Talk:Woggabaliri

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

Woggabaliri[edit]

Who created this article in the first instance? What background do they have in this area? All the sources for the article end in the same singular source. Given inaccuracies in the article and the supporting documents, it seems like this may have been created to push someone's agenda and woggabaliri may not have actually existed as a sport as claimed.

It certainly could not have been recognised as the first indigenous sport by any reputable organisation as there is no way for us to date sports that occurred before white settlement, and there were plenty of other sports played by the aborigines before white settlement. There were certainly more games that have a lot more literature on them other than this one from the time of early settlement.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinick99 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 November 2010

Picture[edit]

How can this picture, from Victoria, be shown here as evidence of an aboriginal game played in central NSW? Hasn't it occurred to anyone that someone has appropriated this picture, and the language to describe Marn Grook (almost word for word) to push some agenda? How is that we have stacks of material on Marn grook but absolutely nothing on Woggabaliri? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.213.166 (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the photo out, because it's quite speculative for anyone to associate the etching of a game played in Victoria (with numerous eye-witness accounts from the period), with this game that has been "re-discovered" in the past decade (and which is obviously a piss take).

Someone has added the picture again, so I took it out again. I agree with the previous two posts that a picture depicting Victoria is not related to a game supposedly played in NSW. Indigenous Australians are not one homogeneous group and by linking a picture of Marn Grook with 'Waggabaliri' is misleading. Norwestie (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the game represents Woggabaliri is made by the Australian Sports Commission. The sources say it is "more likely" the game is Woggabaliri than Marn Grook, partly because of the name of the engraving and partly as it is a scene near Merbein which is more than 400km from where Marn Grook was known to have been played but consideably closer to where Woggabaliri was played. For example, the Gunditjmara who played Marn Grook lived around Portland which is 470km from Merbein and historians can find no evidence that Marn Grook was played north of the Grampians. In fact, historians can find no evidence Marn Grook was played by the Djabwurrung and Jardwadjali although this is claimed in that article. On the other hand Woggabaliri was known to have been played not far from Balranald which is 120km from Merbein. It's quite likely it is another game entirely but again we have to use what the sources say or we get into WP:OR. The caption does not name the game being played so it is entirely NPOV and appropriate in this article. Wayne (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"History"[edit]

It begins with Often confused as a variant of Marn Grook,. Often confused? Who confuses them? No one even knows this game exists! There is no mention of it until someone pulled this blokes leg for a laugh about a decade ago. So how can it be "often confused"? It suggests the writer of this article is biased and is trying to peddle a particular line here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.81.49 (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the often confused part. I would stress though, that this being for some reason an article that causes emotions to boil over on both sides of the aussie rules/soccer divide, that we treat the article on its own merits and not insert opinions that are irrelevant to the article. Blackmissionary (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original writer had obviously put in a few opinions of his own. Hasn't anyone noticed that this "game" has appropriated an etching showing another game played in Victoria, as proof of its existence, and what's more, much of the language to describe this game has actually been appropriated from marn grook. I don't see it as an Australian football vs soccer argument, the soccer people on their own forums are pissing themselves at what is obviously a hoax. The professor who wrote the account couldn't even get the original language correct (the word "woggabaliri") - the whole acount is as dubious as hell. I've googled, I've tried the NLA archives, I've even tried some of the very best data bases I have access to - nothing comes up on it - nothing.
I'm not here to defend the intentions of the original writer, as they've obviously come here with an agenda, which is not what wikipedia is about. However, the book the information on this game comes from also includes dozens of other Aboriginal Australian games and pastimes - the historical accuracy of his work I'm unsure of - but it is appropriate to use as a reference his work because that is what the FFA (for better/worse) are using as an argument in their world cup bid. What I'm more concerned about is usage of this game/article by anyone to push any agenda on here that is beyond the scope of wikipedia's function. This is a place for articles based on facts, not inferences, flame wars and vandalism imported from other parts of the web. If edits are made which do not comply with that spirit, anyone is free to revert them. Also, could you please remember to sign your posts, as it makes it easier to follow a discussion. Blackmissionary (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the article is from the sources provided. If you find another source that has proven any errors then feel free to make corrections but please use common sense and dont remove material because you dont personally believe what the sources say.Wayne (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a picture of a different game played in Victoria belong here? Figghiu Beddu (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the sources say the location of the game depicted in the etching makes it likely to be Woggabaliri as Marn Grook was not played in that area. Wayne (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources also say that Woggabaliri was played in central NSW - so what has this game in Victoria got to do with it? You can't just whack on any picture and declare that it's this game that has never, ever, ever been documented - ever. Figghiu Beddu (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiradjuri are in central NSW but the game was also played by other peoples who bordered them and the River Murray. Merbein is only 10km or so from the river? The sources make the claim that Woggabaliri is believed to be the game so we can say that in the article. There is no evidence available to support that the game depicted is Marn Grook either as the first mention of the game was 10 years after the etching was made. It can even be said Marn Grook is less likely, as according to historian Gillian Hibbins, it was not played north of the Grampians. BTW, you cant remove the image again, doing so a third time is a violation of WP rules and will result in you being banned from editing. If you find a RS claiming the game cant be Woggabaliri then feel free to include it. Wayne (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Apart from Edwards' book, there are no sources. He writes barely a page on this game called Woggabaliri, with zero references, he doesn't even give a background account of who told him the story, nothing - and now you're claiming there are sources that refer to this etching in Victoria being Woggabaliri as well? Mate - there are no sources, there's nothing, what we are seeing is a clear case of POV on your part. Figghiu Beddu (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe the etching does depict Woggabaliri but RS claim they believe it does. Having said that it is even more unlikely that it depicts Marn Grook yet that article makes the same claim based on similar evidence without you disputing it. In fact, there is more evidence that Woggabaliri is real than there is supporting Marn Grooks connection with the AFL but we can still make that connection in the article because it can be cited to a RS making that claim. Sit back and think about it...if this is a hoax that has been undiscovered for the last decade then having an article will be the quickest way to get it into the public arena where people can research it, which they will do if there are any doubts.Wayne (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone assist with the reporting of this nonsense article? The author zealosly guards any alterations and reports them as vandalism, but, in addition to some of the nonsense that was ultimately removed we still have: 1) The game "Popular with the Wiradjuri and surrounding peoples before European arrival" 2) The game is "recognised by the Australian Sports Commission as one of the oldest Indigenous ball games" http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=773519 And of course, if the entire evidence an article is based on is from one "non-historian / non-sociologist" who is living and yet refuses to provide the evidence he has used, how lo9ng can they be viewed as a credibloe source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza773 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way in hell this is real.[edit]

Honestly. Woggabaliri is just a play on the term "wogball", a racist term used to describe soccer. Get rid of this crap.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Frederick (talk • contribs) 06:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was precisely my thoughts when I discovered this. I suspect it's just somebody's racist joke. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's further discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Is Woggabaliri somebody's little, semi-racist joke? HiLo48 (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's parody of the idea that Australian rules had roots in indigenous culture, akin to giving baseball an American origin with the Abner Doubleday myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnomieBOT (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, this is still here after 7 years, good job whoever made it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.166.198 (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's mocking Wikipedia's sourcing rules. Create a fake source, and the world is your oyster on Wikipedia. It happens on a lot of articles. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What source is supposed to have been "made up"? Meanwhile the government of New South Wales (certainly a reliable source) seems to think this game exists (or existed).[2] IntoThinAir (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What source is made up? Whichever one is the oldest, which might have been No. 8, the one that no longer works. Can you not see the possibility that this is all someone's rather cheeky joke? Do you truly believe governments don't ever get things wrong? No, government sources are not always reliable. There's also the fact that a very similar sounding game called Marngrook definitely existed and has been suggested as one of the forebears of Aussie Rules, but was in Victoria's Western District, a long way from the claimed location of Woggabaliri. Any chance someone wanted to copy the idea? HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly see that possibility, and I certainly don't think that governments are always right about everything. It seems likely that the oldest source is not source number 8 (which you can find a saved copy of on the Wayback Machine), nor is that source made up, as clicking on the aforementioned archive link will confirm (also, this document mentions woggabaliri on page 15). Instead, the oldest source by far seems to be reference #3 from 1904. [3] Is this source made up? No, because we know it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. But maybe the single mention of woggabaliri in the Project Gutenberg version of this source (the version cited in this article) isn't in the original text? No, it's on page 35. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the point made multiple times above that "woggabaliri" sounds similar to the racist Australian slang term "wogball": there is a 2017 peer-reviewed article which addresses this and states: "The name ‘woggabaliri’ caused much merriment within informal Internet discussions due to its lexical similarity to the notion of ‘wogball’, a derogatory name for soccer in Australia. No doubt the name of ‘Woggs’ a writer of soccer reports in the Australian Town and Country Journal in the 1880 would inspire a similar level of merriment." The implication is clearly that it is only a coincidence that "woggabaliri" and "wogball" sound and are spelled similarly. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Woggs" isn't a problem. "Woggabaliri" is. It contains both "wog" and "bal(l)". People are going to laugh. If you are convinced it's real, write some words in the article to stop them laughing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have rearranged the order of the sentences in the history section so it starts " 'Woggabaliri' was documented prior to 1904 as the Ngunnawal word for "play"." Does that help? (I have also added some references, though not the T&F Syson one, which I don't have access to.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It helps, but it's not enough. Please see the comments I have just added at the AfD entry. HiLo48 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetuated hoax (propaganda article)[edit]

This article is a perpetuated hoax based on articles that were published in 2007 based on a single image which was incorrectly interpreted and attributed. The resulting hype, mainly from soccer interests in NSW caused some people to cite the Wikipedia article as a source. These sources are no longer reliable and many of these secondary sources subsequently realised and redacted their articles. Tim Hilferti's 2010 opinion article from The Advertiser newspaper is not a reliable source and is cited extensively, it appears to simply be based on this page. Unfortunately there is at least one book published in 2011 on the subject which is poorly referenced and not reliable source. All the other cited sources are extremely spurious and there are no links to any reliable academic studies on the subject prior to or after 2007. --Rulesfan (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term Woggabaliri is attested as far back as 1904.
If this article is a hoax, then the game might as well begin with a prayer to Jar'Edo Wens! 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reliable source for your claim that "The term Woggabaliri is attested as far back as 1904". HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the name is real, it doesn't follow that the game is! I could dig up any term from any used or unused language, attribute it to a anything newly created I want and write a Wikipedia article on it. The fact that it has not been discussed for over 100 years just does not follow that it had just because it uses an old word for its name! I went to a lot of effort to verify many of the sources (to the extent I doubt many other so called "editors" would), including scanning through books with few if any mentions of the subject (and zero sources prior to 2016), only to see them replaced by even more spurious and difficult to verify sources. Try searching the term "Woggabaliri" at any state library in Australia and see how many results you get - ZILCH - that is because it has never actually existed. Try Marngrook and you get hundreds of results for well sourced books and peer reviewed journals. The vast majority of the original sources claimed for Woggabaliri are now only available on Web Archive and are no longer either current or reliable. Some of the recently added citations are behind paywalls but appear pretty ridiculous. It seems unlikely that a Japanese journal would be the only one in the world to publish an article on the subject in 1929 ... !

"Japan Advertiser, The Japan Advertiser Conventions Number, October-November, 1929: World Engineering Congress, Tokyo; Institute of Pacific Relations Conference, Kyoto". Manchuria Daily News Online. Retrieved 24 February 2023.

This article should never have been published and should have remained deleted when it was verified as a hoax. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia's standards. --Rulesfan (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the additional info that has been added in the last few years, pretty much dismissing all the original assertions about the origins of the sketch, and the where the word comes from etc., it really is remarkable that this article has remained up.
Someone out there is having a hearty laugh about this con job! 2001:8003:1DA3:4C01:20E8:E04C:ECCF:F9EC (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter to Wikipedia whether the game is a hoax or not - Wikipedia documents what has been written and discussed about it. Several hoaxes are documented on Wikipedia. As far as I can see from a brief skim, there is no definitive consensus at this point that it is a hoax, and the NSW Office of Sport still has it live on its website. So long as people might go searching for it, it needs to be documented on Wikipedia. It could turn up in the media tomorrow. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the likelihood is that this is worse than a hoax. It's mocking soccer by suggesting that an Aboriginal name for an ancestral version of the game is a variation on wogball, a blatantly derogatory name for soccer in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This may be so, and I happen to love the world game myself, but the article still has to reflect sources, hoax or not. I have just removed a lot of WP:OR that is unsourced. I know nothing about it and don't have the time to do the research now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100% citogenesis - stop warnings of unconstructive editing[edit]

So User:Pyraminxsolver has been sending me warnings and reverting my edits when all I'm focusing on verifying sources. I would really like to know what the agenda is to keeping this page going as it has virtually no substance of fact! --Rulesfan (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the edit that I warned you about (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woggabaliri&diff=prev&oldid=1145403060) was vandalism. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not vandalism, its simply redirecting from an unsubstantiated hoax to a legitimate topic so that they don't become victims of disinformation! The marngrook article is extremely well researched and has citations dating back 180 years. This article has a handful of poorly supported citations dating back just over 20. --Rulesfan (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicions from article creator[edit]

Aside from the fact that this is suspected as a hoax, has no credible sources, and may be someone's bad joke I'd like to add:

User:WLRoss stopped being active on Wikipedia, but they also made the page for White noise (slang) (now a redirect). Correlating with the fact "White noise (slang)" was originally considered for deletion, and the article's title may be derived from a racist term, it feels oddly calculated. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the history of this article go?[edit]

The Edit history of this article goes back no further than yesterday, 24 February 2023. But I know it has existed for much longer than that. The history of this Talk page goes back to 2010. What's going on? HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edits - removal of hoax claims[edit]

Users Pyraminxsolver and Laterthanyouthink have been removing the hoax controversy sections and making the article sound factual whereas it is not, claiming it is original research, whereas it is clear that the entire subject is original research. This is unacceptable as the material was clearly cited. Rulesfan (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rulesfan I think you'll find that I only removed uncited or poorly cited content, and stuck to the sources. The article should make no judgements, merely state the facts as reported in reliable sources. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perplexed. This is an example of poorly cited content? It is a university journal!
"Blandowski's expedition did not travel as far as Wiradjuri country, only to the junction of the Murray and Darling Rivers.[1]"
It has a pretty comprehensive account of the route travelled and the tribes visited. (Rulesfan, unsigned)
"On 2 December 1856 the government appointed him leader of an expedition to investigate the natural history of the region at the junction of the Darling and Murray Rivers, with a view to collecting specimens for the National Museum." It does not mention whose country it was. Can you not see what you have added as OR? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you also claiming that the Wiradjuri Dictionary (by Dr Stan Grant and Dr John Rudder) is not a reliable source? https://wiradjuri.wcclp.com.au/ it is simply stating the facts that according to this source Woggabaliri is not the Wiradjuri word for play. The reader can make up their own mind on Ken Edwards claim about this.

References

  1. ^ Paszkowski, L.K. (1969). 'Blandowski, William (1822 - 1878)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 3, Melbourne University Press, pp 182-183. [1]

Redactions and Ommissions from both Ken Edwards and John Maynard[edit]

OK so the fact both of the PHD authors removed their references to Woggabaliri is removed from the article. This is not insignificant as their work forms the basis for the citogenesis.

  1. Ken Edwards removed all references to Woggabaliri from his post PHD January 2009 work "Traditional games of a timeless land: Play cultures in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities" Australian Aboriginal Studies. In this edition he instead makes specific reference to marn-grook. And makes actual relevant citations
  2. John Maynard likewise in his 2019 revision of 'The Aboriginal Soccer Tribe' removed all references to Woggabiliri. In this edition he instead makes specific reference to marn-grook. And makes actual relevant citations.

It begs the question. Why else would they remove all reference to Woggabaliri it if it was still factual and relevant post 2009?? It is now almost impossible to find any official government sources, such as the original source, the Australian Sports Commission, with references that support any historical existence of Woggabaliri.

I have come to the conclusion that Ken Edwards original source is thoroughly unreliable as an academic citation. I have double checked his bibliography and none of his sources support any evidence for Woggabaliri. Furthermore there are simply no references to it - at all - prior to his work. The fact that he has since distanced himself from it as an authoritative source adds weight to it being unreliable.

Rulesfan (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woggabaliri&oldid=1199540851"