "Football codes in Australia"? This should be able to satisfy just about everyone except, perhaps, those with a diehard POV on the issue. This is also consistent with an already existing article name of Football codes which redirects to the Football (not only "soccer") article. Afterwriting (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That name would still allow debate on the name for the round ball code. Not sure that it solves the major problem here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Football article does, however, provide some guidance on this issue and acts as something of a "model" for terminology on other articles. Afterwriting (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What gets me about "association football", a seemingly preferred name, is that it's actually a name nobody uses. I want to see a GOOD reason for using a name that nobody uses here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, although the round ball game does not have an official name, the officially recognised term for the round ball game is "association football" (as "Australian football" is regarded the official name of Australian rules football); this is due to its usage in the Laws of the Game (along with "football"), and its reference in the highest governing bodies name - FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association). In a local scope, the term "association football" appears in the Australian-English Macquarie Dictionary (generally regarded as the authoritative source of Australian English).--2nyte (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That bit about the laws of the game and about FIFA actually makes some sense. But the dictionary definition doesn't help. The Macquarie has a definition for "wogball" too, and we won't be using that. "Association football" still has the problem though that, unlike "Australian football", it's not a commonly recognised and instantly understood name for the game. "Soccer" is. HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And is that what wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) requires? A commonly recognised and instantly understood name? That is not necessarily the case. United States and Canada are the only countries that "soccer" is undoubtably, without question the name for the round ball game; any other say is just POV bias. That was also the case for Australia pre-2005, but since then there has been a case to drop the usage of "soccer" on Australian wikipedia articles. That case has only grown stronger, with major media organisations from all around the country dropping the term "soccer". Even the usage of "Real Footy" by The Age [2] (in reference to Aussie Rules) is a reminder that "football" now means something else to the general public, with The Age notable for taking a strong stance against the use of "football" for the round ball game, which is POV bias.--2nyte (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What the...? That's the weirdest interpretation of that name for "Real Footy" that I've ever heard of. The case has NOT grown stronger. I think the change has stalled. You asked me about the use of "football" on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line. I gave you a comprehensive answer (with help from others) that highlighted why "soccer" isn't going to become "football" for that half of the Australian population any time soon. You declared that the whole 11 million of us are just biased, and tried to ignore the facts. "Football" does NOT now mean something else to the general public in that area. It's wishful thinking on your part to think otherwise. Please explain how the language will change. Wikipedia uses common names. "Soccer" is the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. 04:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
1) How would you interpret the use of "Real Footy" by The Age?
2) If people refer to Australian rules football as "football" and not soccer as "football" they have POV bias. That is fact.
3) It doesn't matter if the language will or will not change, that is irrelevant. What does matter is the change that has happened, and that is a move towards the use of "football" and a dropping of "soccer" (not universally, but it has happened all through the country to some extent). That is also fact.--2nyte (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's just work on this claim of yours: If people refer to Australian rules football as "football" and not soccer as "football" they have POV bias. That is fact. If that's a bias, then every language usage difference throughout the world is a bias. Those who call the round ball game "football" just have a different bias. I'm not sure this is a helpful direction to be going. A linguistic custom based on 150 years of usage cannot be seen as a right or wrong thing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very long "bias" in Australia. The Melbourne Football Club was founded in 1859. The Victorian Football Association (now the Victorian Football League) was founded in 1877 and the Victorian Football League (renamed as the Australian Football League in 1990) was founded in 1897. And how long ago was Soccer Australia renamed to Football Federation Australia? And which code has the greatest following in Australia? On any unbiased observance the word "football" in Australia is both historically and overwhemingly commonly associated with Australian rules football. Arguments to the contrary are nonsensical. Afterwriting (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the comments below, which I made yesterday in the section above, to this section as they are more relevant here:

A few days ago on ABC Radio in Melbourne there was a discussion about the relative occurence of violence and hooliganism by supporters at various sports. It was impossible not to note that all of the callers without exception referred to "association football" as "soccer". All of the soccer / association football supporters called the game "soccer" instead of "football" and some of them even referred to Australian rules football just as "football". Whatever the situation in New South Wales and Queensland may be, this just reinforced the fact that in Melbourne and Victoria ~ and, no doubt, in most of the rest of Australia ~ "football" nearly always means "Aussie rules". Afterwriting (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2014

I don't think the article's title needs to change. Admittedly some users don't seem to get the point but consensus is pretty clear that it's fine as it is.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we always seem to go off topic. As I said from the beginning I think the title Football in Australia is ambiguous for any one code in Australia, so the page should either be a disambiguation page or a copy and paste of this article I made. The only reason to have the title Football codes in Australia is if Football in Australia is a disambiguation page. But besides that a page move would not serve any purpose--2nyte (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as Football describes the global situation of many football codes around the world, this article describes the Australian situation. It seems a perfect regional article under that global umbrella. HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just like if the discussion was held on SBS radio it would revert to the commonly understood term for its listeners football. All of these claims are a bit rich, my Italian lecturer at the university I attended without adding names so as not to bring anyone unnecessarily into this debate refers to the game primarily as football, but is quite prominent in the discussion of linguistics and has also been on ABC Radio National about it. Anyway, to come back to the point, listener audience doesn't really mean much on one channel a person interviewed may say soccer and on another channel they may say football. This does not resolve what their personal opinion is on the matter of word usage. It just means for common usage within that particular studio at the time of the discussion they use the term "soccer" to be on the same page. More broadly, the ABC's style guide would appear to be to use the word football rather than soccer in reference to the round ball game in the majority of their online, television and radio content. This cannot really be questioned.
Further to the point I did here someone in this thread bring up the weight of numbers, my loose research would suggest there is at least 3.4 million second generation "migrants" in this country who are specifically caught between two cultures here which is causing this issue we are seeing flaring up constantly here. [1] That is fairly significant if you ask me and nothing to "snore" about. We are a people with our cultural influences which is simply being ignored by those who purport the Barassi Line as the be all and end all of social divides in Australia. As I have suggested to HiLo48 he really needs to do some further reading on the matter. --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right... this is why it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with the above editor and why this articles and others like it will continue to be marred by drive by editing, meat puppetry, and weasel words.--Orestes1984 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=r_Le182bflYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA219&dq=%22francesco+ricatti%22&ots=Z4KbJATExB&sig=8zPTCe-vEOSx_gcHaGrgtP2Zs1A#v=onepage&q=%22francesco%20ricatti%22&f=false
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Football_in_Australia&oldid=599799142"