Talk:Australia men's national soccer team/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

POV tag

2nyte removed the POV tag in this edit despite ongoing talk page discussions about the article neutrality. This is still in dispute. 2nyte should work towards addressing the neutrality first. --LauraHale (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we can consider all discussions regarding POV, UNDUE, PRIMARYTOPIC and the rest closed now. For the love of god, just drop it, please. – PeeJay 20:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Peejay, that's a particularly unhelpful post. We know you disagree. But you must be willing to constructively discuss matters. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I did constructively discuss matters in the above RM. That discussion has been closed, and all related topics with it. To raise this issue less than 24 hours after the RM was closed yet again smacks of WP:POINT. "I can't have my own way regarding the article title, so now I'm going to complain about the content of the article, and if I still can't have my own way I'm going to kick and scream and hold my breath until I'm sick". Is that not what this has effectively descended into and what WP:POINT was specifically introduced to try to avoid? – PeeJay 23:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, unfortunately true. The PM discussion was closed as 'no consensus' and the Dispute Resolution advice was to take the general matter to a different forum (though I don't think they suggested where exactly). It is all getting stupid, though not the first time LauraHale has tried to change the subject of the article. The subject of the article is the men's football team. There are means of emphasising this fact to avoid confusion, but off topic to write lengthy descriptions of the Matildas. The POV is being pushed by LauraHale. Sionk (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I should note that I did add in an alternate version, one that mentioned the women's team in a little detail, but made it clear that they were seperate entities; not some sort of half-baked lead that mislead the reader. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's only those who don't want change who are taking this issue all over Wikipedia in the hope of delaying and ultimately preventing change. It would be far more polite if you could actually discuss the positives and/or negatives right where they are first raised, rather than insisting that they be discussed somewhere else. The changes are either the right thing to do, or they're not. Avoiding discussing them is just going to strengthen the will and ultimately the arguments of those seeking change. Saying the discussion is closed is ridiculous. Maybe you can tell that to those want soccer to be called football in Australian articles. Tell them they must never raise the issue again. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you please stop putting "LOL" at the end of every statement? It's incredibly disdainful and bordering on incivility, for which I am very inclined to report you. Furthermore, I did not say the arguments should never be raised again; what I said was that it is particularly POINTY to raise them so soon after the RM discussion was closed. The positives and negatives have been debated, yet again we have arrived at no consensus, and still Laura continues to ignore the advice to start a discussion in a more appropriate forum – whether that is WP:FOOTY or a broader venue I do not know, but to discuss such a wide-reaching topic on the talk page of just one of the articles it affects is ludicrous. – PeeJay 00:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Report me? For that? LOL! You only commented on part of my post. Was the other bit too hard? HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If you won't contribute constructively, I refuse to continue with this discussion. In parting, I will say you are right that either the changes are the right thing to do or they're not, but not on a case-by-case basis. I don't think anyone who opposed the RMs above ever said this shouldn't be discussed, only that this is not the appropriate venue. And with that, I believe you can kindly go to hell. LOL. – PeeJay 00:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have not proven your point, I just kicked your point in the teeth and rubbed its face in the mud. No one is telling you to stop raising the issues at all, just raise them in an appropriate forum. Christ, it's like talking to a child! – PeeJay 01:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And to clarify, it's not like we're dealing with someone here who simply didn't know about the previous discussions; Laura was the instigator of the last RM on this topic and was told two years ago to raise it in a more appropriate forum. Instead, she raised it in the same place, knowing full well what recommendation she'd been given last time. All she needed to do was type in WT:FOOTY or WT:SPORTS to her search bar and raise the issues there, but no, she decided to post here. I understand why she did it – it's easier to pick off one particularly weak target article and use it as precedent for a bigger strike – but it was wrong the first time and it's wrong now. – PeeJay 01:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

What about the POV tag on the 1000's of national team articles without "men's" in the title, and not just Australian articles. Ignorance is no longer an issue. LauraHale, move your discussion to a more appropriate forum. This one has ended and there is no need whatsoever for it to continue here.--2nyte (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious that in the eyes of both of you the only appropriate forums are those where there's no chance of this change happening in the next 5,000 years. You don't want this discussion to have a chance in hell of succeeding. That's not good faith behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@HiLo48:, ArbCom has repeatedly ruled that Wikiprojects do not have the ultimate say over these issues. There is ample precedent for this involving Birds, Classical Music and US Roads. Any call to take this to Wikiproject Soccer should acknowledge that any decision the Wikiproject makes is non-binding and subject to local consensus. Seeking to enforce project policy and silence attempts to develop local consensus is a sure path to ArbCom, which I am sure is something everyone wants to avoid. It isn't pretty. It isn't nice. Worse yet, ArbCom has a tendency to slap at all parties involved so even when you're right, you're wrong. --LauraHale (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You are tip toeing around the problem and considering the scale of the outcome it's not appropriate to do so. Everyone can see it but you. Ignoring it just seems poor on your part. England national football team, Australia national cricket team and Australia international rules football team are just 3 examples out of the 1000's. If you have any good intentions then end this discussion now and move your discussion to a more appropriate forum.--2nyte (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious that in your eyes the only appropriate forums are those where there's no chance of this change happening in the next 5,000 years. You don't want this discussion to have a chance in hell of succeeding. That's not good faith behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Now who's assuming bad faith? I have faith in the system Wikipedia has in place to do the right thing, which will be arrived at by consensus. If you don't believe Wikipedians as a whole have the ability to make the right decision, then perhaps now would be a good time for you to retire from editing. And Laura, I'm not saying that the WikiProject should have the ultimate say, I'm saying that the WikiProject is the appropriate place to discuss changes that affect a lot of articles that are important to that WikiProject. If you want, we can discuss it at an even more central venue? Perhaps WT:NC? I don't think anyone there has any particular ties to either WP:FOOTY, WP:SPORTS, or WP:WMNSPORT. Would that be acceptable to you? Either way, as I and others have said on umpteen occasions, the talk page of a single article is not the right place to discuss a topic that could affect hundreds of articles. – PeeJay 10:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Could affect...? Doesn't have to. No evidence that it must. That's just a copout to avoid changing it here. And no, I don't believe the conservative supporters of one sport of the lower socio-economic parts of world society would collectively have an open enough mind to make a rapid, sensible decision. And that's exactly how you want them to be. It's not bad faith. It's reality. But it's unnecessary anyway. Changing this article does not force a change in all others. Even then, maybe it should. Change always starts somewhere, as scary to you as it might seem. HiLo48 (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There you go, assuming bad faith again. You can mask it as "reality", but reality is different to different people. And how can you ask for a change here and not ask for it in others? It's not "one rule for Australia, another for the rest of the world", but then that would play into your persecution complex, which I suppose makes it all the more convenient for you to believe. You can call me narrow-minded, but it's all or nothing; if it's right here, it's right everywhere else, and there's no point working one article at a time, hence my desire to bring this discussion to a central forum. – PeeJay 10:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be open to an RfC on this topic coming from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for all national team articles for all sports where they are gender segregated by rule. (Football, basketball, goalball, rugby union, cricket, etc.) The Wikiproject is best placed to address the issues involved here on a wider level as that is its purpose, and it doesn't have the inherent geography/sport conflict that either the Australian Wikiproject would have, the Australian sport taskforce would have, or the Australian soccer taskforce would have. It would be a good compromise location. --LauraHale (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's leave any aspect of geography out of this completely. I've said repeatedly that this is a global issue, hence why it shouldn't have been brought up (repeatedly) on the Australian football team's page. An RfC would be fine from WikiProject Countering systemic bias, but as has been pointed out, WikiProjects do not have the ultimate say on these matters. Take it to WT:NC and you would have my attention. – PeeJay 10:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the last this general issue was brought up (and shouted down by WP:FOOTY drones) the wreckers sneered that other cases should be brought up on a case by case basis. That happens and now it's branded "piecemeal change by stealth" or some nonsense!? We all know the real reason and this overt bigotry is dragging the name of Wikipedia through the mud. The entire project is in the morass because, bluntly, we need far more LauraHale's and far, far fewer of you guys. Clavdia chauchat (talk)

Peejay - you have neither policy nor logic behind your perpetual bleating that every soccer fan in the world must completely agree before we can add one word to the title of the Australian men's article. (See, it's only a tiny word.) You do have a lot of psychological and emotional baggage though. Constantly but unjustifiably saying the same conservative thing without sound reason won't convince any open minded person that you're right. In fact, quite the contrary. you begin to look like an unthinking fool. Soccer doesn't own Wikipedia. It doesn't own Australian articles. It doesn't even own all the soccer articles in Wikipedia. Look around, it's an exciting, diverse world out there. We Australians can be brave and choose to lead the soccer world, and not just be sheep. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

In response to the comments above, "overt bigotry" has nothing to do with it. It's just clearly a fact that the men's national team is the primary topic. Having looked at the media coverage of football yesterday in Australia, the football section of the Sydney Morning Herald has around 50 news stories on football, including several about the men's national team but just two about the women's game (and neither about the national team). That appeared to have been a good day, as today there are no stories. The Australian had around 30 stories of which not a single one was about women's football. It was a similar story in the Herald Sun. If women's football were of equal standing in Australia, how could this be the case?

Furthermore, if we look internally at Wikipedia page views, last month the men's team article had 39,476 views and the women's had just 3,081 (just 7% of the total of the two). With these stats, how could anyone possibly consider that this article's title requires further disambiguation? Number 57 20:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I argue that it needs less. We could eliminate that ugly, verbiose sentence at the top - "This article is about the men's team. For the women's team, see Australia women's national association football team." - simply by adding the tiny word "men's" to the title. It would solve all our problems, and hurt nobody. But of course that would require agreement from an obscure, random bunch of non-Australian soccer fans to change all 2 million soccer articles in all of Wikipedia. I hope all intelligent readers can see how silly the demand in that last sentence is. HiLo48 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

But you're not arguing that it needs less, because this discussion is about this article's title, and you are proposing adding an extra word to it, which is more disambiguation, not less. I'm also not sure why you feel the need to demean any point of view opposing yours (claiming it's "silly" and inferring that only unintelligent people would agree with it) - unfortunately the main thing this debate seems to have done is to showcase how not to debate in a rational manner. One question I need answering is why the men's and women's teams need equal standing on Wikipedia when they clearly don't have it in real life. Aside from it's mission to provide free information, Wikipedia is not an activist entity - we reflect real life, not seek to influence it. Number 57 22:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Equal standing? Why is that even relevant? WP:TITLE, a WP POLICY, explicitly states (w/ emphasis added), "An article title is the large Level 1 heading displayed above each article's contents. The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." The team refers to itself as the Socceroos, the "Australia's National Men's Football Team" 1. Your argument/question appears to be focused on something else with disregard to Wikipedia policy. Hmlarson (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's focussed on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. WP:TITLE in no way requires the addition of "men's" to this title, as the current title clearly distinguishes it sifficiently. Number 57 08:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggested move discussion #2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. Pardon my cynicism but this has, quite predictably, simply been a repetition of the previous RM with more participants. If I've overlooked any dynamite arguments strong enough to break the deadlock, please let me know. Again, I recommend supporters try to take this up at a neutral venue, since some of the opposing editors largely support their views but don't want this article alone moved. Tag it as an RFC and hold it at WT:FOOTY or another location not specific to one article.

Two no consensus outcomes certainly doesn't mean a settled discussion, but I hope we can all agree that raising the issue for this article again within the next few months ventures firmly into WP:IDHT territory. --BDD (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Because the previous discussion about a proposed move ended in no consensus, I am starting a new discussion and opening it up to more editors. The original proposal was to move Australia national association football team → Australia men's national association football team which resulted in 10 comments in support and 9 in opposition: a pretty even split as the closing admin noted. Those in support generally argue that without "men's" included in the title, the article represents WP:BIAS and does not reflect WP:NPOV as there is a Australia women's national association football team as well. Arguments opposing the proposition generally state that the men's team is more prominent than the women's team and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to the current title of the article.

Question: Should Australia national association football team be moved to Australia men's national association football team?

Add support or oppose in the survey section below with a brief summary of your opinion. Add any threaded comments to the Threaded discussion section below the survey responses (per the examples provided here). Hmlarson (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. Encyclopedic and in line with WP:TITLE and WP:NPOV policies as well as WP:CATGENDER guideline as mentioned in discussion below. See also United States men's national soccer team. Hmlarson (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC) (modified 03:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC))
• Conditional support - should be Australia men's national soccer team per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TIES. Hack (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• • Oppose – Inappropriately local for an international article conciousness change.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • At an international level, I would Support – As User:Hmlarson, plus make Australia national association football team a disambiguation page.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per consensus of other national football team pages (expanding in section below). --SuperJew (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, given little evidence provided in the previous discussion that the two national teams are of equal standing, per WP:NPOV (proportionate) and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Again. Frankly this move request is disruptive, even if it is done in good faith; the filer has completely ignored the fact that the previous move request AND the DRN thread specifically said that this needs to go to a higher level, and be a more general RfC. This is neither of those things; inviting more editors doesn't make any difference to the fact it is exactly the same move request, based on exactly the same arguments, almost immediately after the other one failed. And the fact of the matter is it is still standard procedure to list a large amount of articles in this way, be them part of the Australian WikiProject (the rugby union and cricket teams), the Football WikiProject (of which the vast majority of articles are named in this way), or globally. Plus, it's still fairly likely that the men's team is the primary topic, regardless of any specifics in world ranking, or whatever; the women's game simply gets far less attention, rightly or wrongly (having just written three articles on Australian women who play for the international team, I can testify to how few sources there are for a lot of the international scene, and those that are around are often women's football only, or primary sources). For goodness sake, please take this to the more global discussion that needs to occur. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. - this makes perfect sense to me. Also, per WP:NPOV and WP:TITLE - Alison ^❤ 07:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NPOV. The current title is in no way a violation of NPOV - disambiguating the articles that are not the primary topic is not not neutral (or is having Boston and Boston, Lincolnshire an NPOV violation?). We don't need the word "women's" in England national netball team for example, as the women's team is clearly the primary topic. And in response to comments below claiming that the women's team is the primary topic, please see the stats in the section above from the Australian media (<2% of football stories in the three newspapers were about women's football two days ago, and yesterday it was 0%). Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reality, not to promote equality where it doesn't exist - doing so would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV (from which no-one seems to be mentioning the requirement to be proportionate in how we represent things) and WP:UNDUE. Number 57 07:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support: WP:NPOV offers no rationale for they the 59th ranked, can barely qualify for the men's world cup team that is mostly currently known in the media for their failures should be treated as inherently superior than the women's team. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is clearly the women's team because otherwise, it creates a false equivilance between the men's team who suck and the women's team who are ranked 8th in the world, are known for their success on the pitch, and their professionalism off of it. As someone extensively read it Australian sport, I can testify to the huge numbers of sources who acknowledge this, and acknowledge that Australia has two senior national teams. WP:NPOV insists on genderizing this team for neutrality's sake. FIFA says the game is segregated by sport. FIFA, FFA, ASC, AOC and others acknowledge Australia has two teams. SBS, ABC and an abundance of national media inside Australia acknowledge two national teams. WP:V should trump here. Anything that does not involve genderizing this article title is about enshrining WP:SYSTEMICBIAS into English Wikipedia, reflects badly on the proponents of WP:FOOTY as it offers the media narrative that the Wikiproject is run by a bunch of sexists, and the current name discourages female participation by suggesting they are second class citizens. We as editors should be working with the Wikimedia Foundation on its goals to increase participation, not working against the foundation against their current plans. --LauraHale (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support, potentially under a variation of the name like mentioned in one of comments above...
  --Gryllida (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - there is no evidence that the Australian womens team is anywhere near as recognised as the mens team as being the national side. FIFA rankings are irrelevant to public notability and recognition. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Based on coverage in the media, the men's team is clearly the primary topic and therefore has the right to use the title "Australia national association football team". As has been pointed out above, to suggest equality between the two teams by gender-qualifying both of them would be a misrepresentation of the facts and introduce a non-neutral point of view, rather than removing one. – PeeJay 12:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - while I fully support the US/Canada examples (because men's and women's national soccer teams are equally footed in those countries), there is no evidence that the same claim can be made for Australia. As far as I can see, the men's team is the PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 12:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Things like PRIMARYTOPIC are means to an end; they're about enhancing the reader experience. What is the reader experience here? Honestly, the practice of listing the national men's team under 'national team' while relegating the women's team to a listing under 'national women's team' is a classic example of glaring sexism; what are readers going to think? Are they going to think, "oh, how convenient, I've been taken to the article I'm most likely to want"? Probably not, because even to people completely insensitive to the sexism, that's not going to be a particuarly strong effect. Those who have any conscious reaction at all to this choice of listing —and evidently there will be a good many people with this reaction— will think, "oh, typical sexism from a boys club". If you're cold-blooded enough to not care about sexism at all, you should be appalled by what the latter reaction does to Wikipedia's ability to succeed as a social movement. --Pi zero (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE. And what Pi Zero said regarding WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 20:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - We had Great Britain women's Olympic football team playing in the Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament. Ok. Who entered the Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament? Great Britain Olympic football team!! Ludicrous. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose at this level (as per primary topic), although that could change at a broader level. The arguments for supporting, compelling as they may be, appear out of place for such a specific, small-scale article discussion as this. The arguments for opposing are better suited to this forum.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• I support this, for the simple and obvious reason that the women's team is massively more significant in this instance. The oly argument against seems to be consistency. That, in my view, is insufficient. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - per GS, I don't think it is possible to make blanket decisions on this, For the US the men's and womens team's are on an equal footing, in countries such as Australia they are not. Fenix down (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Women's team is a minor sporting team made up of in many case, semi-pro or even amateur players. That isn't sexism or bias, it's merely the way the world works. Leave the page the way it is. Citing examples from the United States for any football related issues is not appropriate, they are one of the few countries that views football outside the existing worldview of the sport. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is absolutely a neutrality issue, which trumps guidelines like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and editors' personal preferences and opinions. The primary topic argument is irrelevant here anyway, due to the fact that "Australia national association football team" is not a common name, it's a descriptive name. The common name for this subject would actually be "Socceroos", "Australia", "Australian soccer/football team"; etc. Descriptive names must be neutral, and further, they need to adequately distinguish the article from other ambiguous ones. The women's team is clearly something that could be called "Australia national association football team", and is quite notable. It performs more strongly in its field than the men's team, draws pretty strong attendance at home and abroad,[1], and coverage is plentiful in the sources.[2] Simply adding "men's" does absolutely no harm to this article and it solves a pressing neutrality issue. In closing this RfC, this neutrality issue needs to be accounted for.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have been following this discussion and the previous RM closely and was of the impression in Australia, the coverage of association football are fairly equal between genders, like it is in the US and Canada, and that it was reasonable to move the men's team article. However, the oppose-arguments that the men's team are primary topic cannot be ignored, especially when the women's team's last match wasn't televised. When discussing disambiguated titles, we should also see what our readers are looking for, and even if every readers of the women's article first entered the men's article, the article about the men's team still have 12 times as many page-views as the women's team between September and November 2013 (109,563 vs 8,151). Wikipedia should reflect how the world is, not how we want it to be, and when the men's team is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC we shouldn't move the article to a disambiguated title per WP:TWODABS. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I think the two articles should be Australia men's national soccer team and Australia women's national soccer team, or similar, as it is Soccer in Australia, and we have United States men's national soccer team, another country where the word is "soccer" in the local English dialect. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – football is not a gender-equal sport, like, for example, tennis. There is much more interest, money and competition in the men's game. The women's game only has a handful of professional leagues around the world. Trying to promote gender equality through Wikipedia when it doesn't really exist is introducing a NPOV approach. As others have noted here, this is probably not the best place for this discussion, which may be taken to a higher level, but if you counted references off-Wiki to the national association football / soccer team, you would find the bulk of the coverage is for the men's game. This is unlikely to change. C679 18:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support The NPOV policy requires us to cover each aspect of a subject "with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." There is nothing in the policy that requires us to reflect the systemic bias of sources. Our articles are not required to reflect the racism, sexism, etc of many sources. These teams are of similar significance (perhaps the women's team is more significant, given that it's been much more successful). Treating them otherwise is a clear example of systemic bias reflecting the sexism that pervades coverage of sports. Neljack (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

And neither of these names can claim to be the WP:COMMONNAME - that would be "the Socceroos" or (in context) just "Australia". WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply here. On the significance aspect of PRIMARYTOPIC I refer to my arguments above. On the usage aspect, this isn't very applicable to a descriptive name that people are unlikely to type in and, in any case, there's no need to resort to it when there is an easy disambiguater available in the form of "men's" and "women's". Also the proposed title better accords with the preciseness criterion in WP:AT, by clearly distinguishing the men's and women's teams in the titles. Neljack (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Hmlarson and Pi zero. It's rather shameful to see people focusing the argument that this article is a primary topic due to all the online press it gets, but doing so is just cherry picking to keep something that really should've been moved to more of a neutral title long ago. The men's team may get more online published press of late due to the many issues it currently has (the poor draw for the World Cup) and had in the past (in fighting and the sacking of the coach), while the women's team has not had much media (though SBS gives a little more coverage than any other media source) due to the fact its much more stable (but still has its "issues" like any other team). Though it would be interesting to see the press the women's team gets, that doesn't get published online. If we were to use the common name argument, it should be Socceroos but it would suit the naming style we have for other related articles, I've never seen a media outlet ever use "Australia national association football team" to refer to the Socceroos. Bidgee (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Having worked in sports information previously, many (note: not all) teams showcase their women's teams by putting "Lady" in front of the mascot name. For example, it's the "Tennessee Volunteers" and the women are referenced as "Lady Vols." It's fairly typical to have the men's team be regarded as the national squad. That being said, I could see/justify a move to have all national teams have men's and women's because if you're searching for one or the other, you're probably typing in "men's" or "women's" in your search phrase.
  I see both sides of the WP:NPOV, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument, mainly because this speaks more to the overall hierarchy of sports. Fair or not, that's the reality we face these days...the real question seems to be, how is Wikipedia supposed to reflect it (if at all?) GRUcrule (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to add, came here via RfC invite. Apologies for any possible confusion. GRUcrule (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support as according to http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Australia%20men%27s%20national%20association%20football%20team versus http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Australia%20women%27s%20national%20association%20football%20team the womans team is the primary topic with page visits of 726 to 8,196 in the last 90 days. As far as the count on http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Australia%20national%20association%20football%20team being 113,882 at the time that I looked, there is no way to say for sure that those visits were in search of the men's or women's team unless the change proposed here succeeds (I think it will be another no consensus) and I believe should be considered neutral (as I am doing so). Technical 13 (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • "Australia men's national association football team" is a redirect with no incoming links from the article space, so I don't think the stats for that page have any meaning. I would have expected the women's total to be at least 50% of this article's total if more people were actually looking for it, as they would have clicked through from the hatnote, yet it's just 7% (and that assumes all viewers get here by typing in the article title - I would imagine a significant proportion get here by clicking on links in other related articles. Number 57 07:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support move per Hmlarson. -sche (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. To be honest, I welcome a new RfC that doesn't quickly resort to rudeness and name-calling. But this issue is a general one which applies to the disambiguation and naming of all sports team articles where mens and womens teams exist. I'm not convinced the Australia national football teams' statuses are particularly different from almost all other national football teams. Generally Wikipedia bases WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on ...erm ...brand recognition (for want of a better phrase). There's no evidence to suggest the Australia women's football team has anywhere near the same support, sponsorship, media coverage etc. as the long-established men's team (I understand the recent womens international match did not get TV coverage). In this case, like most other national football teams, the men's team is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on the commonly used methods of disambiguation used by Wikipedia.

All that being said, I would consider supporting a general Wikipedia policy to disambiguate sports teams in a less contentious way. The current method clearly upsets several valuable editors and if a general change of policy encourages women editors to become involved, that can only be a good thing. But that discussion needs to be had in a more general forum. Sionk (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is no individual case where this specific article would need to be move to a gender specific article, the men's team is primary topic and the hatnote clearly differentiates this team from the women's team. Unless there is a general consensus (at a larger venue) where all primary topic national team articles should be moved to a gender specific article, then there is no point on discussing this individual matter.--2nyte (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I believe "men's" is implied. Doesn't need to be in the title.Simione001 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Quoting the OP "the article represents WP:BIAS and does not reflect WP:NPOV". Doesn't the hatnote remove bias, giving a NPOV? The hatnote is an addition to the title.--2nyte (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The hatnote merely mitigates bias, not removing it.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but isn't the 'bias' justified as it is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Very rarely (outside United States) do you hear the men's game referred to as 'men's football', though on almost every occasion you hear the women's game referred to as 'women's football'. The sport is predominately a men's game, this following through to the national teams. Similarly, netball is predominately a women's game, this following through to the national teams with Australia national netball team and United States national netball team not adding gender to the title and not even mentioning in the article text that both teams are women's teams.--2nyte (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey 2nyte, WP:V? Netball is by rule only open to women. The IOC does not recognise an international federation for netball that includes both genders. This lack of recognition means ASC and other Australian sporting bodies give it to funding. It means men cannot play in matches sanctioned by netball's highest governing body. (Further, if you've looked at court cases regarding this, you'd see that courts have ruled men cannot play on women's netball teams. Interesting read Australia's historical litigation regarding gender separation in sport.) Your argument doesn't cut the mustard. Australia has about 300,000 youth male soccer players. It has about 250,000 female ones. FIFA recognises both genders. Your argument actually SUPPORTS putting men in the name because FIFA segregates by gender. You on the other hand have been systematically removing women. The stuff in Soccer in Australia was sexist beyond belief. You removed women from Australia's soccer narrative. You removed them. The sources out there characterize much of the early game as being ethnic, homosexual or female in terms of supporters. That was historically why soccer had a hard time gaining traction in Australia's sporting culture. (It also explains why the Matlidas are so good and the Socceroos generally have the composition they do.) And yet you sought to eliminate one of those big three groups. Do you not know the history of the game? --LauraHale (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Some seem to see a valid WP:PRIMARYTOPIC point. I think, most see some validity on both sides. 'Justified' is a judgement call between, upon which we're seeking consensus. I'm aspie, so I like up-front / inherent disambiguation – thus, for me, most WP:PRIMARYTOPIC naming justifications seem like excuses for fluffy illiterated weasel words. To me, your netball examples just seem like more edit/move opportunities. In my home the bias is opposite: I support Arsenal Ladies, I support no local men's team and only watch men's football when England men's national football team gets past the quarter finals in a thing (i.e. very rarely).   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Good for you. 616 people watched Arsenal Ladies' last competitive match (a European tie against Glasgow City). Slightly more people than that watch Arsenal FC on a regular basis. Would you seriously suggest moving Arsenal FC to Arsenal FC men's team? It's not wikipedia's job to enforce gender "neutrality", because that would be a clear violation of WP:NPOV. We describe the world as it is, not as how we wish it would be. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the previous discussion, I had a look at this list of men's national football teams. Out of all the national football team pages on Wikipedia only two (Canada and USA) have the word men's in their title. And based on the women's list most of these teams have a women's team as well. Also even the article for the sport has a women equivalent, but only the women's page is the gender mentioned. Therefore, it seems the consensus is only to add a gender to the women's page. I would suppose this is because the men's game has been played for longer and it is most people's intuition (that when you say soccer you think of the game being played by men). Also, men's teams have more coverage. I understood the last game of the Matildas (vs China) wasn't even broadcasted in Australia. If there is a desire to be accurate on these pages with an addition of men's to the title it should affect all articles about it, and therefore the discussion should take place at a more central location (maybe WT:FOOTY). --SuperJew (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:CON for full Wikipedia policy on what consensus is.Hmlarson (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And it should be noted that while there be no consensus to move the article, there is no consensus for how to deal with what a number of people have asserted are the fundamental neutrality problems associated with the article. Thus, catch-22. No consensus to move. No path forward to make the article neutral unless the women's team are introduced into the article or the text provides a clear rationale why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. (At the moment, the text does not provide such a rationale.) --LauraHale (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• LauraHale, I am completely dumbfounded from what you have just said. Throwing statements like "inherently superior", "the men's team who suck", "genderizing this team for neutrality's sake". Either agree with me or you're systemically biased, sexist and anti-women. Also WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not about who's ranked higher then who, it's about notability. And a side note; the women's game in Australia is not fully-professional, unlike that of the men's.--2nyte (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry. The reason to keep is primarytopic based on a of superiority of the men's game. It isn't inherently superior. I debunked that argument. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is Australia. The title says so. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT doesn´t change that. You said a hat note added AFTER the intiail solved neutrality issues people brought up, despite its presence before. More WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And no, this is not Soccer in Australia where @2nyte: systematically set about removing women. This isn't about notability. It is about WP:V, WP:NPOV, about Wikipedia's reputation, about working towards the Foundations goals, about addressing systematic bias. None of these appear to be of interest to you. You lack knowledge of them. WP:COMPETENCE if you think "notability" (which is patently not in questionhere) trumps WP:V and WP:NPOV. --LauraHale (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, WP:V is a red herring, because nobody is disputing that the Australia women's national association football team exists. The question is an interpretation of WP:NPOV. Your interpretation is that neutrality means that we should treat the men's team and the women's team equally, irrespective of the coverage given to each team. I disagree with this because WP:NPOV requires us to be journalistically objective, not philosophically objective. We should take the world as it is, not how some (or perhaps even most) would want it to be. As for working towards a goal of WMF, I believe it would bring discredit to the project if your principles were applied to all sports teams. Outsiders would simply not understand Brazil national football team, Australia national cricket team or New Zealand national rugby union team being disambiguation pages, with the two genders given equal status. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@2nyte:, If you think the notability of the women's team is really up in the air, nominate it for deletion. Notability is used to determine whether a topic belongs on Wikipedia. The women's team is clearly notable. The policy you're fishing for is WP:UNDUE in terms of suggesting that as a national, the huge preponderance of sources suggests women should not be included. This is patently untrue, and no demonstration has been made full stop that the women lack media coverage. You also appear to fail to understand WP:V. You nominated this article for GA. It was never going to pass because lots of text was not supported by sources to make it verifiable. None of the people who support the concept of men only as Asutralia's national team appear to get this either. They haven't come in to make the article verifiable either. At the same time, they keep making claims without any supporting evidence. Then you have the men who accuse women of drug use, attack them by using vulgarity, imply women are hysterical and stupid for disagreeing with the man's opinion. This doesn't help the case of the men = Australia's national team. It makes them appear to be sexists. Then we have you 2nyte. You systematically went through a gender neutral article that discussed the broad topic if Australian soccer and you purged it of all references to women. And worse yet, on a general topic article like that, you cannot see how your actions introduce systemic bias into Wikipedia. You cannot see how purging women from the Australian narrative and re-inforcing the idea of a men's only society is inherently WP:NPOV, how it discourages female participation and how it runs counter to the WMF's stated goals to increase female participation. Woman or man up to your preference. Provide sources and stop introducing systemic bias into Wikipedia. Begin to understand Wikipedia policies. Notability. What a laugh. --LauraHale (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources have been provided that show the clear notability difference between the two respective teams, but you are choosing to ignore them. Number 57 12:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Bladeboy1889:, What is wrong with following WP:PRECISE? Why shouldn't the men's team be genderized? And do you have any verifiable evidence]] to support your claim? How does your comment align with WP:UNDUE? This isn't a case of Perth, Scotland versus Perth, Western Australia where you have two completely unequal things. This is a case of two FIFA recognised teams. I don't understand your logic. Frankly, I also don't see the logic of people mentioning England national netball team because netball is prohibits by rule men from playing. The sport's highest governing body that deals with the IOC and sets the rules set this. The netball example actually argues in FAVOUR of genderizing this article because FIFA allows both genders and segregates by rule. --LauraHale (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Men are prohibited from playing netball? Oh, really? Maybe you want to take that up with these guys. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Pi zero: "Wikipedia's ability to succeed as a social movement" — WP:NOTADVOCATE. I must have missed the memo for when Wikipedia became a "social movement" for forced gender equality. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is. It's a bunch of pie-in-the-sky idealists who think it'd be good to make a comprehensive neutral accurate encyclopedia available to everyone for free. --Pi zero (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

And that's all it is. It's not a soapbox for people to espouse idealistic notions of equality when they do not exist in reality. – PeeJay 14:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly the point. This isn't remotely about advocating gender equality. It's about not egregiously, offensively advocating sexism. One cannot legitimately pretend not to be actively sexist while telling women to go to the back of the bus. --Pi zero (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much it. PeeJay demonstrates PeeJay's sexism by non-gendering men and suggesting men represent Australia while women are hat noted and thus made inferior. That is an inherently sexist act. If it wasn't inherently sexist, then PeeJay wouldn't have a problem with being called a woman, having the article include male in the title, or would support the article text including women. There is no other potential interpretation for erasing women this way. This isn't an argument about the equality in sport. It's about not enshrining sexism into Wikipedia. PRIMARYTOPIC is the rallying cry for that, the rallying cry for violating WP:V that says Australia has TWO national teams, for violating W:NPOV by implying one team is more authentic than another and that the authenticity of one team is questioned by gendering it. There is zero reason not to gender the article because there is no demonstration AT ALL that readers expect men on a general article but readers would NOT expect men on an article with MEN in the title. I'm happy for Jmorrison230582 to take me to ANI for this accusation that he and other footy people are violating Wikipedia policies and enshrining NPOV sexism into Wikipedia. --LauraHale (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You are completely misrepresenting/misusing policy - WP:V says there are numerous towns called Boston, but only one is at Boston because it's the best known. This is not a WP:V issue. Number 57 15:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Lau, you do realise that the women's team is inferior to the men's team, right? As has been pointed out to you several times, the women's team receives less than 5% of the coverage of the total coverage of association football in Australian media. I understand that you don't like the fact that the men's and women's teams aren't treated equally, I don't either, but it's not our job to change the media's attitude by forcing an article to take a title that is AGAINST Wikipedia policy. Oh, and for us to reflect society's inherent sexism in our article titles is a neutral point of view; we're not taking sides, we're just reporting things as they are. As humans, men and women are equal, sure. In terms of the way they are covered in the media, they are not. – PeeJay 16:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but neutral is not the same as equal. Nobody is "telling women to go to the back of the bus". The titles of this article and many others (including women's netball teams) neutrally reflect the reality, they do not enforce it. To clarify further, I would be happy for sports teams articles to be disambiguated by gender if that is what core policies (i.e. WP:NPOV) required. But my understanding of WP:NPOV is that this is not the case. As it stands, enforcing gender equality on all articles would be against WP:NPOV, because it would give disproportionate attention to minority interests. Even without that change to WP:NPOV, if someone can clearly demonstrate that there is a near parity between the two teams (as there is in the US or Canada), I would be happy to support moving this article. But that has not been done. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Nobody is 'telling women to go to the back of the bus.'" — on the contrary, the analogy is extraordinarily close. That's the point of some of the adjectives I've used; this isn't a marginal case, it's blatant structural sexism. The idea that PRIMARYTOPIC, which is evidently meant to save effort for readers by letting them type in (say) "Boston" instead of "Boston, Massachusetts", would apply in any meaningful way to typing "Australia noational association football team" instead of "Australia national men's association football team", is not something I take seriously; for most of those advocating such a position, PRIMARYTOPIC clearly has to be an excuse masking a different agenda (though not necessarily, I acknowledge, a conscious agenda; I rather think in most cases the agenda would be, not wanting to admit to oneself that one's being blatantly sexist).

Although PRIMARYTOPIC seems like a plausible general principle at first glance, in practice it mostly encourages structural bias. One would really be better off always preferring, as a matter of policy, to use full titles like "Boston, Massachusetts" or, for that matter, "London, England", and then arguing over whether "Boston" should be a redirect or a disambig, since this would foster a fact-based attitude in the community. (Wikipedia is too prominent, at this point, to disregard the impact that Wikipedia itself has on the information ecology in which it lives.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a different argument. PRIMARYTOPIC exists as it is and NPOV exists as it is. If you want different outcomes, change the policies and guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not an argument at all; it's a remark, for perspective. Nor I trust is any of this an argument; I've no interest in arguments, they waste time. Discussions, now, those may be worthwhile. PRIMARYTOPIC does exist as it is; it's clearly a much lesser thing than NPOV, which is a pillar, but it does exist as it is, and as it is it's clearly irrelevant to the title of this article. --Pi zero (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• @Jmorrison230582: and @2nyte:: I'm a human. You are not: you're a human man. I'm a Wikipedian. You are not: you're a male Wikipedian. I'm an athlete. You are not: you're a male athlete. I'm a taxpayer. You are not: you're a male taxpayer. I'm a consumer. You are not: you're a male consumer. I'm a content creator. You are not: you're a male content creator. Do you accept your status as a lesser human, as a male human? Do you accept the point of view that you should be defined first by your gender and after that by what you are while women are not defined by their gender? If you do not that you are a male Wikipedian while I am just a Wikipedian, why not? Please. Enlighten me male Wikipedian as to your attitudes regarding this subject. Convince me that me being a ONLY a Wikipedian and you being ONLY a male Wikipedian is inherently neutral and factual. --LauraHale (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well said indeed. It can be extremely difficult for someone on the 'inside' of a favored group to perceive the bias inherent in an issue like this until the tables are turned - Alison ^❤ 20:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, and there is also a WP:COMPETENCE issue. WP:FOOTBALL are good at what they do: updating interested readers (eachother) on Colin Turtlehead's on-off transfer saga to Midtable Town F.C. of Division Four. When they climb up on their hind legs and try to dictate to the entire Wikipedia about socio-political stuff it's humourous but also a bit silly. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This way lies madness. Is BBC Radio being inherently sexist by broadcasting its Woman's Hour programme? Nobody is saying that the Australia women's footballers are "lesser" beings. The article title neutrally reflects the reality that the clear majority of media coverage of international football in Australia is focused on the men's game. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! To quote myself above "As humans, men and women are equal, sure. In terms of the way they are covered in the media, they are not." Lau, you are being extremely disingenuous in your above comment – no one is comparing any of us or the way we are portrayed in the media; all we are saying is that the Australian men's team is (almost) always referred to as the "Australia national team", while the women's team is (almost) exclusively referred to as the "Australia women's national team" (or words to that effect). If you have a problem with using secondary sources, you have a problem with the way Wikipedia works entirely, and you're not going to change that with a single RM discussion. – PeeJay 21:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

BBC Radio's Woman's Hour is appropriately titled, provided its content is (as its article here indicates) concerned with women's issues. Is it not obvious that this is a complete nonsequitur in this discussion? Nobody here is discussing suppressing information based on ideology; the BBC Radio programme wouldn't be relevant here unless perhaps, with the same content, it were called "Human's Hour". --Pi zero (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

From a Wikipedian to a male Wikipedian, I think you are being disingenous. You are not saying the team is the men's team. If you were saying that male Wikipedian, this Wikipedian would acknowledge that. As a Wikipedian, I can read and I see the title is gender neutral. Male Wikipedian, please stop your disingenuous claim of PRIMARYTOPCIC because PRECISE trumps that and the PRIMARYTOPIC male Wikipedia is the national team. Male Wikipedian, if the topic was the men's team it would say that. You're being disingenuous male Wikipedian in suggesting otherwise. Male Wikipedian, please tell me how you are as authentic a Wikipedian as I am when you Wikipedia editing is defined purely by your gender. Male Wikipedian, I see the disingenuous nature of your participation in this conversation by your refusal to address this point. Male Wikipedian, Convince me that me being a ONLY a Wikipedian and you being ONLY a male Wikipedian is inherently neutral and factual. It shouldn't be that hard male Wikipedian. --LauraHale (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We're not talking about you and me, though, are we Lau? Neither of our Wikipedia contributions is defined by our gender. Neither are we judging the Australia men's and women's football teams by their relative successes or even how well they as individuals play the game; we are judging them based on their coverage in the mass media. And WP:PRECISE does not "trump" WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, they each have to be considered on their merits. Birmingham, West Midlands vs Birmingham? Don't be daft. – PeeJay 22:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: We are talking about you. We're talking about your attitudes towards women that introduce WP:SYSTEMICBIAS into Wikipedia. You are judging the team by their relative success PeeJay2K3. WP:UNDUE suggests that one sixth of the article about the national team should be the women given the relative media coverage. 6,000 or so articles in the Australian media in the past year about the Socceroos and 1,000 about the Matlidas. And Birmingham, West Midlands vs Birmingham reference? PeeJay2K3, you and I both know that this comparison fails. The sport is SEGREGATED BY GENDER Pees. WP:V shows this PeeJay2K3. You're placing a value judgement. Own it. Because you haven't provided a reason why the systemic bias should be there. You haven't explained why it is a bad thing for readers to be directed to an article that has three extra letters in the title and accurately conveys the subject. Let's get back to discussing that. What is wrong with adding men to the title? And please drop the personal attacks like calling people daft and shortening women's user names as a form of belittlement. That sort of thing is done by sexists, and since you're arguing you're not being sexist, it undermines your position vis-a-vis not being sexist. --LauraHale (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I was not doing it to belittle you, Lau, I was doing it to save time writing your name. And no, I am not making any value judgements, I am going by what the sources tell me, as Wikipedia's policies dictate I should. Call me a coward for "just following orders", but that is all I am doing. You, however, are trying to imply an equality between the Australia men's and women's football teams where none exists. At least in the cases of the United States and Canada, the women's teams are on a par with each other in terms of media coverage. Prove me wrong. – PeeJay 22:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• User:JzG: If the women's team was more significant, wouldn't they get more media coverage? And no, consistency is not the only argument; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is – well – the primary topic of discussion. – PeeJay 22:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If PRIMARYTOPIC was our overriding concern, England national football team would be at England national team, England team, or England. Go on, stick England national team in google: you get pages and pages of stuff about the men's national football team. We should reflect all these sources and move it right? Of course not, because there's all sorts of other policy/guidelines to stop us doing anything as bonkers. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• This is obviously not limited to the Australia national association football team, so why is this being discussed here? So what, it alright for "sexism" and "bias" in France, Brazil, Japan, South Africa, New Zealand, England, even in the Australia cricket team, but not for the Australia national association football team? That is utterly stupid to think so. Why is this discussion not taken to a larger venue?--2nyte (talk) 01:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • You're right. It's not. and this blog post by the Wikimedia Foundation highlights that gender segrgation of the type you're consciously engaging in that discriminates against women should not be done. Let me quote Sue Gardner: " Since 2011, Wikipedia has officially discouraged the creation of gender-specific subcategories, except when gender is relevant to the category topic." The article title patently violates this and is patently not verifiable. Wikipedia does not have a national team. It has two. You're segregating one based on gender and not segregating another. The only acceptable, not sexist close here is to put men in the name and disambiguate the page. No one has offered a compelling reason why women should be ghettoized and men normalized other than "PRIMARYTOPIC" which further reinforces the gender bias present in Wikipedia. --LauraHale (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Laura, why are you still flogging the dead horse at this article? You acknowledge it's a wider issue, several other editors have; take it to the higher venue and get everything sorted, or shut up and stop wasting time. It literally is that simple; and at a higher venue, you will almost certainly get more support. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That quote by Sue Gardner specifically refers to categories, not article titles. WP:CFD is the place to go if you wish to move (say) Category:English footballers to Category:English men's footballers (or upmerge Category:English women's footballers to English footballers, I suppose). I wouldn't have any objection to either, per WP:CATGENDER. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• How relevant is the women's team in relation to the men's team? United States is an exception because of that, I think. --NaBUru38 (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• All arguments about the men's team being ostensibly more notable than the women's are basically irrelevant, as this title isn't any kind of common name. It's a descriptive name, and those need to be neutral, and adequately distinguish the subject from other ambiguous ones. Adding the word "men's" to the title does nothing negative and it resolves the neutrality and disambiguation issue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  The Australian Government calls the [men's] national team "Australia's national football (soccer) team". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Which is different than "Australia national association football team". And of course that's one throwaway reference on a government web page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The Australian government publishes many millions of words every year. Selecting one quote from one example out of probably hundreds proves absolutely nothing. I am certain there would be other forms of the name in other places. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This really is amusing. I've been away for a week, and the conservatives are still being conservative, the ultra-cons ultra-so, and they don't even realise what's really driving their position here. Soccer is a sport of conservatives, so I don't know how that will change. Logic has no place in their world. They think it does, but in fact they are simply taking a position that prevents change, ever. Pretty Much the classical definition of conservative. If we're editing an encyclopaedia, we must be able to allow change in its contents. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What is objectively wrong with being (or being a) conservative? Nonsensical straw man thinking. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Conservative is probably something of a euphemism, Jmorrison230582, so no delicate flowers run off to ANI with their bottom lips trembling. Again. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I explained the problem in this context in the final sentence of my post. HiLo48 (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"If we're editing an encyclopaedia, we must be able to allow change in its contents"? I think that runs against the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

How can you miss the point by so much? HiLo48 (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I see we have another couple of oppose votes from WP:FOOTY blokes following their three-line whip. File under "hill of beans". The new votes from outside this toxic little project, with its disturbing lack of diversity, are obviously in support. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that Comment on content, not on the contributor has been lost here. The "disturbing lack of diversity", as you put it, is a characteristic of the sport, in which the women's game under the FA is just 20 years old, compared to over 150 years old as the codified (men's) version. Women's professional leagues are few and far between, certain high-profile ones (WUSA, WPSL) have failed due to lack of investment/public interest, lasting no more than three consecutive seasons - [3]. Comparing that situation to a "hill of beans" is certainly a misnomer. C679 21:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Got a source for that 150 years claim? Pretty sure it was codified in the 1880s. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it was 1863 when they were officially codified - the FA have been celebrating the 150th anniversary this year. See Laws of the Game (association football). If you need an external source, see FIFA's website. Number 57 00:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's always good to get facts right. HiLo48 (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Closure

It looks like everyone who had something to say has said it (the last addition to this discussion was on December 20th), so I've asked someone to close this discussion and determine if there is consensus to move the page. -sche (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If the user who closes the article comes to a conclusion basd on votes of support/oppose the the support will win. Although not everyone who had something to say has said it in this discussion. The discussion #Suggested_move failed 2 days before this one was opened due to no consensus, with the recommendations "to take this to a larger venue". There was no reason to open a second move request on 2 day after the first failed. If there is desire to move the article to a gender specific title it should be discussed at a larger venue as the discission affects many other aticles, many thousands of articles.--2nyte (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, you never give up, do you? Nobody has proven that it affects all those other articles. Opponents of change have just used it as a deflection tactic to avoid actually discussing the issue at hand. And whether or not it does affect other articles, if it's the right thing for this article, we should do it for this article. "It might make a lot of work" is a very poor justification for not doing the right thing here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the right thing would be to follow the recommendations of the previous discussion and take it to a larger venue, it is only logical, there is no point only moving one article when there are thousands with the same issue. What about Australia national under-20 association football team does that article not have the same issue, or Spain national football team? If they have the same issue as this article then take this to a larger venue as recommended. As you said HiLo48, "It might make a lot of work" is a very poor justification for not doing the right thing. And the right thing is to take this to a larger venue, even though it's "a lot of work".--2nyte (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You're still using that tactic to avoid discussing this matter. What do YOU think about the issue? (Not about taking it elsewhere.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said in the above discussion I believe the issue of gender specific titles is quite legitimate, but primary topic could come in play with the use of a hatnote to rectify the gender issue. I also like consistency on wikipedia, that is why I think this should be taken to a larger venue where we can broadly discuss the topic and identify whether primary topic (with the use of a hatnote) should be utilised on national representative articles, or whether gender should be specified in such article titles; even in articles such as Australia national netball team, it is not specified that the team is women's only. This topic need to be discussed fully so we can make a decision for all articles, not just this one.--2nyte (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You're obsessed, and/or still avoiding real discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, read again: "I believe the issue of gender specific titles is quite legitimate, but primary topic could come in play with the use of a hatnote to rectify the gender issue". In other words, I think this article is primary topic and that the hatnote at the top of the article sufficiently removes ambiguity relating to the gender issue.

In a general overview of the topic, I would agree that the gender issue should be discussed at a larger venue because many articles, such as Australia national netball team, do not specify to readers that the national representative team is gender specific. This is an issue which could result in a decision to change all national representative team article titles, including this one.--2nyte (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that Australia has historically lead the world in many areas of equality for women? And in all those cases, we didn't run off and ask the rest of the world if it was OK? HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Disregarding whether this is or is not taken to a larger venue, the article is primary topic and the hatnote at the top of the article sufficiently removes ambiguity relating to the gender issue. There is no need to move the article for further clarification. And this is not an issue of "equality for women", it an issue of ambiguity and of clarification of content as in Australia national netball team.--2nyte (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Disregarding everything, the neutrality article needs to stay in place as I and others have pointed out the area where neutrality is an issue. The people who have pointed this out have not said the neutrality issue has been resolved and until there is an agreement it has been resolved, the tag should remain. But yeah, if you want to close the move proposal, close it as no consensus. Just leave the neutrality tag in place because "an issue of ambiguity and of clarification of content" and "as in Australia national netball team" by rule only allows women and the governing body for the sport of netball expressly prohibits men from participating, unlike FFA. (Though hey, if you want to rename that article to include women in the title, I'd be happy to support that.) --LauraHale (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

LauraHale, what issue remains? Doesn't the hatnote (which states: This article is about the men's team. For the women's team, see Australia women's national association football team) and the opening line (which states: The Australia national association football team represents Australia in men's international association football) clrify the gender issue? How will readers confuse this article for the women's team article?--2nyte (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not repeat back to me again solutions to addressing neutrality that have already been rejected. The same issues remain. --LauraHale (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

But it is exactly that, a solutions that addresses neutrality. Why would you rejected it and how does the same issues remain with these additions?--2nyte (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to make the article neutral as to the gender represented or include both men or women equally. You have been told this repeatedly. Until this is done, the neutrality issue remains, and the tag cannot be removed. What have you done to fix the issue? --LauraHale (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

LauraHale, this article is only about the men's representative team as stated in the hatnote, similarly the women's representative team article is only about the women's team. This is specifically stated in both articles, unlike many other article, e.g. Australia national netball team.--2nyte (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@2nyte:, the article title is neutral in regards to gender. The article text treats the default as men's. Do you get why people see this as non-neutral? Whether you like it or not, the article is perceived as non-neutral because of the disconnect between the title and the text. Either work towards a solution that addresses what I and others have repeatedly said, or just accept the tag will be there indefinitely. --LauraHale (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The men's team is primary topic. The solution was given with the hatnote. There is no longer an issue, therefor there is no need for a tag.--2nyte (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If the neutrality tag is present because it doesn't cover the women's team, it is totally out of place. We have different articles for different teams, no-one wants to merge the articles? The hat-note states that "this article is about the men's team, for the women's team see..." We wouldn't put a neutrality tag on Liverpool F.C. because it doesn't cover the Uruguayan club with the same name? When two articles shares the same name, we either create a dab-page, or put a hat-note on the primary topic - to put a neutrality tag on the article just because there isn't a consensus to move the article to a disambiguated titile is not helping the community. Mentoz (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

On the basis of !votes and the strength of the arguments it's a pretty clear consensus to correct the article title. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

1) you're biased and 2) no there isn't. And yes, before you get in, I'm fully aware that I am also biased. But then I am not trying to sway the close. GiantSnowman 19:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

@2nyte:'s DAB proposal

With this edit, it appears that 2nyte has proposed DABing the article. Would that solution be acceptable to others? --LauraHale (talk)

Well, quite evidently not, considering the three very lengthy attempt to agree on an article name change. 2nyte is speaking generally, as I'm sure you must realise. Time to try a different tactic, Laura. Unless you're suggesting something like a Australia national team disambiguation page covering all national teams in all sports. Sionk (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Article neutrality tag

Hi. I have added a neutral point of view tag on the article. The article title is neutral to gender, but the article itself is not. No attempts have been made to make the article text neutral to gender, and there was no consensus that the article was neutral to gender. Please do not remove the article neutrality tag again until this is resolved. Article neutrality is a seperate issue from the name, and until the article neutrally addresses the gender segreation, it should stay. As @2nyte: says, this article should comply with Australia national netball team naming, which is specific to gender because the rules of the game segregate based on gender. --LauraHale (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the tag as the article has a hatnote clearly stating that this is about the men's team and providing a link to the women's team article. I strongly suggest you read WP:FLOG and go and concentrate on being productive somewhere else or improving your Spanish. Number 57 18:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have re-added the tag as a no consensus close indicates the issue is not resolved. Suggest WP:FOOTY start their own fanblog where they can pretend women don't exist - here we don't have that luxury. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, as the tag is completely out of place. The name of the article and the content of the article is two different question. We have a hatnote that says "This article is about the men's team. For the women's team, see Australia women's national association football team." and that should suffice. When no-one is suggesting that "the neutrality of this article is disputed", we shouldn't have a tag that says so. Mentoz (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's an idiotic comment. It should be obvious even to the thickest, misogynist soccer fan that at least two people are disputing it. Two people is extremely different from "nobody". And you can make that three. HiLo48 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The closing admin agreed that this was an issue that affects more than just this article. It makes little sense to tag only this article. Yhere's been no agreement here about the problem, let alone the solution. Sionk (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's very different from saying "no-one is suggesting that the neutrality of this article is disputed". I have grave doubts about either the motives, intelligence or comprehension of such editors, and see no reason to respect their views on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's funny, HiLo; because your second statement works both ways. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

These antics are hugely disrespectful and disingenuous. Apart from anything else, it betrays a total lack of understanding of the purpose/function of the tag. There is currently no 'live' dispute taking place at the talk page of any other men's national team articles. If there were those articles would be tagged too! Yes: even if some, in their colossal arrogance, wanted to close their eyes and pretend no such dispute was talking place. There are multiple editors in good standing who have a genuine problem with this article's lack of NPOV (amongst other failings). We're not going anywhere. Please stop edit warring out the tags while discussion is ongoing. Thanks. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As the closing admin said, "raising the issue for this article again within the next few months ventures firmly into WP:IDHT territory." A different/more creative solution will need to be found in the meantime. Sionk (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you point that out to the painfully vexatious editors who won't accept "soccer" as the name for the game in Australia? And no matter what the closing admin said, suggesting that nobody is disputing the neutrality of the article still demonstrates something a long way from rational thinking. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the dispute is resolved, does it? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no consensus that there is or isn't a problem with the current situation. Not ideal but true. Unless something new is being done to resolve the dispute (other than endlessly rehashing the same old arguments here) I can't see the benefit or practical purpose of a neutrality tag. Sionk (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the neutrality of the article IS disputed. Do you want to hide that fact, or just make it go away by lying about it, like Mentoz? HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, HiLo48, but my point was to try to say that no-one is saying that the the neutrality of the content of the article is disputed while a some editors feel that the neutrality of the title is disputed. The way I see it, the neutrality-tag is for content, and unless the editor(s) who adds the tag to the article can tell the rest of us how we can fix the neutrality-issues we shouldn't have that tag. And if you want one combined article for both the men's and the women's team, you should start a merger discussion, not add a neutraliy-tag. Mentoz (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Gee it's difficult discussing stuff with hard core soccer fans. It seems that if I disagree on one thing, all sorts of assumptions are made about other things I might think. An absence of reading what I've explicitly posted seems common too. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the articles content, it is only the title that users have issues with, and the title is clarified with the hatnote. There should no longer be an issue, though if users do have issues then they can take it to a larger venue if they so chose.--2nyte (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Piss off. Your blatant deflection tactic is impractical and boring. Have the guts to discuss the issue here. To see a hatnote a reader has to open an article. A more accurate title would avoid that. Would it not be better if readers never mistakenly opened the wrong article? HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope we can keep this discussion WP:CIVIL. I totally agree with you that we should help the readers reach the article they are looking for, and when the article about the men's team has 12 times as many page-views as the women's team, creating a disambiguation-page would not help the majority of our readers because they would first have to enter the dab-page before finding what they are looking for. Mentoz (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There are far worse ways of being uncivil than me using a word you apparently don't like. Repeatedly and gutlessly avoiding discussion by proposing an impractical diversion strategy, as 2nyte is doing, is one of them. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If you feel that way, you should try to ignore the comments from 2nyte, and instead try to explain the rest of us what needs to be done with the content of the men's team's article to solve the neutrality issues. Mentoz (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. I sometimes get really sick of debating with hard core soccer fans. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)