Talk:1907–08 New Zealand rugby tour of Australia and Great Britain

Article name

This article is named ".. tour of Great Britain" but in the introduction lists additional countries which also are detailed in the body text. Perhaps a re-name?--Jeff79 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Although I don't think its worth including Ceylon because one stop isn't really a "tour" there. So maybe 1907–1908 New Zealand rugby tour of Australia and Great Britain? Mattlore (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm easy. The navbox calls it the 1907-08 All Golds tour. But yeah, either way. I'll let you decide what's best.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

All Blacks

Throughout this article the touring New Zealand side is referred to as the "All Blacks". Just curious about this aspect of it as well as the RU life bans being issued to all members. Are we to understand that the team left New Zealand as the officially sanctioned national rugby union team, the bona fide "All Blacks", and were subsequently stripped of their membership to the union, leaving the NZRU to later create a brand new National team from scratch? If so, the All Blacks article conveniently leaves any mention of this out. Or did they leave New Zealand already as an alternative national rugby side, while the "real" RU All Blacks stayed home? If this is the case, I think perhaps use of the term "All Blacks" should be qualified by a word such as 'rebel', 'alternative' or 'professional', as it could cause further confusion among readers the way it is.--Jeff79 (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as the "name" section says, they were called the All Blacks by the press at the time and so that is what I have used in the article. They were not a NZRU sanctioned side but the NZRU did not own the name at the time, they only pressured the NZRFL to stop using it in the 1920s-30s and Im not sure when it became a registered trademark. RU life bans were common as mud at the time to anyone who played a professional sport or accepted payment for playing union. I think the article is okay because the name section addresses the point and the article also talks about the NZRU being opposed. Mattlore (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they were referred to as the All Blacks (this continued until they were taken to court in the 1920s), but having read the article I found use of the name very confusing. The name is used when referring to both the professional All Blacks and the NZRU sanctioned All Blacks — I'd hate to think how confusing it would be to someone knew to the subject. Considering now the team is almost universally referred to as the Kiwis, and the union team almost universally referred to as the All Blacks, it makes the article very confusing. Should consider changing it to something less confusing. - Shudde ^talk 06:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've been through the article and removed any uses of All Blacks to refer to the rugby union team. Mattlore (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, still not sure this is a good solution. I just think the term All Blacks should be avoided. Reading this today, many people are going to find the referral of the team as the All Blacks to imply they are the NZRU sanctioned rugby union side. While contemporary accounts may have frequently referred to them as All Blacks, readers are not from 1907, they are from 2013 — might be best to find another less confusing way to distinguish between the NZRU santioned team, and the Baskiville conceived team. Especially considering the later also played many rugby union matches, using union and league as identifiers may not be appropriate either. I'm not sure what best solution is. - Shudde ^talk 07:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there is always going to be some confusion - because at the time there weren't clear distinctions between rugby union and what is now called rugby league - and in New Zealand it wasn't even a split over professional vs amateur like it was in Britain as the team didn't consider themselves as professionals. I think with the bold names in the intro of the article and the section on naming that it probably does the best it can. Mattlore (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I would argue is is far from the 'best' that can be done (hence my original comment I suppose). Like I said above, I agree that at the time the term "All Blacks" was ambiguous, but today the term unambiguously refers to the national rugby union side, and this could cause a lot of confusion. Even with the name section, and info in the lead, it's simply an unnecessarily confusing name to use for the team; also remember that people don't always read the article start to finish. I would argue that the team is commonly known as the All Golds today — even though they weren't at the time, and even though the name was originally meant as a joke. The term All Golds is certainly very relevant today, and has definitely lost the negative connotations it may have had a hundred years ago; this is why they named the centenary team the All Golds! My idea, which I believe is the best of a bad lot, is to refer to the team as All Golds to avoid any confusion and improve readability. I mean if Jeff79 found the term All Blacks confusing (being an editor experienced in rugby league articles), how is lay reader supposed to go?! - Shudde ^talk 10:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think losing the terminology that was being used at the time would be regrettable. Calling this team the "All Blacks" should be fine if the context makes it clear that the subject of this article (and not another) is what's being referred to. If not, qalifying the term along the lines of "rebel All Blacks" or "Baskiville's All Blacks" could be helpful too.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"I think losing the terminology that was being used at the time would be regrettable" -- I don't quite understand this? The terminology has been lost (the team are known as the Kiwis, not All Blacks, and have been for 80+ years). Unfortunately it is not clear from context (see comments above) frequently within the article what team All Blacks is referring to, and I have a lot of sympathy for lay readers because of this. Using '"rebel All Blacks" or "Baskiville's All Blacks"' is not going to clarify things in my opinion, and nothing in the Name section suggests they were or are called either of those names (we should avoid WP:OR here). All Golds on the other hand has been used, and is still used today (hence 2007 All Golds Tour). So I'll repeat my first question, what is wrong with using All Golds? It's clearly been appropriated by the NZRL, league writers, reporters, and fans, so why are we not doing the same? -- Shudde ^talk 01:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you. I meant usage of the terminology in this article (hence being on this take page). --Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

How many people reading this article are going to think All Blacks refers to New Zealand national rugby union team? A lot. Many will think that this team and the All Blacks are one and the same, when they are not. So tell me again why we should use the term? Other than to sound like people from 1907 that is (this seems to be the only rationale given – a terrible one). Great Britain was also called "Home" by writers of the time, are we going to do that in the article as well? Of course not, because it's confusing and pointless, even if it was commonly used in 1907. -- Shudde ^talk 03:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just given the article a proof-read and noticed that the side was being referred to as the All Blacks almost exclusively. This is simply bad prose, so I have varied the naming of the team throughout the article so it reads better. I suspect this is what was bothering Shudde in the first place and I hope this has addressed his concerns.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Implementing an exclusive use of All Blacks for the Baskerville side was actually made after Jeff79 and myself expressed dissatisfaction with the confusion caused by using All Blacks within the article (see the conversation above). Those changes did not reduce confusion in the article, and your changes have not fixed it. What I'm finding frustrating about this problem is that I've proposed a solution, but rather than explaining why my proposal is inferior to the status quo, Mattlore has simply disengaged. What is not bothering me is "bad prose", it is confusing prose. I'd rather have dull and nonengaging prose that is clear over brilliant prose that is confusing. Like I said above "Many will think that this team and the All Blacks are one and the same, when they are not" -- we can avoid this if we wish. Other encyclopadia's use the name All Golds (see [1]), and Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand even says on it's section on the side (titled "All Golds") The name referred to the players being paid, but it came to hold a proud place in New Zealand sporting folklore. [2] This is what I said above (although I didn't provide a reference). So I ask again, why are we not using this name? -- Shudde ^talk 07:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

(Disclosure: Jeff79 is my old username) The term All Golds is used (no fewer than 20 times). I suspect that maybe what you really want is for the use of All Blacks to be completely expunged from this article. Personally I think that is unacceptable for obvious reasons. So I think it's time to get specific. Could you please quote the specific instances of All Blacks' usage that you still find confusing?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope that's not an accusation of bad faith. Can you provide a diff where I propose that "the use of All Blacks to be completely expunged from this article"? I'm not disputing that the name All Blacks was used to refer to this team at the time. I'm saying that today it's used exclusively for the national rugby union side, and that readers will be understandably confused by it's use within the article. Just as an example The All Blacks won the match against Ceylon 33-8.[3] As a result of this match the New Zealand rugby union side declined to play the Ceylonese on the return leg of their tour, deeming that Ceylon had forfeited their amateur status by playing against Baskerville's men. Now it's quite possible that someone will read this section without reading the lead, or Name section. Exactly how is this a wise way to phrase this? The All Blacks are not the New Zealand national rugby union team, they're another side? Why are we expecting the average reader to have to decipher this? I'm quite confused as to why this idea is seeing such opposition, a name is being used for one thing, that today exclusively means something different. What makes that worse is that there are are at least three names (New Zealand, All Golds, Baskerville's side/team) that could be used, in nearly any context, and understood unambiguously by someone with only passing familiarity in this topic. You're insisting on ambiguity for no good reason. -- Shudde ^talk 09:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, so do we agree that in historical articles such as this, contemporaneous terminology usage should be included? Is our only point of difference then the extent to which that terminology is used? Regarding the passage you quoted: it's the opening of the 1907 in England section and now reads:

While on the long sea voyage from Australia, the men tried to keep fit by training on the deck. During a stop over in Ceylon the team was challenged to a game by the Ceylon rugby union. The All Blacks won the match against Ceylon 33-8. As a result of this match the rugby union New Zealand side declined to play the Ceylonese on the return leg of their tour, deeming that Ceylon had forfeited their amateur status by playing against Baskerville's men.

I think the only way a reader can be confused about this now is if they already thought that "the men" and "the team" referred to in the first two sentences were in fact the rugby union team. That seems unlikely in my opinion. Although I think that the last sentence would benefit from the year being inserted within "their tour" and then wikilinked.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "contemporaneous terminology" should be used for it's own sake. This seems to be the case here. It was also common to use the term football for rugby union or rugby league. But that is likely to cause confusion as well -- so it is generally avoided. I also never use "contemporaneous terminology" if the meaning has changed between then and now -- I want readers to understand articles I contribute to. I disagree over the interpretation of that passage -- it could be misunderstood -- and regardless, it is going to be much harder to understand compared to if All Blacks is omitted entirely. The only argument you seem to be making is that we should use All Blacks for the All Golds because people in 1907 did. Is that right? If that's true, then it's a very weak one. -- Shudde ^talk 23:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the use of terminology is pretty clearly explained in the introduction, and then subsequently in its own section. Taking that into account I don't see how any confusion can occur. Mattlore (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

We could hardly agree less about using football to describe rugby. And you seem to acknowledge that there were two New Zealand rugby teams knocking about in the early 20th Century called the All Blacks. What's wrong with that information being conveyed to readers? I think your "confusion" argument is the weaker. But that's just my opinion. Perhaps I overestimate Wikipedia's readers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This conversation is getting a little recursive. And you're simply not responding to the points I have made. "I think the use of terminology is pretty clearly explained in the introduction, and then subsequently in its own section. Taking that into account I don't see how any confusion can occur." -- Mattlore, you're assuming they'll read it! Again, no one has said why All Golds would be unacceptable, you both seem to be either missing that, or ignoring it. The fact is, to everyone today, All Blacks refers to the rugby union side -- the NZRU even trademarked the name -- why you both think it should mean something different in this one article to the readers does surprise me. Readers aren't going to see it as a name that has different meanings in different contexts – 99% of people would have no idea that All Blacks was used to describe the league side (before they were taken to court). The New Zealand Cavaliers were also called "All Blacks" within South Africa -- no doubt also for marketing purposes -- but they weren't, and no one would now describe them as such (that is much the same situation as here). I'm going to disengage here, my points just aren't being responded to. There seems to be no movement, and I'm not going to spend the time trying to improve and article if we can't agree on something so fundamental. It would be interesting to see how this article would go at FAC, just on prose alone, my feeling is it would quite rightly ripped apart. I do wish good luck to you both, but you're going to have to work on this article without me. – Shudde ^talk 02:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the reason why "no one has said why All Golds would be unacceptable" is because everyone agrees that it is perfectly acceptable and is (as I've already said) used repeatedly in the article, as it is in published sources. Sources also use "professional All Blacks" and just "All Blacks", and they're used in the article too. I've already suggested that we only differ on the extent of these different terms' usage. You seemed to back away from the suggestion that you want "All Blacks"'s usage completely removed from this article, and I thought we were getting somewhere when we started looking at specific instances of its use that could be ambiguous to readers. I think I've already shown how I agree that if the use of the term "All Blacks" in this article could result in confusion, then it should be re-worded. I just don't agree that its usage should be shied away from or covered up or whatever. "99% of people would have no idea that All Blacks was used to describe the league side (before they were taken to court)." Ok. So as an encyclopedia do we reinforce this ignorance or try to fix it?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Phantoms

Apparently, Phantoms was also a name used often for the team by people in Britain due to a snide comment by C Wray Palliser. Small bit on p229 of http://books.google.com/books?id=Dfyovsrc2OsC Search for the term "Phantoms". LunarLander // talk // 16:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/matches/Wales_vs_New_Zealand_1908/Wales-vs-New_Zealand.html
  • In 1907–1908 New Zealand rugby tour of Australia and Great Britain on 2011-05-25 02:37:23, 404 Not Found
  • In 1907–1908 New Zealand rugby tour of Australia and Great Britain on 2011-06-02 02:15:30, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bot, the link has been moved to http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/matches/All_Blacks_Tour_1907/Game_29/Wales-vs-New_Zealand.html

Opening picture

Not very clear, but would go well at the top of this article [3]. What do you think? --Jeff79 (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The heart of the English Rugby Union

The 1907 in England section reads: "The team stayed the night in London, where the Northern Union officials introduced the side to the press - right in the heart of the English Rugby Union." I'm not sure what this means as the English Rugby Union presumably doesn;t have a heart. Can it be re-worded so that it's clearer?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)