Talk:Football (word)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Citations 1-3

In the United States (where there are more people who speak English as a first language than anywhere else),[1][2][3]

This in no way requires 3 citations. Somatosis (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Why does this point even need to be made?
The word "football" appears in numerous English language dictionaries:
--Jtir (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why that point needs to be made either. It seems to me a back-door attempt to legitmize the common American usage of 'football' above those of other nations. I suggest it is removed. Gunstar hero (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
In fact, a lot of that opening section suffers from clumsy phrasing. We don't need to know that English originated in England (which is in fact a rather nebulous claim to make). And the English definition of football is not in spite of the American definition. The two are simply definitions that happen to coexist; it is not the case that the English usage constitutes a kind of dissenting case to an American standard, which is what the phrasing here implies.Gunstar hero (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
This sentence: "Despite this, in England (the country where the language originated) the term 'football' is used for what Americans call soccer." must have been added in as a response to the previous sentences about the U.S. calling American football football, because it had not always been there. I agree it makes the lead a little clumsy now. I think the statement about the United States isn't bad, it is just stating a fact, which is counteracted by the other fact about most countries calling association football football. The lead could use some cleaning up but I don't think "In the United States (where there are more people who speak English as a first language than anywhere else)" is the problem. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
IMHO there is no need for a comparison of populations. The information given is in any case obvious to anybody with even a slight conception of first-language English populations across the world. I see no good reason why the passage should not simply read, 'In the United states unqualified use of football would generally refer to American football - soccer is used when referring to association football. In England the term 'football' is used for what Americans call 'soccer'.
The senetence as it stands just seems slightly clumsy. Consider, if you will, the large number of homonyms in British and American English, where the same word has gathered different meanings. I do not think that in each case we would say, "In America (where there are more people, etc..) this word means this, whereas in Britain...)". That's just why the passage struck me as odd, and I think it ought to be changed. Gunstar hero (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the last three paragraphs of the intro, as IMO they served no purpose other than to stoke these ridiculous UK/US flame wars about the "correct" shortened name for association football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put them back as there was a long edit war over this issue and AFAICT there is not yet a consensus to change it. --PBS (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've read through the achive and the most recent comments above - there may not be a 100% consensus, but the majority view seems to be that these passages are questionable at best. Will not revert at the moment as do not want to get into an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Phrases are clearly POV-pushing and the discussion seems to have stalled so I'm gonna be WP:BOLD Paulbrock (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that this is the American origin of the word?: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metarob (talkcontribs) 23:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No.11:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

American football in the United Kingdom

This version of the article says: "Australian Rules football and American football are neither played nor watched within the United Kingdom or in any European country."

This sentence appears to be entirely false:

--Jtir (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete it, it is a bit of vandalism that seems to have escaped everybody's notice. Both American and Australian football are played in the UK (albeit not very much).GordyB (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Soccer in Ireland

I've lived in Ireland for thirty-five years and could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've heard someone talk abour Soccer. In both Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic when 99% of the population say football they mean Association Football. When talking about Gaelic Football they say GAA, Gaelic or All Ireland Football. It is often stated that GAA is more popular in Ireland than Soccer due to the comparison in attendances at games on the island but this is misleading as the vast majority of soccer fans in Ireland attend games at and are supporters of British clubs. In every instance where I have heard the phrase said "did you see the football last night" in Ireland, the conversation has been about Association Football and never has the perseon asking the question had to qualify the statement to avoid confusion. For this reason I propose Ireland be removed from the list of regions where it is suggested in this article that Football does not mean Association Football. Captainbeecher (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Irish minority sports

I removed rugby league from the Irish section because there is next to no league in Ireland, and as such, no evidence has been given that the word football is ever used to describe league.

This removal was reverted by Mattdocbrown with a source of Rugby League Ireland and the comment of "didn't mean to delete rugbyfootball though"

There are also similar numbers of Irish American Football teams and eight in the Australian Rules Football of Ireland. if Rugby League why not AFI and ARFI? These numbers are just so small that to include them in this article is misleading. -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The sports might not be played much but that doesn't mean people don't talk about these sports. I think RL ought to be back in and the other two sports added in. We don't play Aussie rules, Gaelic or American football in England much but I know what they are.GordyB (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The reason Gaelic football is mentioned in the UK section is because it is a UK section so includes NI. This is about the use of the word football. These sports are non runners in Ireland as far as the use of the term. Unless it can be sourced that there is some sort of confusion, there is no need to mention a sport. -- PBS (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Northern Ireland is 1.5 million out of over 60 million. However many people play Gaelic sport in Northern Ireland, it is inevitably going to be a minority sport across the UK as a whole.GordyB (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
If we followed that logic to the end we would only mention soccer in the UK as all the others are minority sports! As the UK is a union I think we should mention usage in the different constituent countries of the UK (and possibly between the north and the south of England given the geographical division of the rugby codes). I would be interested to reading about usage in Wales and more detail about usage in Scotland, but to date no one has provided any sources to allow for paragraphs on those specific parts of the UK. -- PBS (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term 'Soccer' in the UK.

The assertion that 'The word "soccer" was in fact the most common way of referring to association football in the UK until around the 1970s, ...' appears to be wildly incorrect. I can find no-one amongst my friends and acquaintances who had heard the word until the first English football players went to play in the USA. I have been unable to find any references whatsoever to the word in several hundred old game programmes, newspapers, football annuals, or football magazines from the 1950s or 1960s. I'd be intrigued to know on what basis the assertion is made. DickyP (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth,I grew up in the 1960s and often used the word "soccer". This might be because I lived in a district where rugby was the major sport. Proving that we used the word is, of course, difficult.Petethewhistle (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a book available which reprints material from Charles Buchan's Football Monthly from the 1950s and 60s, and the articles in that make frequent use of "Soccer" (always written with a capital letter, for some reason........) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

There is an editor who is incorrectly editing the section , I read it misunderstood what was meant edited (incorrectly in some parts) , the editor reverted without disambiguating , while claiming that was done . I have now drawn their attention to WP:IMOS , I am reverting the edits with a note here .

  • When referring to the state to disambiguate use Ireland , pipelinks to state , not Ireland pipelinks to island .
  • The phrase Irish media should be used , it is the correct phrase anything coming from the Irish (see that word again) state is described as Irish , why would a long winded version be used ?
  • The editor was quick to point out ambiguoity on the my first edit , drawing attention that the article mentioned both parts of the island yet only edited the Republic of Ireland section , I AGF , it was the first and I had to , however he has not edited the links in the Northern Ireland section that link to a BBC radio show about HULL , quite happy editing one section while ignoring the other part that should have been checked .Murry1975 (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now edited correctly the parts to do with Ireland removing the edits on Republic of Ireland and the Hull reference from Northern Ireland .PS I noticed that the last time I edited but I had an idea if the editor is editing for correctness with Ireland they would change it WP:AGF but if they were POV editing they would only edit the section I had just done. QED .Murry1975 (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Hull reference was not for Northern Ireland! It was Rugby league! You have not removed it you have moved the sentence to a better place, who ever added it just tacked it onto the end of the section UK section.
I have no idea what you mean by POV editing please explain.
As to the WP:IMOS although these particular circumstances are not covered explicitly see the phrase "In other places prefer use of [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], except where the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland is being discussed in the same context or where confusion may arise. In such circumstances use Republic of Ireland" (my emphasis).
In the case of soccer Ireland is divide into two. You can not say "Irish media" because to do so is to ignore the media in the north (which is just as much part of the Irish media as that in the south), and the sentence is specifically about the media in the Republic, as is shown by the citations. It you don't like the underlying link then we can remove it ad leave the wording as it was, but to do so will deprive people who do not know much about the Irish media without a useful link. The whole section is about the Republic of Ireland not about the whole of Ireland and to use the term Ireland is confusing in this context. If this was a page on Rugby Union then it would be correct to talk about Ireland as one entity, but not in this case. -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The Hull reference was put in the wrong place but you only edited my edits on Ireland not the other editors , I didnt AGF over your second edit . Also you claim to be fimiliar with IMOS yet ignore several points of it . As I have stated before your unwillingness to describe the Irish media as such is terrible .Murry1975 (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Which points have I ignored? The second sentence is not about the Irish media it is about the Irish media in southern Ireland. What is terrible about that? --PBS (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Therefore its about the Irish media . It only has two mentions of a media in "southern" Ireland , Cork and Munster .Murry1975 (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


has anybody some info about the italian word for soccer? (calcio) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paranoid Android1208 (talkcontribs) 10:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same thing. It might be notable in this article. A bit more research into the history of the word would be needed before adding it to the article, but it's definitely notable for inclusion.unak1978 05:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


The etymology section seems to be loaded with WP:OR. This paragraph in particular stands out:

"In 1363, King Edward III of England issued a proclamation banning "...handball, football, or hockey; coursing and cock-fighting, or other such idle games",[5] showing that "football" was being differentiated from games as they involved other parts of the body, such as handball, not simply because it was played on foot."

Does anyone have access to the reference "Derek Baker (England in the Later Middle Ages). 1995. Boydell & Brewer. p. 187" to see if they are actually discussing the etymology/usage of the word 'football' or just commenting on a specific proclamation? Glaucus (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I came here to point out just that, and you have beaten me to it. It is perfectly feasible that handball involved using the hands/arms in play, but that does not clear up the question of whether or not football is derived from a (perhaps older) game played "on foot" or a game played "with the foot". Unless the unseen passage explains things further, the conclusion seems like synthesis. Dainamo (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm also curious about this proclamation, because in the next paragraph, the OED states that the first documented usage of the term "football" appears in 1424. If this proclamation is real, how did the OED miss it? Funnyhat (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Football in Australia

As Melburnian now living in Canberra (with many friends from both Sydney and Brisbane) I can confirm that people in Sydney do not refer to Rugby League as "football", rather the term "footy" is used.

In Canberra, the term is much more ambiguous as "football" can mean Australian Rules, soccer or Rugby League depending on the context. Usually in Canberra, "football" means soccer though the terms used in Canberra the majority of the time are as follows: Football Association = "soccer"; Rugby Union = "Rugby" (or rarely "Union"); Rugby League = "League" (or rarely "footy"); and Australian Rules Football = "AFL".

Thanks, but I feel we need something more authoritative as a source. I'm seeing "football" being used to refer to association football explicitly nowadays. The kicker is the usage by the major media outlets:
  • National: The Australian: "Rugby Union, Football, AFL, NRL"
  • Sydney: Sydney Morning Herald: "NRL, AFL, Union, Football"
  • Melbourne: Herald Sun: "AFL, NRL, Football, Rugby"
  • Canberra: The Canberra Times: "NRL, AFL, Union, Football"
  • Brisbane: Courier-Mail: "NRL, AFL, Football, Rugby"
  • Hobart: Mercury: "AFL, Football"
Melbourne's second paper, The Age is the odd man out here, where "Football" is not used at all, but "Real Footy" is used to describe AFL, in a sort of inferiority complex fashion.
Television and radio all show the same general usage in their websites. "Football" is overwhelmingly used instead of "soccer". --Pete (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
What you see online are the products of the Sydney based headquarters of media outlets. I can assure you that the print version of Melbourne's Herald Sun uses "Soccer" for the round ball game. (Actually, like most sports articles in most outlets, the name of the sport is often excluded, and not just for soccer.) Can't speak for the other outlets from west of the Barassi Line right now, but for a newspaper, the print version is obviously important. HiLo48 (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course there are local editions and regional variations. The overall national trend is plainly apparent. --Pete (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It might be more accurate to say that the trend of Sydney (and to some extent Canberra) based media and sports organisations is apparent. Although all we can talk about is past trends. We cannot speculate about the future. And Australia is a divided country when it comes to football code popularity (for the codes using oblate spheroids) and nomenclature (for all codes). HiLo48 (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
We're talking about association football here - other codes are irrelevant to this discussion. The official name for the sport is uniform throughout the nation as is the media terminology, apart from a few regional variations noted above. All national (as opposed to local) media outlets use football to describe the sport. --Pete (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
That post is simply wrong, on too many fronts for me to bother about it right now. Have to go and earn my living. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I cannot see any errors in my statements. If you think I've made a mistake, please provide links to reliable sources showing otherwise. I naturally assume that when people are talking football, they hold opinions, and that is why I ask for reliable sources. Otherwise we are just rooting for our preferred sports teams and that demonstrates nothing but the depth of our fervour. I have given links to national and major regional media outlets, which anybody may check for themselves. You have expressed your opinion. I invite you to contemplate the difference in the two approaches. --Pete (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Right, here we go:
1. Other codes are very relevant. On the Australian Rules Football side of the Barassi Line, the the word "football" primarily means that code of football. WP:COMMONNAME says that is critical.
2. The official name is irrelevant. It's the common name that matters.
3. Even the official name is not uniform. My local round ball club is called a "...Soccer Club". That's because the suburb's "...Football Club" play Aussie Rules. This is a very common situation on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line.
4. Very few Australians pay any attention to national media. It's local media that has the audience, and local media naturally reflects local language usage.
5. The one major exception to 4. above is SBS. It, however, has a strong commercial arrangement with the FFA, so is not a an independent source.
6. The same point about commercial arrangements applies to many other media outlets. Any media outlet with a commercial connection to any sport cannot be regarded as a reliable source on an issue such as this.
7. Interpreting media usage is original research, and is not the same as common usage anyway. What would be wonderful would be a truly independent, reliable source that tells us what common usage is across Australia today. Haven't seen one yet. It would need one of those hard to find, impartial observers. Got one handy? HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion(s). I don't want to appear rude, but did you read my previous post at all? --Pete (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Please don't be disparaging. There are many facts in my post, not just opinion. And of course I read your post. My points respond to your points in the order you made them. Let's keep this discussion constructive. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand you mean well, but this is the nub of the problem right here. You have given your opinion. Doubtless you believe in yourself, and that is a good thing, but do not mistake your own beliefs for reliable sources. When we get down to deciding what material to include in this reliably sourced encyclopaedic, we need sources, not opinions. And the way we go about it is to follow wikipolicy. You have provided one link to wikipolicy and that's excellent, but going back over the year or so this topic has been discussed, I have never seen you offer any opinion other than your own as to what, precisely, is the common name. The Australian media - all bar a few regional outlets - use the term football. That may be checked given the sources above and I am more than happy to compile a full list based on checkable facts. If you can present checkable facts from reliable sources in a context of wikipolicy, then let us discuss. If, instead you prefer your own opinion, then no matter, but a public house would be a better place for such a discussion. --Pete (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry. It's clear you are not here for a thorough and rational discussion. You are here to ignore my points and to insult me. That is precisely the kinds of problems we had last time round on this topic. The points I made above counted for a lot then. And they still do. Dismissing them as purely opinion is nonsensical, unhelpful, provocative, confrontational and dangerous. I won't bite. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
You are wrong there. Please read what I have written above. It is the heart of my philosophy here. We all have opinions. We don't use our opinions to write an encyclopedia. We use facts and reliable sources. You have made several long posts in this discussion without including anything at all external to your own resources. Apart from a reference to wikipolicy, as noted. You are a clever and educated person and your contributions are welcome. As an editor, rather than a cheerleader for personal likes, beliefs, and opinions.That goes for all of us here, self included. --Pete (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Please drop the silly, artificial niceness. You don't really mean it, and I don't need your compliments. Saying that stuff after being so disparaging about what I said is just unbecoming. I'm happy to wait for others' thoughts. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Recognising that sports may engender feelings of passion, desire and attachment in a quasi-religious fashion, I'd like to steer - as gently as I can - discussion here away from any personal opinions or points of view and toward examination of reliable sources to inform our readership. Are there any more to be found? So far the easiest and most visible sources are showing that "Football" in Australia means the same thing as in most of the rest of the world, and "Soccer" is fading from view. I'd like to hear from other editors before I change the article. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). This discussion is not attracting attention. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48 I will make this point here instead of dragging it over to the other discussion simply because the context is on this page. Your list above consists almost entirely of original research. Your point about Aussie rules is not very relevant given that on wikipedia it is not known as football it is known as Australian Rules Football. The only valid point you raise is the use of SC for many local football/soccer clubs however I would say it comes down to legal issues rather than common name reasons as well as historic names. For example most local teams are simply known as Williamstown Football Club or Yarraville Football Club and the soccer clubs were forced to use SC. It is the same reason Melbourne Victory could not use the name Melbourne Football Club, not because of the name of the sport but rather there was already a team with that name. Point 4. I think you would agree is not accurate and I have provided evidence for this in the other discussion. Just wanted to explain to you why you should stop saying that my points in the other discussion have been refuted as you have not provided any valid arguments Lajamibr (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This whole discussion is pointless. Please keep it in one place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). HiLo48 (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph concerning Australia is out of date and the links used as sources lead nowhere. My suggestion may seem funny, but I suggest that we talk about fixing this article on this article's talk page. --Pete (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Wait for some more opinions. HiLo48 (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
You didn't, did you? That's bad faith editing. HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Happy to wait a reasonable time. When a link is broken, placing a "citation needed" note is a reminder that we need a source. I can't find a source for the statement, but maybe you can? Maybe someone else can, but I must ask you not to remove a "cite needed" template until you can actually link to a source. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It's difficult to prove. It's blue sky for those who live there. You are implying that they are lying. That's bad faith editing. HiLo48 (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm just asking for a source. Chill. --Pete (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no obvious source. But it's true. You know it's true, but don't want it to be. You are playing a manipulative game with Wikipedia's rules to avoid presenting the truth to the world. HiLo48 (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
If I may speak personally, I once had the same attitude. the game I'd known as soccer as a child and had always known as soccer - how could it be anything else but soccer? It made no sense. Even if the clubs and the organising bodies called it football, it was still soccer and they were just pulling a slick trick, trying to steal a name that wasn't theirs. But when I did some research and found that the media were changing the name of the game of their own will, I changed my mind. A media outlet that is out of step with their audience loses it.
So no, I don't "know that it's true". I believe, from observing the way that the community uses words, that "soccer" is well and truly on the way out, and "football" is on a surge. I believe that Wikipedia should reflect the reality. Whether I like it or not. Wikipedia is a source of information for people, and if we present information that is out of date or untrue, we lose credibility.
If there's no obvious source for a statement, then it may not be true. And we certainly can't say that it is if we have no better source than the personal opinions of editors. Why don't you look into your own heart, setting aside whatever attachments and desires drive your thoughts, and look for the truth there? If "football" is so widespread in the community that it is being used as the name for the sport - apart from a few regional markets where even The Age has adopted the cringingly defensive label of "Real Footy" to refer to VFL - then maybe you are out of step with the wider world. Think about it. It wouldn't be the first time the world has changed and left you behind. I know the feeling very well, being a man well into my fifties, but I find acceptance a happier course than attachment. --Pete (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Pete, you're doing it again. telling me to look into my own heart. When creating a quality encyclopaedia, I think it's more effective to use my brain. Logic and common sense are incredibly valuable tools, as is good faith. Please drop the silly platitudes. That language has no positive effect on me. It is having a negative effect, but I wan't bite.HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, perhaps you could use your brain and find some links for the section? If it's more effective, that is. The only working link for a supposed source on Australian usage comes from the USA. That's hardly satisfactory, is it? --Pete (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing for Australia

HiLo, regarding your addition of unsourced material, previously noted as unsourced. Content in Wikipedia must be cited to reliable sources. I have again removed it. Feel free to add it when you have a reliable, independent source. Thanks for your advice on this. --Pete (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I'd be interested in an explanation for your edit summary, which reads in part, Reverted bad faith edit.. A cn tag may have been more diplomatic. You have been following this for the nine days since I actually inserted the "citation needed" tags you now call for! How is this bad faith? I looked at the sources - most of which are dead links - none of them supporting the statements claimed in any case, put in the cite needed tags, and when after a week no sources had been found, removed the offending material. There's a further dead link to remedy, and I am hoping that someone can find it, and the sole actual checkable source remaining is a 2008 American source which is very general in nature. WP:RS is a fundamental plank in our encyclopaedia - you understand this well enough, given that you advised a new editor of this fact only a few hours ago. I'll accept that you hadn't fully understood the situation, but if you keep on inserting unsourced material that has been challenged, I'm going to have to press you for an explanation couched in wikipolicy terms rather than personal abuse. Over to you. --Pete (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

To other readers and participants on this page: Editor Pete/skyring is being a smartarse, Wikilawering POV pusher. He hates my guts because I have persistently successfully resisted his POV pushing elsewhere on Wikipedia. Only recently an interaction ban between him and me has been lifted. This was with my agreement, with the alternative being a block for him for repeated beaches of the iBan. Evidence of the problem can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia), a site obviously relevant to what should go on this page, where Pete/Skyring recently failed in an attempt to get his preferred position up. This is only partly about sourcing or a lack of it. The Australian situation is complicated, and some, including Pete/Skyring, want to deny both the complexity and reality of it. In a forum shopping spree he has now brought his POV pushing here. I have neither the time nor energy right now to fight another battle in this war here. What a sad day for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Recommend you both discuss this at John's, first :) GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
John is welcome to contribute. The POV I'm pushing is that Wikipedia works because we have evolved systems to remove personality and POV from our articles. If I'm being a smartarse, well, sorry about that, HiLo. You set yourself up to have your own advice to others delivered right back to you, and it is good advice. Content in Wikipedia must be cited to reliable sources. That's not something that can be overcome by local consensus, nor is it a civility or personality issue. The material I've removed stays out until properly sourced, and that, I trust, is something we can all agree on. --Pete (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and WP:BLUE. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
See WP:RS. If you think WP:BLUE applies, then you'll have no trouble at all in coming up with even one source, hmmm? Not a difficult or impossible task, surely? --Pete (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
That might be a valid position if you had useful sources for your position, but you don't. You have supplied a number of geographically cherry picked examples of usage, but examples aren't sources describing the usage of language. They require an awful lot of synthesis to even go near proving anything. And then all they demonstrate is that geographically cherry picked sources provide some evidence of language usage in that location. Because the language used is such a blue sky issue, nobody bothers to write about it. It is very difficult to come up with sources about such an obvious truth. HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking you to come up with a source (or sources) for your position. The one you reverted to here. It is a reasonable request, given Wikipedia's reliance on sources. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Stupid request. HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLUE is definitely not relevant here (nor is it a policy) - material which is "challenged or are likely to be challenged" does need some form of source (WP:V). This is especially true given that the information which is here claimed to be "obvious" would only be apparent to a small group (those living in the area). Macosal (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
And there's that other characteristic of the "soccer MUST be called football" argument. Ridiculousness. Small group? LOL. Only half the country. Why can't people be realistic and honest? HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
In the context of the world/the WP editing community, the number of people who "know" this information is relatively small. Don't resort to personal attacks (for the record, I am not of the opinion that soccer MUST be called football - see the other page). Respond to the point rather than throwing insults around please. Macosal (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
12 million people is not a small group, especially given the fact that only Australians are discussing this. HiLo48 (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Given that Julia Gillard calls the sport football and lives in Victoria, I suggest that including every resident of the state (or indeed any area, however defined) in a total and claiming full support for one's preferred term is an ambit claim and therefore spurious. In fact, unless we have some sort of actual statistics for areas, or an authoritative source, I'm inclined to treat any special claims for special regions as special pleading and not worth the effort to respond. Matters of faith are best kept for private self-information. In the context of this particular article, we are talking about Australia as a whole. What is the national variety of English used here? --Pete (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
[After EC with Macosal below]: This is not about my preferred term. I'm not sure I have one that you could rationally call a preferred one. I have the logical position (for me and many millions of others) that I grew up with "football'" meaning Aussie Rules, and the round ball game being called "soccer". That means that when any of those millions of people hear the word "football", they still think of Aussie Rules first. Others have a different experience. When soccer renamed itself to football, for some there wasn't a problem. For others, there was. And that includes some soccer fans. Doesn't make anyone wrong. Just different. (BTW, Julia now lives in Adelaide.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It's this sort of thing which makes quantifying which is "more common" really difficult. There are arguments for consistency with the global, for consistency with reliable sources and for representation of substantial usage which point to the use of "football". There are arguments for reducing ambiguity and representation of substantial usage which point to the use of "soccer". I'm not sure how to reconcile these (is anyone?) - Wikipedia guidelines don't really deal with this sort of thing specifically. Macosal (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
As I was saying in the other thread, it is never going to be possible to evaluate how many people say "football" or "soccer". But let's say it's 60-40 either way - should that be determinative? 49-51? We will never be able to get an accurate representation. It makes sense that football is becoming increasingly popular given its recent adoption as the official name but it does also raise ambiguity concerns which are not unfounded. But yes, a belief that it is one way or the other is definitely not akin to a belief that the sky is blue. Macosal (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Ambiguity is one of the critical issues. "Football" is obviously ambiguous for many. "Soccer" is the only non-ambiguous, non-controversial, universally understood name for the round ball game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Even this morning, I had reason to look up a particular Australian sportsman in Wikipedia. He is described as "an Australian football player". Can anyone say with certainty what sport he plays? HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That's the classic ambiguous case I've come across too - regardless of the soccer vs football debate it is clearly ambiguous in that context. There are ways around it (e.g. Australian international (or professional) football player/Australian rules football player can be used) but I do feel like there are other circumstances where this could arise and is definitely something that needs to be kept in mind in this discussion. Macosal (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

user:Skyring please read WP:BRD you make a bold edit it is reverted. You initiate a discussion to see if there is a consensus for change. Reverting a revert of a bold edit made by you is edit warring double so if you revert two people.

You claim "contemporary usage as evolved in recent years" you need a source to support that claim. The current source you are using to support your claim is and it says:

  1. “Football” in Australia generally refers to Australian Rules football.
  2. So no, it’s not wrong to call it “soccer” if you’re American. Or Australian.

-- PBS (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not using "Business Insider" as a source. What a bizarre notion! My problem with the article is that the use of "soccer" has declined greatly in recent years, following official name changes and policy. Using sources that no longer reflect the current situation is equally bizarre. It is like referring to Australia as a British colony, citing 19-century texts. Reading on from last year's discussion, I noticed that nobody has managed to find a reliable current source. Why is this? --Pete (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Here are the sources the article currently uses:
  1. Howard-era government page - a dead link
  2. Australian Football Association of North America - a US site for supporters of Australian Rules football. Of minimal relevance, the page was stagnant for six years (note the date of 2008), but I notice that it has recently been changed to remove mention of anything other than Australian Rules. Except for a tangential reference to "European soccer" (referring to sponsorship advertising).
  3. Business Insider - this notes why Americans call association football as soccer. Relevance here: tangential and bizarre.
  4. A page from The West Australian, dated 14 June 1901 Say no more!
  5. Sports editorial from The Guardian - the one and only contemporary and relevant source. I invite all to read it.
So I have been removing material that is no longer sourced. Does anyone have a problem with this, or do they wish to pursue their own lone crusade against one of Wikipedia's fundamental pillars? --Pete (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Hum you signature is confusing I had not appreciated that you had started this section when I read it.

When you made this revert to my revert your change included the start of a sentence "Australia-wide, soccer was commonly used to describe association football" which is a complete change from what was there before, but you supported that change with the source and it says:

  1. “Football” in Australia generally refers to Australian Rules football.
  2. So no, it’s not wrong to call it “soccer” if you’re American. Or Australian.

So what is the source you are using for you claim that "soccer was commonly used to describe association football" (my bold emphasis on the word "was") and why did you not include it in you edit? -- PBS (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

5. Sports editorial from The Guardian - the one and only contemporary and relevant source. I invite all to read it. --Pete (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Except that is a blog and on the Australian website of an English newspaper, hardly a RS for Australian language usage. Further, the article reads like fan boy cruft. Not many people in Australia call soccer "the beautiful game" except die hard soccer tragics. - Nick Thorne talk 22:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
"die hard soccer tragics", eh? Well, you are entitled to your bias, but let it be noted. The question of the lack of cites is before us. Do you have anything we can use, Nick, or should we just remove all the problematic material? You seem to want to keep the unsourced content. --Pete (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It might help to quote the RFU "brand new game of ‘soccer’ became a mainly dribbling game".[1] they make that joke quite a lot, but then they have ovel balls ;-)
But seriously I read the Guardian piece and I do not see how one can possible read it as saying "Australia-wide, soccer was commonly used to describe association football" when it says the Guardian itself named its Australian website soccer section "soccer":
Guardian Australia's sport editor Tom Lutz fired off a quick piece about his decision to label the section 'soccer', pointing out that it will "avoid confusion" with the other codes.

It's a fair enough response, but it misunderstands the extent of the feeling for the word down under. Those are fighting words to the more radical followers of the round ball.
As the quote makes clear the author is talking about calling soccer "football" in his own soccer community it says nothing of what followers of the other codes call soccer. The author even says "Personally, I prefer 'football', but find myself using the 'soccer' in my conversations more often than not." this suggests that most Australians still call the dribbling game soccer.
That source is nowhere near strong enough to support the statement "Australia-wide, soccer was commonly used to describe association football"
-- PBS (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, PBS, just what do you personally think "association football" might be? Quite clearly The Guardian is not here talking about rugby or Australian Rules or any other sport. The key point is that on its initial publication in Australia The Guardian used the word "soccer", but swiftly changed it - as noted in previous discussion and easily checked. The whole article is about how the sport was previously known as soccer, but is now called football.
In any case, you still haven't addressed the outdated and inadequate sourcing. We need sources. How about we take each source to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and ask for assistance there in whether the sources we give support the statements we make? --Pete (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The Business Insider article is pretty clearly discussing why both Americans and Australians call the sport soccer rather than football, focusing more on Australia being an Australian article. The article from 1901 is a reference for the line about usage going back more than a century, it's not invalidated by being an old reference. In fact, it's a fairly good reason for using it as a reference. Spinrad (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The 1901 article is fine for that purpose. There is no problem there. It cannot be used to support any current usage, however. The Business Insider article - and isn't that a curious source? - talks about how "association football" became known as soccer in America - note the URL: The lines in the article,

“Rugby football” became “ruggle” for short. “Association football” became “soccer.” After these two sports spread across the Atlantic, Americans and Australians invented their own variant of the game that they simply called “football” in the early 1900s.

clearly refer to the sport crossing the Atlantic to America. I suggest that the material was modified for by simply adding "and Australia" where appropriate. In any case, it is hardly an authoritative or definitive source for current Australian usage. --Pete (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I still don't see how that Guardian blog post supports football though. Especially when he says "Australian soccer" in the present tense, despite personally preferring football. Spinrad (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. SOCCER? You listen to me, Senor Del Piero – 'soccer' is our slave name! We don't use that term any more. We say 'football!'
  2. In 2010 Craig Foster, our chief football evangelist, wrote in his book that "we can stop talking about the 'four football codes', since there is only one football code. The others are handball codes."
  3. the fact that the old governing body Soccer Australia was replaced by Football Federation Australia is no coincidence. 2003 – the sport's Year Zero – was the birth of the word "football", and before long newspapers were changing their "soccers" to "football".
The article uses "football" to refer to the sport without any qualification. The whole thrust of the article is summarised by the title: The drive for 'football' to be king in Australia. How else can one read this? Clearly it is not referring to other sports such as cricket or swimming - it is about replacing "soccer" with "football". Judging by the major media outlets, that has pretty much happened already. Apart from The Age, of course.
But let us look at all the sources quoted with a critical eye. Do they support our statements? Are they reliable? --Pete (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
But let's not fall into synthesis, eh, Pete? Your enthusiasm for the new is fine but Wikipedia is not a news service, it does not sit at the bleeding edge of change but waits until such change is well established and well referenced. It is not difficult to find plenty of examples of current usage of the word soccer in Australia and I have done just that in previous discussions as you well know. Consequently your apparently willful ignorance of the fact that the word football is still majorly ambiguous in a large part of this country is inexplicable unless it is some sort of attempt to game the system. Sorry mate, you've been called out on it. - Nick Thorne talk 10:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── User:Skyring you are cherry picking when you talk about being "hardly an authoritative" as it makes a much clear statement than the Guardian piece. As to the Peter FitzSimons' quote it is written as a facetious piece to tease writes such as Joe Gorman (the author of the Guardian blog article) and those (it seems such as yourself) who prefer to call the dribbling game football rather than soccer (Gorman writes in his piece "Rugby man Peter FitzSimons has had plenty of fun over the years poking fun at football fans in Australia"). As you noted above at 01:47, 3 April 2015 Gorman's ending statement "Personally, I prefer 'football', but find myself using the 'soccer' ..." makes clear that Gorman is not disputing FitzSimons sarcastic publication, and that Alessandro Del Piero used the term soccer is a indication that he expected his audience to be using the same term. The original Peter FitzSimons' article can be found at: Peter FitzSimons. "Del Piero in need of football lesson". Sydney Morning Herald..

That the governing body of on type of football decided to change their name and launch a PR drive to have that branding used in Australia does not mean that they have been successful in changing common usage to date. It also does not mean that they will not be eventually successful. But what is the source that you are using to justify the change to "Australia-wide, soccer was commonly used to describe association football"?

-- PBS (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've already addressed your question, PBS. What part of my response do you not understand?
Nick, I don't give a lukewarm squirt of pelican poo for sports. I don't care what people call them, quite frankly. At Wikipedia we have a need for reliable sources, and the sources we are using here either no longer exist or are lamentably inadequate. The Business Insider article is aimed at an American audience, as I have indicated, and it is in no way authoritative. Business Insider - geez. It's like using The Footy Show as a source for financial planning or investment strategies. I'll raise its use at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and you may discuss it there. Feel free to put forward some good reliable sources. --Pete (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
But it's OK to use a blog if it happens to agree with your position then is it Pete? Nice try. - Nick Thorne talk 22:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Nick, if you could comment on the sources for this article, that would be more helpful. Can you do that, please? --Pete (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Skyring you write "I've already addressed your question," please add a quote from the Guardian article to the sentence (or two) that you think best supports the sentence phrase you added "Australia-wide, soccer was commonly used to describe association football..." (IE it no longer is), because I can not see where in the text this is asserted. -- PBS (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I think I see the problem now. It is evident within the article that soccer was commonly used to describe association football. This does not mean that it currently is or isn't. It's a matter of logic, and I think you may have been reaching further than I was allowing for. Thanks for the clarification. --Pete (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I did a google search of Among other it returns these (in chronological publishing date order):

  • Kobe, Damon (Griffith University) (1999). "Soccer in Australia – What's going wrong?". -- contrast usage with a 20011 report: Smith, Warwick (2011). "Building Australia's Football Community - Australian Sports ." (PDF).
  • "football-in-australia". 28 March 2008 [23 September 2000]. --This seems to be a piece for immigrants, but it does say:

    "In each Australian state and territory the word football' has a different meaning. For those living in the Northern Territory, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, football usually refers to Australian Rules Football. In the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, and Queensland, it could mean rugby league or rugby union. The word 'soccer' equates to the game played by the Football Federation Australia for all of Australia."

in the section on Association Football it says "Soccer is now formally known as 'football' in Australia, in line with international usage."
  • ABS staff (3 December 2009). "Feature Article 1: Four games one name". Australian Bureau of Statistics. it says in its lead

    Australians are enthusiastic about their sport and have a particular passion for football. Football (or footy as it is also known) in Australia can mean any one of four codes - Australian Rules football, Association Football (Soccer), Rugby League or Rugby Union. All four codes are team sports. .... Australia is home to four professional football codes: Australian Football League (AFL), Australian Rugby Union (ARU), National Rugby League (NRL), and Football Federation Australia (FFA). ... NRL is the Australian national competition for Rugby League and FFA is the governing body for soccer in Australia. New South Wales and Queensland have teams represented in all four codes. Tasmania and the Northern Territory are the only state and territory without a football team in any of the four competitions. The football code an Australian plays or follows is often dictated by where they live, their cultural heritage, or by the code they were taught at school Both Rugby Union and Rugby League are most popular in New South Wales and Queensland. Australian Rules football is the dominant form of football in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Soccer is considered to be the most popular team sport in the world and is played in over 200 countries (Endnote 4).

  • "Australian Social Trends, Jun 2011". 20 September 2011. -- This one calls AF soccer
  • ABS staff (21 January 2013). "SPORT AND PHYSICAL RECREATION". Australian Bureau of Statistics. -- This one calls AF soccer
  • "4901.0 - Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia, Apr 2012". 4 February 2013. -- This one calls AF soccer, it does not even bother to qualify the expression.

I reckon that most of these documents are each composites put together by different people. I do like the comment in the document 3 December 2009 which was clearly written by a rugby league follower "Rugby League is played in more than 30 countries and is most prominent in Australia, England and New Zealand. Rugby Union is also popular in many countries including Australia, England, Wales and Japan" (not "popular in many more countries" nor any mention of South Africa or New Zealand!). -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, PBS. I've looked for definitive sources before and there's nothing good.
  • First, the official change from Soccer to Football in the sport's controlling bodies only happened in 2004. It is an ongoing process, and every time I check the media outlets, I find it has made a little more ground. In 2008 and 2009 it was resented, now it is accepted. Not by all, certainly, and there are many who have strong feelings, but I'm seeing movement when I contrast sources over the years. So I tend to ignore anything less than five years old. We are discussing the current situation, not historical times.
  • The ABS sources are useful, but hardly definitive. They are discussing participation in a range of sports, and using "soccer" to avoid any confusion with other similar sports (where large grounds and goalposts are used and the ball is usually carried rather than kicked.) As editors, we have the same desire to avoid confusion, but it is a convenience rather than any reflection of the actual terms used by the various communities. If the ABS collected data relating to what terms are used and where they are used - in the manner of noting regional variations of Australian English, for example - that would be something we could latch onto with both hands. Or feet.
Language changes constantly. A few years back, "tweeting" was something birds did. If we used a pre-2006 source, we'd be out of step with current usage. We're facing a similar situation now, --Pete (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the changes made by User:Skyring (Pete). Plenty of evidence has been presented in this conversation that soccer is commonly used, no evidence has been show that soccer is no longer commonly used used. -- PBS (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you just add the sources to the article? At the moment the statements need cites and it would be good to fix that up. Obviously anything dating from before the name of the sport changed is no longer valid for current Australian usage. It would be like saying that we still use pounds, shillings and pence in Australia, using a source dated 1965. Point taken? --Pete (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Rubbish. What the governing body of the sport calls itself has precisely zero correlation with what the sport is commonly referred to by the average Australian. You can continuse to pursue a path of selective deafness but it fools no one. Plenty of sources have already been provided for current usage and in any case we do not need to cite that the sky is blue. Anyone living in Australia is perfectly aware of what the word "soccer" means. - Nick Thorne talk 22:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
So you'll have no trouble coming up with a good, current, Australian source? Do that, and I'll shut up, which will be good for all of us. Or you could change Wikipedia's sourcing policy, and I'd be equally stymied. Otherwise we just go round in circles, with me asking for a source and you not providing one, and that's not how we should be spending our time. --Pete (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It surely can't be difficult to find a source?

Could someone please find a current Australian source for our statement that association football is usually called soccer in Australia? Please? The official name of the sport changed eleven years ago, so we need a current source (something within the last couple of years would be acceptable), and we need an Australian source, preferably from a sporting organisation or something to do with tracking language usage. Surely we can find something like this to stop me complaining about old and weak overseas sources? --Pete (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Or you could come up with a source for the sport being commonly referred to by the general public as 'Football'?Spinrad (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
But that's not my position, Spinrad. As you insist, the article now reads, "Australia-wide, soccer is commonly used to describe association football," and you don't have a source that backs this up. I'm not convinced you understand how Wikipedia works here. We don't just say whatever we feel like and pass it off to the readers. We find a reliable source and use that as our authority. It's one of the pillars of the project, after all. --Pete (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Except that you are trying to change the article to say: 'soccer was commonly used', implying that soccer is no longer commonly used, without any sources to back up that claim. Spinrad (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you're reading too much into it there. In any case, I reject your implication. We can say that soccer was commonly used as a statement of past history, and we have sources to back that up. What has been obvious for some time is that we don't have any sources to support your claim. Because if you had a good source, you would add it to the article. If it is impossible to find a source, then we can't make the statement.
Look, this isn't about anything other than doing the right thing according to the basic rules of Wikipedia. I don't care what the sport is called, I don't watch it or follow it. I care about Wikipedia not being debased into opinions and propaganda. On the subject of sports, I like being entertained by watching intelligent people trying to dance around the fact that they got nothing. If you want to stop entertaining me, just follow the rules, find a source or admit there isn't one, and I'll lose interest. --Pete (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Plenty of 21st century sources have been given that Soccer is commonly used. If you think that it has changed then you need to find several sources that say so independent of commercially vested interests such as the Australian Football Federation I am very disappointed that you made this change when you wrote above in the proceeding section "I think I see the problem now. It is evident within the article that soccer was commonly used to describe association football. This does not mean that it currently is or isn't. It's a matter of logic, and I think you may have been reaching further than I was allowing for. Thanks for the clarification.". --PBS (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
One of the 21st century sources mentioned in the previous section is 2009:
  • ABS staff (3 December 2009). "Feature Article 1: Four games one name". Australian Bureau of Statistics.
That article also links to another Australian Government article now gone but last archived on 10 April 2011 Football in Australia, which states:
In each Australian state and territory the word ‘football’ has a different meaning. For those living in the Northern Territory, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, football usually refers to Australian Rules Football. In the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, and Queensland, it could mean rugby league or rugby union. The word ‘soccer’ equates to the game played by the Football Federation Australia for all of Australia.
-- you need a more recent source as authoritative as that which contradicts that statement. If in your opinion the current sources are not up to date enough for you I suggest that you add these two. -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to contradict your statement. I'm not taking an opposing position. Please try to accept this. I'm asking for a source. And it needs to be a current source, if we are talking about the current state. You do understand this point?
The name of the sport changed in 2004. Before this, I don't think we need question the statement that "soccer was commonly used to describe association football". However, it means that we cannot use any source from before that time to describe the current situation eleven years on. It's like saying that Julia Gillard is the Australian Prime Minister, using a source from two years ago. The situation is not static; there have been significant changes, as we see from official sources, media preferences and opinion pieces.
So we really need an authoritative source from the past couple of years to use when describing the current situation. I.e. now, the present moment, 2015.
Looking at your sources supplied, let us turn to the 2009 ABS article Four games one name. That's from 2009, so it cannot be described as current. Furthermore, it is based on data from 2005/2006. Crucially, it makes no statement about which term is in current use at that time. We cannot use it as a source for the statement "Australia-wide, soccer is commonly used to describe association football". It makes no such claim. If you can find any wording to this effect that I may have missed, please point it out.
Football in Australia from The Wayback Machine is even more ancient. It may have been archived in 2011, but it was written well before that. I cannot find a date mentioned in the text later than 2003. However, we may see for ourselves when we look at the earliest capture of the page, dated 30 March 2004.[2]
So we can't use that as a source, either. Not only was it written in 2004, before the name of the sport changed, we can hardly use a page from The Wayback Machine as a source for the present situation.
Do you - or anyone - have a current Australian source to support the statement we claim in our article? We need a source, not synthesis or wordplay or wriggling around. An actual source. --Pete (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary you need to find a source that contradicts an Australian government website statement ( here is the same page still published by the Australian government). The wording in the article of "The word 'soccer' equates to the game played by the Football Federation Australia for all of Australia." clearly covers the use of soccer the rest of the statement unequivocally states "In each Australian state and territory the word football' has a different meaning." It is difficult to think of any statement that could be clearer. If you think meaning has changed you need a statement from a reliable source which contradicts the Australian government's statement. -- PBS (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That looks like a useful source. Which is what I was asking for. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the text to use this as a source. However, I note that it says, right at the bottom, "Last updated: 2008". So if you have an actual current source…? --Pete (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

National usage United States

"However, as in Canada, "football" refers to soccer if the game is neither Canadian nor American in context." Does anyone have any idea what that is trying to say? --Khajidha (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Football (word). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive to
  • Corrected formatting/usage for
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive,,468041,00.html to,,468041,00.html
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive,,543952,00.html to,,543952,00.html

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Soccer and footballers

Hi, guys! I originally started this whole discussion 14 years ago when Wikipedia had only a few hundred regular contributors. I noticed that "football" meant soccer in British English but American football in American English. So I turned what was then a redirect into the Football page.

I still think that the term soccer deserves some mention. The delicious irony is that nearly everyone who plays soccer - particularly as a professional sport - calls it "football" (or "footie"). And of course, people who play "football" (er, I mean soccer) are typically called "footballers".

It is chiefly in America (er, I mean the USA) that the terms "soccer" and "soccer player" are used. Elsewhere - typically overseas and in Latin America, where the bulk of professional play carries on - the terms are "football" and "footballer".

I'd like to see this usage distinguised in the article - not to promote the American English usage, but rather to help my fellow Americans understand how people worldwide refer to the sports and their participants. Thank you for your time. --14:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talkcontribs) 14:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Football (word). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Corrected formatting/usage for
  • Added archive to
  • Corrected formatting/usage for
  • Added archive to
  • Corrected formatting/usage for
  • Corrected formatting/usage for

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Football (word)"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA