This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Netball and the Olympic Movement has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Netball and the Olympic Movement was copied or moved into Women's sport at the Olympics with this edit on 26 March 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Netball was copied or moved into Netball and the Olympic Movement with this edit on 26 March 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The rationale for this article being written in British English is that netball is played primarily in Commonwealth countries. -- LauraHale ( talk) 04:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
On the netball talk page, there was some s uggestion this phrase should be hyphenated. In doing a google check, searching on Google Scholar and on Google Book, the use of the word recognised was not hyphenated. The lack of hyphenation is also consistent with the wording used on Olympic sports. -- LauraHale ( talk) 04:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
This template is not compatible with {{reflist}}. Comments have been on {{cite hansard}} and {{reflist}}. They are aware of this problem and are attempting to fix it to make both citation templates compliant with each other. That is why the linking between the two references sections doesn't work and there are occasional formatting errors when cite hansard is used. -- LauraHale ( talk) 10:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Racepacket ( talk) 17:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC) This article is a quick fail for the following grounds:
A) It does not offer a comprehensive treatment of the subject. Explain that "funding" refers to funding through the IFNA and does not include local sponsorship etc. The article could list all of the NGB's that have jurisdiction over netball (but again, that would overlap with the IFNA article).
B) It is not accurate - it is based on a misconception. The International Olympic Committee recognizes International Federations (IFs). After a 20-year campaign discussed in the article, the International Federation of Netball Associations (IFNA) was recognized, not Netball as a sport. The factors used by the IOC to recognize the IFNA turned more on its assessment of the IFNA than of the "merits" of netball as a sport. Hence, the recognition battle is more accurately reported under that article. The degree of overlap between the two suggests a merger.
C) Verifiabiliy - I suggest we use the best possible sources for these statements. For example, while Taylor wrote a social history of netball, press coverage of the IOC may be a more reliable source for some of the matters covered.
D) Clarity - Change the heading "National Chapters" to "National governing bodies" (again, this highlights how this is really a discussion of the IFNA's chapters).
E) POV - reading the article give the impression that the author(s) seem to believe that Netball should be an Olympic sport. I have no opinion but I believe arguments on both sides can be presented without speaking in the voice of Wikipedia.
F) Words to watch - please remove them.
G) Stability - this article is so new (created a day and a half ago) that it has not yet had the opportunity to be vetted by a wide variety of interested Wikipedia editors. Currently there is on-going discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#Olympic_recognised_sports as to whether this article should be renamed or merged. I suggest waiting at least a month to see how these discussions settle down before renominating.
Good luck with the article, but a great deal more work is required to bring it to GA standards.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk) 19:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Hawkeye7, thank you for volunteering to review the article. However, I respectfully ask two questions: (1) do you feel that an article that is only two days old is sufficiently "stable" (particularly since we have a merger proposal pending), and (2) do you feel that your four edits during the article's brief life were "substantial?" diff and diff and diff Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 21:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I've modified a number of the edits made by User:158.59.127.249 as they come from Virginia where a blocked contributor with issues with this article comes from. I'm probably a little too emotionally invested in the situation to fairly evaluate this situation. If the change of wording was appropriate, I won't take it personally if my reversions of the possible block evader are undone. -- LauraHale ( talk) 21:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the claims in the section "Bias against women's sport" (which I would argue deals with a more wide ranging issue and doesn't belong in this article anyway) rely on a source that is nearly 30 years old. I don't think, with the changes that have been made since this time, that such an old source can be deemed suitable - newer ones could and should be used to back up statements like "Exclusion of netball from the Summer Olympics is part of a pattern of exclusion of women's sports" and "The issues facing netball are part of a larger problem involving female participation in the Olympics". These things might have been true in 1982 but where is the evidence that they still are?
Additionally I have issues with terms such as "sports Rugby sevens and golf, primarily played men", the source used here does not mention that they are primarily played by men - without such as a source this phrasing seems to be pushing a non neutral POV. I'd also like to see mention of Softball at the 2000 Summer Olympics as you list sports only open to men but ignore one only open to women.
Finally there are claims made in the article which the sources given simply do not back up - "This makes it eligible to be played in future Games" cites sources 15 and 16, neither of which contains any such information as far as I can see.
In short if these issues are not fixed then the article should be listed for GA reassessment as I would argue that it fails both the "Is it factually accurate and verifiable?" and "Is it neutral?" criteria - Basement12 (T. C) 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
A few more problems...
There may well be other issues as well but until someone makes a start on correcting these, or a GAR is implimented I won't do a full review - Basement12 (T. C) 15:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The table found at the Olympic website containing information about the qualifications for becoming an Olympic recognised found in the Netball and the Olympic Movement#Olympic_recognition is included based on the following fair use rational:
-- LauraHale ( talk) 06:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The opening of this article gives exaggerated significance to the sport. The most important fact about Netball in relation to the Olympics is the fact that it is not in the Olympics. It never has been, and there's no plan for it to be in the Olympics. The title could give the impression that it might be in the Olympics, so the lead needs to make clear it is not. Also, why do we say it hasn't been played in the summer Olympics, when we could just say Olympics, without qualification? I made a change, which was reverted with the explanation "text was used in DYK", which seems irrelevant. -- Rob ( talk) 22:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Netball is such a minor sport, very unlikely to make the Olympics, and it has a an article dedicated to it? Does not make any sense at all. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 16:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
this one could be used in the article. -- LauraHale ( talk)
Please discuss the article before making any substantial edits to the article. The sources cited in the article do not support the substantial rewrite. There are multiple sources that say netball is an Olympic recognised sport. This is not controversial. -- LauraHale ( talk) 22:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The LauraHale/Hawkeye7 meatpuppetry is very troubling and reflects very poorly on both individuals. 69.193.53.138 ( talk) 22:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Given Hawkeye7's role as the good article reviewer, meatpuppet collusion with LauraHale would be a very serious breach of good faith dealing with the community. Please tell us what your relationship is and why you are doing tag-team wholesale reverts today. 198.228.200.153 ( talk) 00:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
There are serious sourcing problem with the claim that the IOC went further than it's 1995 action that recognised the IFNA as a sports federation. Making a false claim can never be "non-controversial". Please read all of the talk page to this article, and then repeat your claim that there is no controversy about the edits LauraHale/Hawkeye7 is making today. 198.228.200.152 ( talk) 00:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
LauraHale and Hawkeye7 have now convinced another administrator to lock their personal essay from further editing. The article needs a complete rewrite by people other than those two individuals who have asserted WP:OWNnership over the article since it was first written. Many people have questioned the need for an article on this topic separate from the Netball and International Federation of Netball Associations, but by force of will LauraHale and Hawkeye7 have forced it into a separate existence and a GA rating. It is the classic example of a "POV fork".
If the purpose of the article is to educate the reader as to the relationship between the sport of netball and the Olympic Movement, the organization needs to be revised. First, the article concedes that netball is played by women, men and mixed teams, yet the article starts with a section on how one commentator feels that the Olympic Movement discriminates against women. This is later contradicted by the table that shows that the criteria for including women-only sports are less rigorous than men-only sports. The article should start with an objective history of how netball has interacted with the IOC. This should avoid any implication that netball has met any criteria being discussed. If a criteria has not been met, say it. Don't just imply it or create the implication that it has been met. Be honest with your readers.
Be clear about the criteria for men's teams and whether or not the IFNA or anyone else has requested that men's netball is to be included in the Olympic Programme. Be clear about who has made a motion at an Olympic organizing meeting to include women's teams and whether a vote was taken, and what the outcome was. As best that I can determine no recent votes were taken because there is no showing that the criteria for Programme inclusion has been met. The article should retain the table, but should make it clear that this is a quotation from an Olympic document. Adding your own footnotes to each row of the table confuses this. Even Hawkeye7, above, was confused that the table is a quote and asked LauraHale to expand the table as a result. Hawkeye7 is correct, however, that the reader should learn what criteria are satisfied, what criteria have yet to be met. Instead the article confuses the reader by whining about "The Olympic Movement (as if it were one monolith) is out to get women's sports."
A neutral person from WikiProjects Olympics should read each footnoted source and compare it against the text in the article. There are some improper sourcing and some unreliable sources.
The article should present the fact. It should not be a personal opinion essay. It is causing on-going embarrassment to Wikipedia on other critic websites. 68.188.61.6 ( talk) 12:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I have read this entire talk page, and I find the criticisms made to be valid. It is a shame that 1) the article has been locked and 2) there are one or two people who keep adding distorted, biased content to this article. I also join those who question why this article exists as a separate article. It appears to be a point of view fork controlled by one or two individuals. Additional work is needed to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards.
158.59.127.249 (
talk)
23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/olympics/7314392/Women-winners-on-the-pitch-not-the-sky
I plan to do a reassessment of this article in the near future. I am well aware of the background to much of the dispute here, but hope enough time has passed that we can work through some of the articles potential flaws in a collegial way. It will take me some time as I am not the fastest editor in the world and I want to look thoroughly at some of these sources. AIRcorn (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The article says that the number of competitors and the number of sports is unevenly distributed for women and man. I agree as far as competitors go, but events? I thought that was even now. A source request was reverted; could someone verify that that source is still up to date? L.tak ( talk) 13:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
A 1982 is used as a reference that there is a "a pattern of exclusion of women's sports.". In assume that is an opinion, rather than a unequivocal fact, and in view of the age of the ref (I was 4 years old when it was written down), it might be a recent and widely held view anymore. I therefore specified "In 1982 by Dyer" in the text to reflect this, but that was reverted. Do we have more refs to show this is a universal and recent view? Otherwise I think the "In 1982 by Dyer" should be readded or the statement should be removed. L.tak ( talk) 13:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The article is "bad" for a "good article." First, briefly explain what netball is and its roots in Victorian England who felt that Basketball was an unlady-like sport. Next, explain that the IOC has adopted objective criteria for evaluating sports, including the number of nations where it is practiced. Next, document how netball does or does not meet the criteria. Next, identify the groups pushing for netball (i.e., a group of MEN and women who want to make a livelihood off the sport.) Explain how much money is at stake and who is funding the IFNA. Explain how Olympic participation in Basketball by women was allowed in 1976 and how women playing an "unlady-like" sport in the Olympics was more of a statement of equality than adding a sport that reinforced the Victorian view of women. However, this is just one argument among many and should not be over-emphasized just because one author pushes it. Document how much money is at stake in terms of annual funding from the IOC and how well-funded are the advocates of netball. The objective literature is out there; you don't need to rely on the transcript of speaches before the NSW Parliament.
I understand that companies sometimes pay people to put them in the best possible light on Wikipedia. But the theory of crowd sourcing is that enough other people will edit in the opposite direction to remove the biased edit. Reading this article and its edit history shows a serious breakdown of that corrective process. 184.49.146.219 ( talk) 07:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Probably because of some other editing around it, the final sentence of the first paragraph in the section Netball and the Olympic Movement#Women's sport at the Olympics seems to have lost its context. Anyone want to try to repair it? Or maybe just delete? HiLo48 ( talk) 03:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The media section states: "While netball may be the most popular women's participation sport in many Commonwealth countries", (…) and I was not sure if the sources at the end of the sentence also can be used for this statement. Can someone verify that (the source is not available on line)? L.tak ( talk) 10:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
In the text we have " The Federation's first application was rejected because it referred to the sport as women's basketball and the International Olympic Committee (IOC)", which is an extraordinary statement (naming to be the only reason for rejection, so it requires some substantiation. Can someone quote the source and place it in context? L.tak ( talk) 18:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The first application to the International Olympic Committee was rejected because the Federation had the word "Basketball" in its title. The International Olympic Committee explained that it accepted only one international body per sport and it already recognised the International Basketball Federation. This response gave significant impetus to change the name of the game in their respective countries from "Basketball" to "Netball".
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Netball and the Olympic Movement. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Netball and the Olympic Movement. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Netball and the Olympic Movement. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The opening sentences are very confusing for non-specialist readers. It now says:
It would be much clearer by at least swapping the order of the sentences, e.g.:
Thanks. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Netball and the Olympic Movement has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Netball and the Olympic Movement was copied or moved into Women's sport at the Olympics with this edit on 26 March 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Netball was copied or moved into Netball and the Olympic Movement with this edit on 26 March 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The rationale for this article being written in British English is that netball is played primarily in Commonwealth countries. -- LauraHale ( talk) 04:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
On the netball talk page, there was some s uggestion this phrase should be hyphenated. In doing a google check, searching on Google Scholar and on Google Book, the use of the word recognised was not hyphenated. The lack of hyphenation is also consistent with the wording used on Olympic sports. -- LauraHale ( talk) 04:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
This template is not compatible with {{reflist}}. Comments have been on {{cite hansard}} and {{reflist}}. They are aware of this problem and are attempting to fix it to make both citation templates compliant with each other. That is why the linking between the two references sections doesn't work and there are occasional formatting errors when cite hansard is used. -- LauraHale ( talk) 10:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Racepacket ( talk) 17:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC) This article is a quick fail for the following grounds:
A) It does not offer a comprehensive treatment of the subject. Explain that "funding" refers to funding through the IFNA and does not include local sponsorship etc. The article could list all of the NGB's that have jurisdiction over netball (but again, that would overlap with the IFNA article).
B) It is not accurate - it is based on a misconception. The International Olympic Committee recognizes International Federations (IFs). After a 20-year campaign discussed in the article, the International Federation of Netball Associations (IFNA) was recognized, not Netball as a sport. The factors used by the IOC to recognize the IFNA turned more on its assessment of the IFNA than of the "merits" of netball as a sport. Hence, the recognition battle is more accurately reported under that article. The degree of overlap between the two suggests a merger.
C) Verifiabiliy - I suggest we use the best possible sources for these statements. For example, while Taylor wrote a social history of netball, press coverage of the IOC may be a more reliable source for some of the matters covered.
D) Clarity - Change the heading "National Chapters" to "National governing bodies" (again, this highlights how this is really a discussion of the IFNA's chapters).
E) POV - reading the article give the impression that the author(s) seem to believe that Netball should be an Olympic sport. I have no opinion but I believe arguments on both sides can be presented without speaking in the voice of Wikipedia.
F) Words to watch - please remove them.
G) Stability - this article is so new (created a day and a half ago) that it has not yet had the opportunity to be vetted by a wide variety of interested Wikipedia editors. Currently there is on-going discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#Olympic_recognised_sports as to whether this article should be renamed or merged. I suggest waiting at least a month to see how these discussions settle down before renominating.
Good luck with the article, but a great deal more work is required to bring it to GA standards.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 ( talk) 19:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Hawkeye7, thank you for volunteering to review the article. However, I respectfully ask two questions: (1) do you feel that an article that is only two days old is sufficiently "stable" (particularly since we have a merger proposal pending), and (2) do you feel that your four edits during the article's brief life were "substantial?" diff and diff and diff Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 21:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I've modified a number of the edits made by User:158.59.127.249 as they come from Virginia where a blocked contributor with issues with this article comes from. I'm probably a little too emotionally invested in the situation to fairly evaluate this situation. If the change of wording was appropriate, I won't take it personally if my reversions of the possible block evader are undone. -- LauraHale ( talk) 21:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the claims in the section "Bias against women's sport" (which I would argue deals with a more wide ranging issue and doesn't belong in this article anyway) rely on a source that is nearly 30 years old. I don't think, with the changes that have been made since this time, that such an old source can be deemed suitable - newer ones could and should be used to back up statements like "Exclusion of netball from the Summer Olympics is part of a pattern of exclusion of women's sports" and "The issues facing netball are part of a larger problem involving female participation in the Olympics". These things might have been true in 1982 but where is the evidence that they still are?
Additionally I have issues with terms such as "sports Rugby sevens and golf, primarily played men", the source used here does not mention that they are primarily played by men - without such as a source this phrasing seems to be pushing a non neutral POV. I'd also like to see mention of Softball at the 2000 Summer Olympics as you list sports only open to men but ignore one only open to women.
Finally there are claims made in the article which the sources given simply do not back up - "This makes it eligible to be played in future Games" cites sources 15 and 16, neither of which contains any such information as far as I can see.
In short if these issues are not fixed then the article should be listed for GA reassessment as I would argue that it fails both the "Is it factually accurate and verifiable?" and "Is it neutral?" criteria - Basement12 (T. C) 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
A few more problems...
There may well be other issues as well but until someone makes a start on correcting these, or a GAR is implimented I won't do a full review - Basement12 (T. C) 15:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The table found at the Olympic website containing information about the qualifications for becoming an Olympic recognised found in the Netball and the Olympic Movement#Olympic_recognition is included based on the following fair use rational:
-- LauraHale ( talk) 06:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The opening of this article gives exaggerated significance to the sport. The most important fact about Netball in relation to the Olympics is the fact that it is not in the Olympics. It never has been, and there's no plan for it to be in the Olympics. The title could give the impression that it might be in the Olympics, so the lead needs to make clear it is not. Also, why do we say it hasn't been played in the summer Olympics, when we could just say Olympics, without qualification? I made a change, which was reverted with the explanation "text was used in DYK", which seems irrelevant. -- Rob ( talk) 22:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Netball is such a minor sport, very unlikely to make the Olympics, and it has a an article dedicated to it? Does not make any sense at all. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 16:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
this one could be used in the article. -- LauraHale ( talk)
Please discuss the article before making any substantial edits to the article. The sources cited in the article do not support the substantial rewrite. There are multiple sources that say netball is an Olympic recognised sport. This is not controversial. -- LauraHale ( talk) 22:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The LauraHale/Hawkeye7 meatpuppetry is very troubling and reflects very poorly on both individuals. 69.193.53.138 ( talk) 22:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Given Hawkeye7's role as the good article reviewer, meatpuppet collusion with LauraHale would be a very serious breach of good faith dealing with the community. Please tell us what your relationship is and why you are doing tag-team wholesale reverts today. 198.228.200.153 ( talk) 00:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
There are serious sourcing problem with the claim that the IOC went further than it's 1995 action that recognised the IFNA as a sports federation. Making a false claim can never be "non-controversial". Please read all of the talk page to this article, and then repeat your claim that there is no controversy about the edits LauraHale/Hawkeye7 is making today. 198.228.200.152 ( talk) 00:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
LauraHale and Hawkeye7 have now convinced another administrator to lock their personal essay from further editing. The article needs a complete rewrite by people other than those two individuals who have asserted WP:OWNnership over the article since it was first written. Many people have questioned the need for an article on this topic separate from the Netball and International Federation of Netball Associations, but by force of will LauraHale and Hawkeye7 have forced it into a separate existence and a GA rating. It is the classic example of a "POV fork".
If the purpose of the article is to educate the reader as to the relationship between the sport of netball and the Olympic Movement, the organization needs to be revised. First, the article concedes that netball is played by women, men and mixed teams, yet the article starts with a section on how one commentator feels that the Olympic Movement discriminates against women. This is later contradicted by the table that shows that the criteria for including women-only sports are less rigorous than men-only sports. The article should start with an objective history of how netball has interacted with the IOC. This should avoid any implication that netball has met any criteria being discussed. If a criteria has not been met, say it. Don't just imply it or create the implication that it has been met. Be honest with your readers.
Be clear about the criteria for men's teams and whether or not the IFNA or anyone else has requested that men's netball is to be included in the Olympic Programme. Be clear about who has made a motion at an Olympic organizing meeting to include women's teams and whether a vote was taken, and what the outcome was. As best that I can determine no recent votes were taken because there is no showing that the criteria for Programme inclusion has been met. The article should retain the table, but should make it clear that this is a quotation from an Olympic document. Adding your own footnotes to each row of the table confuses this. Even Hawkeye7, above, was confused that the table is a quote and asked LauraHale to expand the table as a result. Hawkeye7 is correct, however, that the reader should learn what criteria are satisfied, what criteria have yet to be met. Instead the article confuses the reader by whining about "The Olympic Movement (as if it were one monolith) is out to get women's sports."
A neutral person from WikiProjects Olympics should read each footnoted source and compare it against the text in the article. There are some improper sourcing and some unreliable sources.
The article should present the fact. It should not be a personal opinion essay. It is causing on-going embarrassment to Wikipedia on other critic websites. 68.188.61.6 ( talk) 12:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I have read this entire talk page, and I find the criticisms made to be valid. It is a shame that 1) the article has been locked and 2) there are one or two people who keep adding distorted, biased content to this article. I also join those who question why this article exists as a separate article. It appears to be a point of view fork controlled by one or two individuals. Additional work is needed to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards.
158.59.127.249 (
talk)
23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/olympics/7314392/Women-winners-on-the-pitch-not-the-sky
I plan to do a reassessment of this article in the near future. I am well aware of the background to much of the dispute here, but hope enough time has passed that we can work through some of the articles potential flaws in a collegial way. It will take me some time as I am not the fastest editor in the world and I want to look thoroughly at some of these sources. AIRcorn (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The article says that the number of competitors and the number of sports is unevenly distributed for women and man. I agree as far as competitors go, but events? I thought that was even now. A source request was reverted; could someone verify that that source is still up to date? L.tak ( talk) 13:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
A 1982 is used as a reference that there is a "a pattern of exclusion of women's sports.". In assume that is an opinion, rather than a unequivocal fact, and in view of the age of the ref (I was 4 years old when it was written down), it might be a recent and widely held view anymore. I therefore specified "In 1982 by Dyer" in the text to reflect this, but that was reverted. Do we have more refs to show this is a universal and recent view? Otherwise I think the "In 1982 by Dyer" should be readded or the statement should be removed. L.tak ( talk) 13:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The article is "bad" for a "good article." First, briefly explain what netball is and its roots in Victorian England who felt that Basketball was an unlady-like sport. Next, explain that the IOC has adopted objective criteria for evaluating sports, including the number of nations where it is practiced. Next, document how netball does or does not meet the criteria. Next, identify the groups pushing for netball (i.e., a group of MEN and women who want to make a livelihood off the sport.) Explain how much money is at stake and who is funding the IFNA. Explain how Olympic participation in Basketball by women was allowed in 1976 and how women playing an "unlady-like" sport in the Olympics was more of a statement of equality than adding a sport that reinforced the Victorian view of women. However, this is just one argument among many and should not be over-emphasized just because one author pushes it. Document how much money is at stake in terms of annual funding from the IOC and how well-funded are the advocates of netball. The objective literature is out there; you don't need to rely on the transcript of speaches before the NSW Parliament.
I understand that companies sometimes pay people to put them in the best possible light on Wikipedia. But the theory of crowd sourcing is that enough other people will edit in the opposite direction to remove the biased edit. Reading this article and its edit history shows a serious breakdown of that corrective process. 184.49.146.219 ( talk) 07:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Probably because of some other editing around it, the final sentence of the first paragraph in the section Netball and the Olympic Movement#Women's sport at the Olympics seems to have lost its context. Anyone want to try to repair it? Or maybe just delete? HiLo48 ( talk) 03:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The media section states: "While netball may be the most popular women's participation sport in many Commonwealth countries", (…) and I was not sure if the sources at the end of the sentence also can be used for this statement. Can someone verify that (the source is not available on line)? L.tak ( talk) 10:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
In the text we have " The Federation's first application was rejected because it referred to the sport as women's basketball and the International Olympic Committee (IOC)", which is an extraordinary statement (naming to be the only reason for rejection, so it requires some substantiation. Can someone quote the source and place it in context? L.tak ( talk) 18:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The first application to the International Olympic Committee was rejected because the Federation had the word "Basketball" in its title. The International Olympic Committee explained that it accepted only one international body per sport and it already recognised the International Basketball Federation. This response gave significant impetus to change the name of the game in their respective countries from "Basketball" to "Netball".
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Netball and the Olympic Movement. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Netball and the Olympic Movement. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Netball and the Olympic Movement. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The opening sentences are very confusing for non-specialist readers. It now says:
It would be much clearer by at least swapping the order of the sentences, e.g.:
Thanks. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)