Talk:Rugby League State of Origin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rugby League State of Origin article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Origins of State of Origin

OK I wrote this part of the article originally (back when I first created this article). A few changes have been made over the past months by ppl pushing an agenda.

Firstly there was a clear attempt by somebody to highlight Alan Aylett's contribution. They worded it in such a way that it implied his contribution to convincing Mcauliffe was more significant thatn Lunn or Maranta. This is clearly not a fair depiction.

Secondly the reference to the first AFL state of origin match explicitly stating the teams involved etc is irrelevant to the article. We could go further and mention aylet's take (ie. that he had been operating a state of origin series himself in the VFL) but stating the teams who played in the first game doesn't belong here. Furthermore, if we're going to do that, it must be accompanied by an explanation of Hugh Lunn and Barry Maranta's contributions. And show them in such a way that they are NOT less significant.

Finally, the closing sentence. This sentence is designed to mark the importance of this as an historic occasion and possibly induce some emotion in the reader.

July 8, 1980. 35,000 Queenslanders show up at Lang Park to see Queensland convincingly beat New South Wales 20 points to 10. State of Origin football was born.


I know it breaks a few rules of writing by switching from past to present tense but I believe it is an effective way of explaining the significance of this event to state of origin football. The effect of the wording is lost completely when its converted to a single sentence with the word 'On' at the front. Even more is lost when the sentence is complicated further by explicitly stating this is RLs state of origin we're referring to. This is the rugby league state of origin page so nobody is going to be confused with regards to the context here! The truth is, without this event paning out exactly the way it did, there would not be a state of origin series today in any code of football.

I'm open to suggestions on the wording as long as it doesn't take away from the effect of the current wording.

A couple of suggestions i'm tossing around in my head 1) perhaps change the last part to State of Origin football as we know it, was born. or State of Origin football as it's known today, was born

2) There is more of a story to be told with regards to the contributions of the 3 ppl who convinced Mcauliffe. But i'm against adding a speal against any one of them without an equivalent speal for the other two!


Grant65, i'm going to leave the reversion of that sentence in place. Reading the article with it back in place (on its own) seems ok and relevant enough. I just didn't like seeing the whole speal about aylet 'trying to convince mcauliffe'. Which was a lie.

[edit] How the State of Origin Became a Regular Event

I still can't find any information to fill this section. Perhaps someone living in Australia with access to old newspapers can do something here??? Otherwise i'll look into it when I'm back in the country this December.

I might peruse my Rugby League Weeks, time permitting, see what turns up. -- Paul 16:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

I don't really like the State of Origin, Rugby League name for this article. How about Rugby League State of Origin? Grinner 13:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm agreeable. I don't know how to change it tho, and what happens to the pages i've linked this from?

It's very easy, you just use the Move button at the top of the screen (next to History). A redirect is automatically created, so you won't have to update all the pages that link here. I'll wait another day before making the move. Grinner 10:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Statistics

I wasn't the one who changed this, but I think it is worth more discussion than to just mention "silly Queenslanders".

But who else would turn one game into a series, a 1-1 draw into a win - and the last edit added two wins to QLD games won tally out of thin air. --Paul 11:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

(i) On the Bledisloe Cup page a drawn series is shown as a win to the team that holds the cup. Note that this terminology is also used for the Ashes (which Australia will be deemed to have won this year if they draw the series).

This page?, can't see that - even if it did have any relevance.--Paul 11:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I see now the title of "Winner", "Holder" would be a better term --Paul 11:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

(ii) The 1987 Longbeach game is shown as an exhibition game, yet included in the statistics. It should not be as it is, as I just noted, an exhibition game, not a part of the series. This was also agreed upon by both states at the time. Although the NSWRL (and other southern organisations) include this win, it is not included by the QRL. At best it could be "disputed." --dan, dan and dan 03:45, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

A 1-all draw is not a series win, no matter much some would like it to be. The exhibition game, and the two experimental games are all bonafide games, and the QRL does include the 1987 game e.g Mal has 32 games, one of which was the Longbeach game. --Paul 11:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The 'Series' statistics are merely yet another means, by this NSW controlled sport, to screw Qld out of recognition. No other sport does this. No other sport changes the rules just because of the results of several series where their opposition 'RETAINED' the trophy.

This demonstrates the point I made above. These spurious changes that twist logic, and have no factual backing, are merely to artifically improve QLDs record. I'm afraid they'll have to do that on the field. Good for a laugh though, the last one has QLD up to 14 series wins! Soon they'll have won more series than actually played. You'll also find that most sports will have system whereby a result is guaranteed. Personally I would been happy to decide it on for-and-against, as the International Rules series does --Paul 04:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Rugby League is Australia is far too insular and this can only result in demise.

As for your comments regarding relevance, comparing other sports to this sport is more than relevant in the context of my comments above. It is also more than relevant to achieve consistency throughout the wikipedia articles. If we can determine that it is standard practice to list a retaining draw as a win in wikipedia, that's all the argument we need to apply this same logic to this article.

The Bledisloe Cup page was poorly thought out, I've fixed it.If we can determine that it is standard practice to list a retaining draw as a win You'll struggle.. draws are, ipso facto, never wins (while you're at it, find some examples of how one thing is a series of things). 1-all is a draw, it cannot possibly get any simpler than that, even Barry Gomersall wouldn't count 99 & 02 as wins, but retains. One would think that 125 years of Ashes contests would have installed this concept securely in the most stubborn of minds. BTW, it's no longer practical, but Test series used to play games out if the result was in the balance, a cricketing golden point --Paul 04:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

drible drible drible. While i'm researching this further hows about you explain why you don't seem to think the statistics section should reflect the FACT that Qld retained the sheild on each occasion of a drawn series. Everytime stats reflecting this fact are posted you delete them. Qld had the shield and NSW had to beat them to gain it. Qld Held it. Those are the rules and that is why Qld players were dancing around the field and did a victory lap after those games. Because the rules stated we keep the shield. The ashes article reflects who retained the cup for each drawn result... or are you going to ahem... 'fix' the ashes page too?

The Ashes page, Australia 30 wins, England 27, 5 draws. See how they've differentiated between held and won? You have made no such distinction, and have been merely bumping QLD's series win tallies. So it's up to you to "fix" the Ashes pages, by waving the magic wand over the drawn series, and making them wins, but I doubt it would stick there, either.
I'm working on an idea to better portray this win/held phenomenon, it seemed simple enough to understand, apparently not simple enough. However, the one off games - they'll never have counted as series, and never wiil, no matter how much you would like them to. --Paul 12:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

OK. Now we're getting somewhere, but what is this obsession with only showing/promoting the results of the series? 1980 and 1981 did happen. If NSW had won those games we wouldn't be hearing the word 'series' at all. Why can't the results reflect the FACT that Qld won in 1980 and 1981 when only one game was played? The SOO still took place and NSW lost. Why should it make any difference if one game was played or 3? Other sports go through changes with regards to the number of test matches/games that take place within a competition. Those sports DO NOT exlclude statistics that arose prior to such changes to the rules.

You're using a technicality to exclude statistics that you don't want to see.

1980 and 1981 did happen As shown in the games list.
but what is this obsession with only showing/promoting the results of the series?. The series tallies reflect series won, lost and drawn (well, they did, but someone kept messing them up), essentially the essence of SOO achievement. The games tally represents the games (or will in the new page I'm working on), so this is where the three one off games appear. Pretty simple.
If NSW had won those games we wouldn't be hearing the word 'series' at all. That's your bias getting in the way again, not a good look, but an enlightening one. Remember the 14 series wins? lol.
Why can't the results reflect the FACT that Qld won in 1980 and 1981 when only one game was played? The SOO still took place and NSW lost. They do, see point one.
Why should it make any difference if one game was played or 3?. See point two.
Other sports go through changes with regards to the number of test matches/games that take place within a competition. Those sports DO NOT exlclude statistics that arose prior to such changes to the rules. Like pre-1882 Tests aren't part the Ashes, pre-1931 games aren't Bledisloe Cup games?. You best be off and make your "corrections" there, too. And I'm so very sure you're aware that the Ashes weren't contested for in the one off Centenary Tests, and even in the 3 Test 1979-80 series.
In closing, 1980 and 1981 were not series, regardless of who won, the Shield was not contested for (I very much doubt it existed at that time, the first games two were experiments, and only came about because NSW lead the series 2-0. In fact, I'm wondering if they just used the same one in 1982 and beyond as was being used before, if there even was one before - have to look into that), and no reputable statistician (or seemingly anyone at all except you) considers them as series. Spurious edits will always be reverted here. Also on that, NSW won 2 games to 1 in both 1980 and 1981, but let me guess.. rule changes do exclude these in this case. And you're quite happy to back the exclusion by the "NSW controllers" of the 1987 game too, because counting that would take away a QLD series win. --Paul 15:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the first two years of state of origin are not series.

Then why did you keep adding them to the series tallies before?. It was these actions that brought on this whole brouhaha. The games won (which included the three one off games, and didn't ignore them at all), and the separate series tallies accurately portrayed the situation. However, I'm willing to leave this as is for now. --Paul 07:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

My problem with the way things were was simply that these two matches did occur and you consistently insisted on removing them from the summary statistics. These were very important matches and they don't deserve to be represented only in the convoluted general match statistics. My problem with the drawn matches is that it does mean something to retain the shield and this was not represented in the summary stats. I'm happy with the way you have resolved this and i'm happy to keep the 1980 and 1981 matches listed separately from the series as long as they receive the respect they deserve and are shown with other summary stats.

For years the series statistics weren't even mentioned after state of origin bouts. In fact the first time I ever heard of who was in front on series was when NSW moved to pole position for the first time. I have a valid logic claim in suggesting there is a bias towards NSW. Just look at the grand final night games. Structured that way because it is a public holiday in NSW the following day! Look at any media reports eminating from NSW regarding SOO prior to 1986. There is still more money in NSW. There are still more residents of NSW. So who can blame them. But my point of view is justified.

Anyway, we have a bigger problem to debate. As you know the State of Origin page has been hijacked by an AFL obsessor. Grand65 has now resorted to complete vandalism of the article. As it is his contributions included a great deal of POV. Some of the information was innacurate. I just removed a section that suggested that fights frequently break out in state of origin matches both on the field and in the stands. You and I both know that is BS. We have to keep an eye on Grant65 me thinks. And the State of Origin page is due for a rewrite.

For what it's worth, there was no State of Origin page until I wrote it. We have to keep more of an eye on anonymous snipers who can't see past their own prejudices and won't sign their name, I think. Grant65 (Talk) 11:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You're so far gone you can't even see your own prejudices. I see you've reverted on the complete and utter lies in the article. And for the record, starting an article in wikipedia does not give you the right to preach BS.

To suggest that "State of Origin" is a series and therefore pre-1982 statistics don't count is disingenuous. Everybody from David Middleton down counts State of Origin as counting in 1980. Indeed, this year there were "25 years of Origin" badges on the NSW and Qld jerseys, just as there were 20th anniversery badges on there in 2000. This is a matter of public record. Check it out. --dan, dan and dan 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

pre-1982 statistics don't count Seriously, how many more times can this be said - they do count. Do some research - NSW 37, QLD 36 draw 2, includes the 1980,81,and 87 games. The list of games includes the 80, 81 and 87. The list of series doesn't because they're not series - even the Anon-o-bot finally figured that out. --Paul 13:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
What I figured out is that you will go to extraordinary lengths to convolute and hide any data that you don't particularly like. So what year was it that NSW decided to retrospectively include 1987 in the statistics Paul? Jebus Christ 14:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Here Here! I will be checking this page every day to revert your vandalism Paul! As you said, at wiki, incorrect information has a way of sorting itself out.

[edit] Eligibility question

The selection rules, as explained in the article, raise a few questions. For instance, how was Adrian Lam, as a Papuan, eligible to play for Queensland. Didn't he later play for PNG? Grant65 (Talk) 13:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

He actually had played for PNG before representing QLD. Not sure what the actual justification was for this, but since Super League players weren't considered for selection at the time, it was all hands on deck. Of course, he had played in QLD first, but there's supposed to be a rule, which I assume was in place then, ineligible for Australia = ineligible for SOO. There's been some other messing about as well e.g. Tonie Carroll & Craig Smith playing for NZ, Lote Tuqiri for Fiji etc. --Paul 17:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Request for all drawn matches to be in white, not maroon.

These are series results, they're coloured to represent the holders, not the winners of the series. If you peruse the discussion and edit history, trying to merely represent these as draws (as they were) results in QLD-centric edits to try and make their record look better. It's even hard getting NSW's 37-36 winning record to stick --Paul 07:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

NSW had to beat qld to gain the sheild. Qld retained it and thus held title. It would not be representative of that fact to display the drawn series in white.

Note that the maroon refers to the series and not the individual matches. In 1999 game three Ray Warren very clearly says at the end that Queensland has won the series (Source: original broadcast tape). This formula changed somewhat in 2002 when he said that Queensland has "retained the shield". the sheild does not have draw written on it in those years. It has Queensland. You will further note that when the Bledisloe Cup series is drawn that nobody says that the Cup is retained, or that there has been a draw. It goes to the team that last won it. --dan, dan and dan 21:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem was, or is, if you (or some other nameless number) start translating those title holds into actual series wins, that's where you leave the facts behind and wander into wishful thinking --Paul 13:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
In my latest revision I have re-written the intro to the statistics table in a neutral fashion that actually avoids either the Queensland or New South Wales view point. As the Wikipedia founder says, "an NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable". I do not mention series wins whatsoever as this seems to lead very quickly into a "Queensland says that..." or "New South Wales says that..." debate. I recommend the NPOV article to you.
Note also that sources have been cited in this section. Please cite your own sources in future.

[edit] Aylet Convincing Mcauliffe

I don't like this sentence...

The then president of the Victorian Football League, Dr Alan Aylett, later tried to convince the then chairman of the Queensland Rugby League, Ron Mcauliffe of the concept's merits.

Every indication I have from my research has suggested the role of Aylet in convincing Mcauliffe had no more bearing ont the result than the involvement of Hugh Lunn and the former bronco's cheif.

Furthermore, to sugest that Aylet 'tried to convince' Mcauliffe implies that Aylet was pushing Mcauliffe to start an RL SOO series... which is completely ludicrous. Why would an AFL cheif be so interested in a rugby league game? Aylet's contribution came when Mcauliffe specifically asked him for advice on how to improve the QRL.

Even if we forget a little thing like 'the facts' the sentence is very badly worded.

I haven't written anything in this article about it yet, but in one of Jack Gallaway's books it does mention the conversations between Aylett and McAuliffe, and also says that it was Aylett that invited the Senator over to WA to see the origin game. I will introduce this when I have time.--dan, dan and dan 19:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Origin since 1980 or 1982 on the main page.

There is no reason that Wikipedia would be the only place that makes a distinction between the pre-3 game series and the rest of State of Origin. The page as it stands makes things quite clear... ie what were stand alone games and what were series. There is no ambiguity.


[edit] Sources

Sources that record Origin since 1980 (as the Wikipedia should) include:


As the NSWRL, QRL, ARL are the offical bodies involved here, there is no reason to go against their conventions for recording the statistics.

Sources do not come more gold plated than the above ones.

[edit] Paul's Straw Man Fallacy

Paul, your entire argument surrounding the series is an attempt to divert attention away from the true argument. You are using the classic Straw Man Fallacy. Nobody is suggesting that 80/81 are series. Nobody is listing them as series.
You funny, you spent some time altering the series tallies, somtimes counting the draws as wins, sometimes the trial games as series, and sometimes both at once. Now you say "Nobody is suggesting that 80/81 are series" Good one. --Paul 14:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
So we regress to the ad hominem fallacy. You were consistently sculpting the statistics and removing those you didn't wish to see. But at wikipeida, logic prevails. If you recall, I listed the more than one series of aggregate statistic originally. I listed aggregate stats for each years winners from 1980-present as a separate statistic to your series statistics. But that wasn't good enough for you. You consistently deleted them leaving only the series stats. The stats YOU want to see. The stats that make YOUR team look good.

There is no reason to remove them from the general statistics.

Here's your Straw Man again, they're still in the general statistics - no wait double SM, as the colours represent the years held - except of course for your on again-off again 1980-was-a-series (which is it today?) --Paul 16:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The argument from this side of the table is that 80 and 81 deserve a place on the main page and shouldn't be excluded. Your response is 'they're not series'. That's like us arguing that 1+1=2 and you telling us we're wrong because 2+1=3.
If you had a logical argument as to why the first two years of state of origin history have no place in the general statistics area you wouldn't need to build a straw man!
<Takes a match, lights it and watches Paul's straw man burn!>
There is no reason to remove them from the general statistics. Oh deary me, here's your straw man - this is incorrect, they are in the general statistics, add them up. You've amusingly set fire to your own house. --Paul 14:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes oh deary you. they are in the general statistics, add them up. um... That's the entire problem! YOU HAVE TO TRAVERSE A CONVOLUTED MASS OF DATA! YOU HAVE TO ADD THEM UP. You're excluding them from the main article's statistical aggregates and listing them in a convoluted way.
You're excluding them from the main article's statistical aggregates Still wrong. NSW 37,QLD 36,DRAWN 2 - THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN ADDED UP FOR YOU (except you keep removing them) AND THEY INCLUDE 1980, 1981 (and 1987). Get it? There's three sets of data, the overall record, the series tallies, and the game results. The last one I put on a separate page because when I expanded the detail it made it very large. But as mentioned below, I can put it back, if helps you figure out these simple concepts. --Paul 16:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

As a Brit I've been watching this argument for a while. I do think that 1980 and 1981 should be included, but listed sperately. The argument that 2005 was celbrated as 25 years of SoO is very persuavive for mine. Grinner 15:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This is precisely how I have it, the games are separate from the series. The idea behind including the first two games (marooned coloured, to imply a series win/hold) is to make QLD record look better. Notice how the 4th 1987 game never gets included in all the reverts? --Paul 14:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The standard set by the ARL, NSWRL and QRL is to include all of the results from 1980 to 2005 in the one table. The source for this is shown in the links above. David Middleton (official statistician of the NRL) does the same thing in his annual Rugby League statistics publication. There are no sources that show it the other way, or make any arguments for this.
That should be the end of the matter.--dan, dan and dan 21:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Fer' crying out loud - that's what the Rugby league State of Origin games page does, which I've pointed out ad nauseam, seemingly to little readership. Geez. If this is so difficult to understand, should they be moved it back to this page? Lots of Wikipedia articles have sub pages you know. (And you still omit the 1987 game, when it's shown in all those links you've pointed out.) --Paul 16:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, another revision shows it's still not sinking in, so I've got another idea - put all the stats on the one page - one can hardly say the list of games aren't there when they're staring you in the face (as opposed to now, where you have to go to all the trouble of clicking a link to see them). But why do I get the feeling that anything that shows NSW's winning game and series record will edited out, as it is now? --Paul 16:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
You have re-edited the table, removing two years from it. You also removed material with three separate cited sources. The material as it stands is as the ruling bodies of the game deem it. You appear to be placing your personal opinion higher than the conventions used by the body. Please stick with cited sources in future.
You might like to read about verifiability. The very first line says "Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research." what is presently on the page has been verified by external sources. What you are putting on there, as it is your own work or opinion, is original.
Please cite sources in future.--dan, dan and dan 19:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you actually read anything I write? The table is intended to show the series results (Thats why it says Series, not Games) - the 80, 81 and 87 games weren't part of a series, and therefore are absent. You keep ignoring this qualification, and then claim that 80 and 81 aren't in there. IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE A LIST OF ALL THE GAMES 1980-2005, that's what the separate games list (now page, which I see you're in the process of buggering up) does. I was going to expand that, but I realised it will just be mucked up, so there's little point. I wouldn't have wasted my time on it originally, had I known. --Paul 15:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
As stated several times, you need to start that table from 1980, not 1982. Please cite your sources for doing otherwise. The way I have listed that table exactly mirrors the NSWRL way of doing it. I have cited that. You continue to make reference to your opinion, not cited sources. In future, please just refer to the sources.--dan, dan and dan 20:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
exactly mirrors the NSWRL way of doing it No it doesn't [1] <- This a list of games, as covered in Rugby league State of Origin games. My table was not intended to portray this (the aforementioned page does so) but the series results. Why do you keep ignoring this, over and over? --Paul 17:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The way you listed the table attempts to make the games look like series wins. The way the tables are listed in your sources lists all games individually. Your table lists them year by year. It makes it look like they are series wins! NSWelshman 01:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I've pointed that out, seemingly hundreds of times, but it's not having any effect. --Paul 17:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The table says "The table below shows the results of the one-off games of 1980/1981, and the subsequent series." at the very top. Which part of that is ambiguous?--dan, dan and dan 09:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
No ambiguity now, i.e the one-offs games aren't shown as series, but I'm guessing there will be again shortly. --Paul 06:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
They were never shown as series. That is a deliberate misrepresentation of your own.--dan, dan and dan 20:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


They are very clearly listed as one-off games. Furthermore, sources have been provided for this format, namely the ARL and NSWRL. Please refrain from vandalising the page, even in jest.--dan, dan and dan 06:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table - Drawn??

Uh, why does the table list every single year as having 'Drawn' matches - is that vandalism? or am I not reading it properly Astrokey44 23:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep you sure did read it wrong. There was nothing there to indicate every year had drawn matches. What you've done is leave the table looking incredibly messy. I'm reverting the table.
Ok then, well shouldn't 'Drawn' be a heading at the top, rather than written in every column? The table should have a title anyway Astrokey44 14:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
No because that would be incosistent with the rest of the format which is headed horizontally. The rest of the table is the name of the state as a heading followed by the number of wins. Adding the word drawn as an additional heading followed by the number of drawn games is consistent with this format.
Well shouldnt they have colons ":" after to show that the number relates to the word before it, as in New South Wales: 2 There should still be a title. --- Astrokey44 00:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
You can add colons if you want to. Doesn't bother me. Just don't screw up the whole table layout like you did last time.

[edit] Plan for this page

First of all, this section has nothing to do with the ongoing debates to do with the State of Origin page! :-)

I am planning on beefing up the history section, as most of it currently deals with pre-Origin. My plan is to probably break the history of Origin up into blocks that will go with the prevailing period. eg, 1980-85 for a Qld golden period, 2003-2005 is definitely a Blues golden period.

The idea is not introduce any bias, but to break the writing (and reading) into achievable chunks.

I am hoping to use printed reference material, which should eliminate the NPOV debates that have been going on. Two of which I have used, and already listed in sources.

I have already written a small section on the 187 Long Beach game. This isn't to fuel any debate, but rather to start adding to this page from recognised sources. --dan, dan and dan 02:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no debate about the authenticity of the Long Beach game, indeed all the official rugby league sources (including the QRL) you quoted agreed, with only one uncited dissention - a newspaper. The fact that QLD weren't interested is hardly relevant from a statistical point of view, after all, NSW weren't interested in the first ones. Also, when I made the games page, I had envisioned a short description on each match - but my speciality is stats, so I didn't really follow through with them. So if you (or anyone else) feel like it, you might have a go at that. --Paul 16:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
There is debate about the canonicity of those games. I have cited four sources in this section. It was replaced with completely unsourced material. It is essential to the integrity of this page that we use verified material. Please cite your sources in future. As for the uncitied reference to the Courier-Mail, thanks for bringing that up. I forgot to put it in when I was typing the others. :-) --dan, dan and dan 19:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Please cite your sources in future They're the same as yours, the NSWRL, QRL, and ARL vs. something written in a match report once in the Courier Mail (is that what it was, there's no further detail)? Hardly constitutes a dispute. --Paul 16:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Found the article [2] The win was a victory to savour for Johns and his coach Ricky Stuart as it closed the Origin series gap. Since the series started back in 1980 the teams have now scored 205 tries each – thanks to Maroon full back Matt Bowen crossing in the dying seconds of last night's clash – and there have been 36 victories to each side and two draws.NSW may try to claim victory in the series by adding their win in the controversial 1987 Los Angeles exhibition match, but that was not counted in the outcome to the series that year.
lol, the 205 tries each includes the 1987 game, make up your mind. And note the argument is that the game didn't contribute to the series result, quite correct - but it doesn't follow that it also be excluded from the overall tally, particularly as it isn't by the governing bodies. So hardly a compelling argument, me thinks. --Paul 17:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for finding an online copy of this for me. I was struggling on that front. The first line of that article states:
IT took NSW 25 years to draw level with Queensland in overall Origin clashes
The headline also makes this point, ie. that the games are now 36-36 all. I haven't made this claim in the article now. It stands at 37-26. I have said that it is disputed, and you have provided the article that proves it is disputed. Thank you! :)
Very nice work Dan! Grinner 10:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. We're starting to look like a wikipedia article!
We are starting to look like an ad for Queersland NSWelshman 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The Courier-Mail as a source? Please. The Courier-Mail is hardly an unbiased observor. Tigerman2005 3 June 2007

[edit] Summary table

I have added the summary table and adjusted the year-by-year results table. Here is what I have done and my reasoning for doing it:

1. I have listed 1987 as being a 2-all series. This has been done because the offical records of NSW (as I have linked to them) in addition to David Middleton's records include these games. I will construct a footnote (or something) that explains the debate about canonicity. I am still looking for further sources on this front.

2. I have put the series summary table at the top. 1980 and 1981 don't count as series, and where never intended to be as such. Nonetheless, it is equally valid that Queensland were the State of Origin champions in that year. So where does that leave us? Queensland's "taking of the sheild" in 1980/1 is reflected in the year by year results (the big table). The (greater?) achievement of winning a 3 game series is reflected in the series summary table.

3. Drawn series are still listed in maroon on the year-by-year table. This is because Queensland has retained the shield in these years.

I am placing great importance on the use of sources. There has been a lot of discussion based on little more than opinion and heresay, so I think that this is an important approach to take. This page should not be about "Those Qlders will try anything!" or "Those NSWmen are just liars!" It is about making a page that, as the policy says, reflects published information.

Does this please everybody? Is it possible to put this debate to bed and get on with making a great article? --dan, dan and dan 05:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you add a title to the table? Im not sure how to do it in that whole <td> format Astrokey44 08:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
This 1987 game is going to cause some confusion. It is at best a one off game that is included in game statistics. If it were considered a series game that would have made the series a draw and the shield retained by NSW. We have it listed as a drawn series in Moroon. Not even the most hardcore NSW fan considers 1987 to be a drawn series where the shield was held by NSW. Int that year Queensland was written on the shield before game 4 even took place.
Furthermore the difference between the 1987 game and the 1980-1981 games is simply that the former did not have any impact on who's name was written on the shield nor on who was considered to be that year's champion team nor on the outcome of the series. It was in exhibition game. 80 and 81 resulted in Qld taking title and resulted in Qld being written on the shield in each instance. Jebus Christ 12:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
While I am not comfortable including the 1987 in the year-by-year statistics, the Wikipedia policy of using what is verifiable by sources makes its inclusion necessary. Please note that I have linked the footnote (see below) from the summary table and year-by-year table that explains the situation with the game's status using a variety of sources. We have to provide sources to back up what we put on the page, and the sources in this case come from the organising bodies of the sport. I have also, for the contrary view, provided links from a Courier-Mail article giving the contrary view.
The article also clearly states that the colour of the year in that table represents the winner/retainer of the shield. Therefore 1980/1 are clearly to Queensland, and 1987 is included in the tally, but it is clear in the article that it is a non-series game. --dan, dan and dan 21:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Fairy Nuff. Unfortunately the links to the courier mail articles don't seem to go anywhere. I'd like to see the section detailing the 'excursion' expanded further. I'll be back in Australia in a few weeks time and will see what I can do about contributing some usefull, sourced info since i'll be in a better position to get my hands on some old Qld and NSW newspapers. Jebus Christ 09:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


Unfortunately the C-M article isn't online, so the citation is to the printed edition. --dan, dan and dan 21:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of the Exhibition Match

A question for everyone. I'd particularly be interested in hearing Grinner's opinion as a neutral observer.

I put to you all that in 1987 when the match occured, and in subsequent years until sometime in the mid-1990s, nobody considered the 1987 exhibition match to be part of the official state of origin statistics and that it's a game that has crept into the statistics in recent years.

I also put to you that in 1987 the game was not taken as a serious state of origin match. Furthermore, it was seen by the Qld camp as a bit of a holiday as they stepped into their XXXX sponsored aircraft and drank beer all the way to LA.

This is the sort of thing ppl I know and various non-credible sources that I won't bother to site are saying.

Assuming for a moment that these stories can be verified, what would this mean for this wikipedia article? Does it mean:

A) The stat should not be included because inclusion is clearly an act of anti-NPOV? B) The stat should be included because certain credible bodies include it. C) As B but a strong disclaimer regarding the controversial nature of its inclusion should be added?

Jebus Christ 16:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What you are saying is absolutely correct. It was considered an Exhibition at the time and has subsequently become an official match. This is explained in footnote one on the page. What's more the Jack Gallaway reference talks about the drinking excursion on the plane.
In response:
A) the stat has to be included because it comes from the official sources (see sources at end of article)
B) those credible sources are the ARL and NSWRL, and are cited in the article.
C) the footnote is a disclaimer of sorts. this is what footnote one says: "The canonicity of the fourth game played in 1987 is disputed, as both states had agreed in 1987 that the match would be an Exhibition match only. In most statistics (such as those quoted by the Nine Network and the National Rugby League) it is now counted as an official match, although Brisbane's The Courier-Mail does not include it.[24] RL1908 lists the match as a "Non-series match" [25] and The World of Rugby League lists the match as an "Exhibition Game" [26]."

--dan, dan and dan 21:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Say, Dan, do you happen to realise that that last referenced site "The World of Rugby League" is mine :) --Paul 16:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, actually, and can I say that your stats pages are second to none. I have used that reference to say that game is considered to be an Exhibition, nothing more. --dan, dan and dan 20:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Since I was asked to comment, I agree entirely with what Dan hads written. By the way this is getting to be a seriously good article, well done Dan. Should be ready for a try at featured status soon perhaps? Grinner 13:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
In the interests of NPOV I too agree. This article certainly is shaping up. Full credit to Dan. If only the NSWRL and ARL exercised the same degree of NPOV! This highlights one of many examples of the severe bias against qld by the NSW based organising bodies of this sport. The verified and cited facts shown in a pragmatic and unbiased matter should be enough to point the finger of shame at these governing bodies. However, over the years, I suspect we're going to find ourselves in a number of edit wars.

Jebus Christ 14:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a shame that league organisations don't have any interest in disinterest when it comes to statistics, isn't it? :-) Barry Maranta says in the introduction to one of the books written about the Broncos that the book in question was "told from the soundest view possible, namely one which emanates from north of the Tweed River." :-) Seriouesly, though, I agree that the facts alone tell the story of New South Wales' attitude towards Queensland without having to introduce to a non-NPOV. (Similiarly the story about Super League (Australia) tells itself through the facts without having to say "News Limited sucks arse", which was to a degree what the article once said.) As for edit wars, I think that we may have put one away for the moment. Fingers crossed. :) And featured article? I was thinking that yesterday actually. Good promotion for Origin and League. Bit more to do on post-1980 history yet, though. I am having a re-think about how to do that. The article is becoming very close to 30k, so maybe we can write a few sections on the main themes of Origin, and go into more detail on the Games and Stats page. One of the big holes in this article at the moment is the fact that Wally Lewis is not mentioned once. Even Ken Arthurson says no Wally, no origin success. Everybody's thoughts welcomed. :) --dan, dan and dan 21:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if we ought to add something along the lines of "That Queensland won the 1987 SoO series is not generally disputed." Assuming that this is a statement of truth of course. Grinner 16:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The American excursion sections says this explicitly: "After Queensland had won the 1987 series 2-1,..." and "The State of Origin trophy was safely stowed in the Queensland Rugby League board room at Lang Park..." :-) --dan, dan and dan 21:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been dabbling in League stats for twenty years, this page was the first time I'd ever come across the notion that the LA game wasn't "kosher". (Also the first time I'd seen anyone refer to 80 and 81 as series, though we seem to have a concensus now that they weren't). I have a book published in 1988 the Ampol Australian Sporting Records which includes it as normal game. So, IMO and the NSWRL, QRL, and ARL's opinion, it's game without question - I fail to see any dispute. I'll also point out that in the foreword to Jack Galloway's book, being referenced as backup for a non-match claim, it suggests he's a "True Believer in the QLD cause" and his writing is "maroon-tinted"

One solution, maybe we should go back to Anon's 'years held' data. It was rather contrived, and didn't seem particulary relevant in a statistical sense, so I removed it (not knowing what it would spark). So there can be a "Holders" table (which will include 80-81), a "Games" list, and "Series" list (with would exclude 80,81,and 87). State of Origin is a series, that's why I've been keen to keep that intact. --Paul 16:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use published sources wherever possible, which I have. Furthermore, the game is actually in all of the stats anyway. The only thing that you do not appear to like now is the footnote which is claims that the game is disputed. Gallaway's (note the spelling) book is from Queensland (yes, "maroon tinged") and disputes the game, as is The Courier-Mail. I haven't removed the 1987 game. Merely noted the dispute. If you have any sources that say this game isn't disputed, please cite them.
Every source except Mike Colman. And most importantly the governing bodies who actually have the authority vested in them, rather than a single journalist with an off the cuff whinge (and as I pointed out, who contradicts himself). BTW, Gallaway doesn't dispute it, merely glosses over it (as NSW won). It's included in the stats in the Appendix I Games played: 66 which is consistent with the actual tally at the time of writing.--Paul 17:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
You have said that you fail to see the dispute. That is neither here nor there. Wikipedian's should be writing about whether published authors or articles can see a dispute. Cited sources do not support your suggestions.--dan, dan and dan 20:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, and the Flintstones was a documentary [3], citing what is merely ill-informed opinion carries little weight --Paul 17:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Paul, simply put, the match is included in the statistics in this article, so I am not sure what you are so upset about. The footnote to the article says that some dispute it, not that it isn't counted. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with who disputes it, it is the existence of the dispute that counts. End of story.--dan, dan and dan 21:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Footnote - Let's try and work this out here! This footnote appears to be the source of the consternation. the statistics include the 1987 game (just as the official stats I have cited do). Which part of this is wrong or in need of re-writing. Let's talk about it here, and see if we can sort it out.

The canonicity of the fourth game played in 1987 is disputed, as both states had initially agreed that the match would be an Exhibition match. In most statistics (such as those quoted by the Nine Network and the National Rugby League) it is now counted as an official match. Brisbane's The Courier-Mail does not include it, noting after game 3 in 2005 that "It took NSW 25 years to draw level with Queensland in overall Origin clashes..." when other statistics show the tally to be 37-36.[28] RL1908 lists the match as a "Non-series match" [29] and The World of Rugby League lists the match as an "Exhibition Game" [30].

Here is my take on this, that I have tried to get across in this footnote.

  1. The match was originally counted as an exhibition by both states. I am working on putting more in here, but that will not be until I have got my hands on some more stuff.
  2. Most stats count it as an official match.
  3. The Courier-Mail does not, as they said the tally was even when the official stats had NSW one ahead.
  4. Various sources name this match in various ways.

Without becoming a flame war or trolling war, which I have been trying to avoid at all costs, is there anyone who wishes to discuss this so that we can put something on the page with some consensus?--dan, dan and dan 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Update: I have found information on when the game became included in official stats. I have included this information, and Ken Arthurson's response in the footnote.--dan, dan and dan 03:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, since we all agree it's normal game, just like all the others, why the constant need to qualify it? Of course, we know why, which makes it non-NPOV. Put it this way, what if it wasn't in all the

official records, and someone kept putting it the records, along with a few comments wishing that it was was, would that cut any ice? Wouldn't with me. --Paul 06:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The thing is this. State of Origin's governing body is the Australian Rugby Leage. The ARL says it is a non-series game (http://www.australianrugbyleague.com.au/). So whether you count list it seperately from the other 1987 games or not, the summary at the bottom should include it. And just because someone at the Courier Mail 'newspaper' says otherwise or Arko said something once doesn't change that. Nor does how Qld viewed it at the time. The players in the Rest of the World tests in the early 1970s thought they were playing tests but this was later changed by the official bodies. In the case of SOO the official body is the ARL which despite it being called a "southern-based organisation" has Qld membership. Everyone counts it for player's stats so you can't say on one hand its an exhibition game and then on the other say it counts as a game for Mal or whoever played. We need to get away from the idea that either its part of a series or it doesn't count. Yes the SOO for 1987 was won by QLd 2 games to 1. Then they play a one-off game after the series. I suggest:

1987 - Queensland 2 NSW 1 Additional Game - NSW 1 Qld 0 1988 - etc...

Either that or include it at the end. Tigerman2005

[edit] Yes I'm the culprate

Yes Paul, when I first started writing here, I added series statistics that included 1980 and 1981 as series. I was not aware these years were not full series. Can we move past this now or are you going to continue to bring this up in every argument?

I might say while Dan continues to include them as if they were series, it's an isssue, but I can't be bothered any more. --Paul 17:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I then tried to list the years won, to reflect what is actually written on the state of origin shield. You insisted on excluding held series and 1980 and 1981 from the summarised statistics. User:Jebus Christ 19 November 2005 UTC

Actually I suggested re-including that information, useless as it is (Number of Years With Name On Shield, haha), in order to prevent the Series tallies being misreprented all the time, but I've come to realise it's futile. --Paul 17:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to include "Number of Years With Name On Shield", because you will find that 1999 and 2002 are engraved with "Queendsland win" :-) --dan, dan and dan 20:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Typical Queenslander NSWelshman 01:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Typical Queenslanders

You're all a bunch of sore losers so you go and blame the ARL. It's not our fault you didn't take 1987 seriously. Stop vandalising this article. I'm ready for a editing war if you don't remove your footnote! NSWelshman 00:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The article includes the 1987 game, and says that it is officially counted. The footnote only says that some sources don't count it officially. This is the last time that I will respond to people wishing to make changes without providing sources. The Wikipedia policies are very clear on using information that is sourced.--dan, dan and dan 06:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TYPICAL NEW SOUTH WELSHMAN

NSWelshman, why did you vandalise this article by changing the colour of 1987 to Blue! Qld won the 1987 series. This is undisputed and I guarantee you, No source anywhere suggests it's a NSW win or held series.

Typical New South Welshman! Jebus Christ 09:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proof exhibition match is disputed

Here is further proof that the exhibition match is disputed. Disputing it is none other than Ken Arthurson. Case closed.


Courier Mail, Edition 1 - First with the news 
WED 16 JUL 2003, Page 001 
Origin battle rages on and off the field 
By: Barry Dick

WHO would have thought it -- former ARL chairman Ken Arthurson has come to the defence of the Maroons. While the Australian Rugby League and Blues say the Origin series score is 33-33, Queensland says it's 33-32 because an exhibition match 16 years ago in the US did not officially count.

However, the ARL yesterday officially decreed the ``Mickey Mouse game in Long Beach, California, on August 6, 1987, was to be classed as a legitimate match.

NSW won the game 30-18 after Queensland had won the series 2-1 ARL chief executive Geoff Carr yesterday ``confirmed NSW and Queensland were ``locked on 33 wins each heading into tonight's third match of the 2003 series at Suncorp Stadium.

``There had been some debate over whether the Origin fixture . . . in 1987 was counted as an official match but a search of ARL records has confirmed the status conferred on that clash by the game's governing body at the time, Carr said.

``In announcing the match in Big League in April 1987, Ken Arthurson was quoted as saying: `It's an exciting experiment but the match isn't and won't be billed as an exhibition match'.

But Arthurson, who was blamed for dudding Queenslanders out of Test selection during his reign, yesterday backed the Maroons: ``There is absolutely no doubt in my mind it was an exhibition game and should not count towards official match scores.

Wayne Bennett, who coached the 1987 Queensland team, said that in his coaching career of more than 20 years he had never been ``softer on a team than he was on the Maroons in Los Angeles.


--dan, dan and dan 04:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

confirmed the status conferred on that clash by the game's governing body at the time So it's always been an official match (obviously it has). Wasn't somebody making up something up about it suddenly becoming official, some years later April 1987, Ken Arthurson was quoted as saying: `It's an exciting experiment but the match isn't and won't be billed as an exhibition match So it's status was known even before it was played. You're mistaking opinion for fact, it's always been an official match, and has always counted in the records.So thanks for clearing that up so conclusively, i've made the appropiate changes --Paul 06:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Paul you have not acted in good faith as your last revision has taken out 1980/81 without sources. Furthmore, 1987 was already included in our stats here at Wikipedia as official, there was a footnote saying it was disputed, which it is. The source above disputes the canonicity, not refutes. I can only assume that your changes are vandalism, as they are contrary to sources, and they will be treated as such henceforth.--dan, dan and dan 06:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
taken out 1980/81 Wrong - 80,81 and 87 were there, but as usual you ignore anything I write, and as usual dont address any specific points I make. The ARL, NSWRL, and QRL all consider 80, 81 and 87 as the same as the other 74 games, in what language is that a dispute? Why you think any other sources have any authority in the matter is beyond me. the source above disputes the canonicity, not refutes Then why are "asterisking" the games won tallies? Either its all good (as in fact it is), or someone *is* refuting - these people are merely expressing an ill-informed opinion, and have no say in the matter. changes are vandalism You may remember, I made the table to start with, it's my work that was defaced and continues to be so.--Paul 13:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I have read all of your writing. Like some of the other work that has been on this page (eg, eligibility) it is factually incorrect. To address what you have just said:

  1. "The ARL, NSWRL, and QRL all consider 80, 81 and 87 as the same as the other 74 games": Untrue. The QRL includes this match in player records, but not the interstate tally. The QRL has authority. This is sourced. Your assertion is unverified. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Regardless of what you think of the Courier-Mail sources, it says in black and white on the policy page "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher." Write back to me when you have read and understood this. Until then, your current edit war will be considered nothing other than vandalism.
  2. Why have a footnote? To show that there is a dispute. There are three sources for the dispute. You are removing them for no reason. See Wikipedia:Verifiability
  3. Vandalism: Regardless of who orginally wrote the pages, removing verified, factually correct material is vandalism.

--dan, dan and dan 20:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

--dan, dan and dan 06:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)--dan, dan and dan 06:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a mistake in the American Controversy section. It's got a quote from Ken Arthurson, then the next sentence says "Ken Arthurson disputed this, saying...". Is the wrong name on one of those quotes? Or should it say "Ken Arthurson later contradicted himself, saying..."?--Jeff79 22:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ken Arhturson later expressed a different opinion.--dan, dan and dan 05:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page in the Courier-Mail

On page 61 of today's Courier-Mail, this page (and some of its debate) is featured in the article Writing History by Asterisk.--dan, dan and dan 22:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Very Cool. Unfortunately, I can't get the courier mail here in dublin. Is there any chance you could give us the gist and the context in which we've been referenced? Factoid Killer 03:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism seems to have ceased.

I haven't contributed to this article yet but I have been keeping a close eye on it ready to pounce on anyone inciting vandalism. I'm happy to see this hasn't occured. Dan's additions have made the article look very professional.

I will be continuing my vigil just in case anyone was laying low for a while and hoping to come back!Factoid Killer 11:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there's only so many times you can say something and have it ignored. I often come to Wikipedia after playing online games - also rife with the clueless. Wears you down. My energy is now directed at cricket - QLD don't have a Test team, so hopefully it'll be safe. --Paul 12:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like an omission of guilt to me!

[edit] Wally Lewis

I know its been mentioned before, but why for example is there reference to the "Steve Mortimer lead Blues" and yet Wally Lewis is not mentioned even once??

There should be virtually a seperate paragraph on Wally's impact on the Series and his place in its lore --195.171.131.151 11:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sofixit Factoid Killer 22:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State of Origin page

This has probably been discussed and put to rest, but I really do think that this page should be at State of Origin with links to AFL and English version at the top. "State of Origin" in google brings up no AFL (or English for that matter) in the first page of searches unless you count the Wiki/about article. Seriously, when anyone refers to State of Origin it almost always means the RL series, and its dubious that the English games are really known as State of Origin, as the proper name is actually the War of the Roses, the SOO name was probably applied by people when spoken of in comparison to the Australian version. I don't know, it's just annoying that the current State or Origin page is a disambiguation sort of mess, and the fact that Rugby League State of Origin is not the proper name. Hmmm, I will probably get owned for this, but I thought I might see what other people think... Cvene64 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The SoO page is about the concept itself, which was not developed or first implemented in rugby league. I can assure you that it is a very well-known concept in Aussie rules circles, and was extremely popular with AFL fans when the very best players took part. Its decline — IMHO enginereed by a few club coaches and administrators — still rankles with many people. What is the problem in people having to make one extra click to this page, from SoO? Grant65 | Talk 12:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Series Wins

According to the ARL the two draws where Qld held the title ARE considered to be SERIES WINS!

http://www.australianrugbyleague.com.au/index.cgi?det=1&intArticleID=357&sID=21

This article states that in 2006 Qld has WON the series for the first time since 2002! I have adjusted the stats accordingly. 194.46.238.124 23:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Team article names

I didn't get much of a response from the team's talk pages, so I'll try here.

At the moment we have Queensland State of Origin Team and New South Wales Rugby League team. I propose we rename, possibly to:

(this would align with Australia national rugby league team) -- Chuq 09:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a very senssible suggestion. Grant65 | Talk 10:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Last year I created a Queensland Rugby League team page, but somewhere along the way it is been "unlinked" to.--dan, dan and dan 11:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Very weird, I'm quite surprised the two articles have lasted this long without merging! I've put the appropriate tags on them. Queensland State of Origin Team is the "target" page, solely because it has the largest edit history. I'll leave the page moves mentioned above for a bit more discussion. -- Chuq 11:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

no tags on either page now I think Queensland Rugby League Team and New South Wales Rugby League Team would be good names. No need for the word "state". It'd be inappropriate to call them "Queensland/NSW state of origin team", as you could not include any historical team info prior to the change to origin selection rules.

Footnotes

>Media and governing bodies in Queensland (Queensland Rugby League, The Courier-Mail) include the match in individual player tallies,
>but not in the overall tally
This doesn't really make sense, what is it supposed to mean?

It means that the LA match is included in personal statistics, but not in overall state v. state statistics.--dan, dan and dan 00:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly the point, that doesn't make sense.
Either way, that is what the organisation does.--dan, dan and dan 03:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A draw IS as good as a WIN to the team reataining the title

Well that's according to the ARL!

http://www.australianrugbyleague.com.au/index.cgi?det=1&intArticleID=357&sID=21

NSWelshman

[edit] Popularity in The Region (not just Australia)

I think it should be mentioned that State of Origin matches are very high-rating sports events in New Zealand also and following in Papua New Guinea is fanatical. It may well be PNG's most popular sports event.--Jeff79 05:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Shield

The Shield is mentioned a few times in the article. But no real details are given about it. Is there still a shield? Does it have a particular name? Would be handy to include some details on this page perhaps.--Jeff79 02:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is 'a' Shield, probably the first one, although given that Bert didn't play until 1982, presumably it was created some time after the fact. I took this photo at the League of Legends exhibition, alas the lighting was very poor, so the photo isn't of much use. But feel free to use it.

http://img363.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sooshieldap8.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.210.213 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] State of Origin Article

The following is a discussion that's been taking place on the Talk:State of Origin page. I'm putting it in this talk page because I believe this is the real State of Origin discussion page so most people probably miss what's discussed on the other talk page. I thought some of you might be interested in adding to it.

Primary Topic

There can be little doubt that the ongoing and extremely popular (fact, not opinion) Rugby League State of Origin is the primary topic when it comes to the words 'State of Origin'. Yes, the concept may have originated from Aussie rules, but timing doesn't determine whether something is the primary topic or not. Much fewer pages in wikipedia have links to the Aussie rules version of state of origin, or, for that matter to the 'concept' of state of origin, which this page is supposed to be about. Countless pages on wikipedia link to the rugby league state of origin, and the reason that WP:DAB#Primary topic wikipedia policy exists is to stop the situation we have now, which is one where editors must type out "[[Rugby League State of Origin|State of Origin]]" as the link on all rugby league-related pages that link to the state of origin instead of just "[[State of Origin]]". Why should editors of Aussie rules pages have the luxury of only having to link to 'State of Origin' when no more links to it will probably ever be created again, whereas editors of rugby league pages will continue creating links to the origin page as time goes on. The first line of a corrected State of Origin page will point to the disambiguation page anyway, where the few who want to read this tiny article on the 'origin concept' and aussie rules aspect can get their information. Read the policy. I want this debate re-opened because it needs to be fixed.--Jeff79 03:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In point of fact, this is not the main article about Aussie rules state of origin, which is at Interstate matches in Australian rules football.
As far as the primary topic goes, I think this article is about the primary topic, which is the concept. And the term is now used far more generally than the two codes of football in Australia. For example, when I worked for a national organisation a few years ago, we had a "State of Origin Quiz Competition". How about State of Origin Chicken Challenge, State of Origin curried sausages or calls for a New Zealand State of Origin Series? For that matter, there are still calls to "Bring back State of Origin" in Aussie rules, and it may just happen.
So this is an unusual situation, just like the Football article, which is not about soccer or American football, even though they are what most people are looking for. Among the reasons why Football is a stand-alone article is because of games like rugby league and Aussie rules, which don't have many followers world-wide but are still part of what the word or term means. These pages also serve to educate people about the broader implications of a word or term.
In the spirit of WP:NPOV, if there is any ambiguity about a term, we don't discriminate in favour of one or the other interpretation. And if the consensus is that we don't need a separate page on the concept, then the proper way of resolving this dispute is a standard disambiguation page, i.e.
State of Origin may refer to:
This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.
Cheers, Grant | Talk 09:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer that to what there is now. But what it comes down to I think is how many people are going to click on what. People wanting the primary topic shouldn't have to follow two links to get to it. Look at the Peter Jackson article. There are several Peter Jacksons but it's been assumed that the majority of people who type in 'Peter Jackson' will be looking for the filmmaker. There's a link to the disambiguation page at the top of his page for people wanting information on other people of the same name. I think a similar assumption can be made about State of Origin. Clearly the Peter Jackson (fimmaker) equivalent to State of Origin is the RL SOO.--Jeff79 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I'll retract what I said before — I don't want a straight dab page because information/knowledge will be lost.

The "Peter Jackson" analogy is not apt, because there is zero connection between the different "Peter Jacksons", apart from their name. By contrast, state of origin is one concept, applied to different codes/sports/contests. A better comparison is saying that we shouldn't have pages called "grand final" or "McIntyre Final Eight System", because these also cut across different codes/sports.

I guess the problem is that supporters of different football codes don't tend to know much about each other's games, and while it is perfectly clear to a Queenslander that SOO means "football" (i.e. league), that is not the case to a South Australian or a Tasmanian campaigning for the return of the concept to "football" (i.e. Aussie rules). But it is the same basic concept.

Grant | Talk 06:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people who search or create links to the words 'state of origin' will intend to reach the the RL SOO. This makes it the primary topic (again, I ask, read the policy). Of course information will not be lost. It will simply be moved. The very top of the page will say something like:

"State of Origin" directs here. For information on the state of origin "concept" and Australian rules football interstate matches, see State of Origin (Disambiguation).

Or something along those lines anyway. How is any information lost? You won't be able to convince anyone that the RL SOO is not the primary topic in this situation. It's clearly a matter of pride for Aussie rules followers who want credit for having applied the term to their code first. That's why you've come up with this "concept" of state of origin business, purely to create non-league-related content. There's no "concept" that requires explanation. It's three simple words and there are only two topics worthy of appearing in wikipedia (rugby league and aussie rules) that they refer to. For me however, it's not a matter of pride at all. It's a matter of Wikipedia working according to its policies, which exist for good reasons, i.e. those I've mentioned above).--Jeff79 07:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, according to that logic, grand final should redirect to AFL Grand Final, since that is what most Australians mean when they say "the grand final" and the present content from grand final should be moved to grand final (disambiguation). I don't think we are going to agree on this; it may have to go to formal mediation. Grant | Talk 08:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
that is what most Australians mean when they say "the grand final". I actually didn't think you'd say something like that. Need I remind you that almost a quarter of the country's population live in Sydney? Oh well.--Jeff79 08:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this discussion about the meaning of "state of origin", a term which could also mean fruit & veg labelling, or the pride of rugby league fans? You don't believe that the AFL Grand Final is more popular than the NRL one? Check the stats on TV viewers. Grant | Talk 11:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Umm, it's a discussion about the pride of AFL fans, as I've already said above. But nice try. And I even re-typed your exact words about the grand finals so you'd know exactly what I didn't agree with, but you got confused anyway. I'm more than happy to stay on the topic of this discussion, and that is that the RL SOO is the primary topic when it comes to the words 'state of origin' according to WP:DAB#Primary topic. Feel free to actually address the points I've made above that prove this. The things looked at to determine whether something is the primary topic are google search results, the size of the articles and how many other articles link to them.--Jeff79 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And nice try at rallying the rugby league supporters. Should I also advertise this debate at Aussie rules talk pages? This article didn't even exist before I wrote it. State of origin doesn't just mean the rugby league series. State of origin didnt originate (hoho) with rugby league.

You can waffle about "primary subjects" all you like. The concept, as I've said, is the primary subject. I didn't invent it. As the article says, it was invented by a rugby union identity in 1900. It was first put into practice by Australian rules in 1977. Wikipedia policy says that if there is no consensus on what an article should be called, it remains at the original location. It doesn't even have to go to mediation, which I offered you in good faith. It's not my problem if you take umbrage at a simple analogy. Grant | Talk 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to discuss this anywhere you want. And yes, OF COURSE you created this article. And I've already said I'm aware that SOO didn't originate with league. A page detailing the "concept" of state of origin is needed as much as an article detailing the concept of "country of origin". As I've said, they're three simple english words. I didn't reject your "offer" for mediation, I welcome the input of administrators on this issue. Because, unlike you, they're concerned primarily with Wikipedia working according to its policies.--Jeff79 21:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing a temporary manifestation of a concept with the concept itself. Don't worry, it's not unusual. By way of analogy, the "primary subject" of President of the United States is George W. Bush but that will soon change. SOO certainly didnt mean rugby league in 1977. It didn't even mean league and league alone in 1997. John Doyle a.k.a. Rampaging Roy Slaven -- among many other people who are in a better position to see the future than me or you -- says rugby league is a "dying code", which means that "state of origin" may not mean rugby league in 2017 either. Grant | Talk 09:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't take the "dying code" seriously, people who say this are usually rugby union journalists with a chip on their shoulder e.g. Stephen Jones. The sad thing is that if enough people do this, people start taking it seriously without checking out the facts for themselves.GordyB 10:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

More anti-league sentiment. Quoted from a comedian, no less. You're really not doing yourself any favours here are you? Let's not lose focus of the real issue. Go and type "state of origin" into google (with the inverted commas). Go and look at all the RL SOO-related articles here on wikipedia and the further multitude of articles that link to them. Because that is how wikipedians will establish the primary topic. Your American president analogy doesn't work. Not only because 'George W Bush' and 'President of the United States' are entiely different sets of words, but also, to use your own logic, In 1977 the primary topic for Peter Jackson certainly wasn't the filmmaker, and in 2017 it may not be either. But it is now, so his page is what 'Peter Jackson' links to. Wikipedia is a living breathing document too. It will change with the times if need be (why do I even have to type this out for you?). The words 'state of origin' have precisely the same meaning as the words 'country of origin' but with 'state' substituted for 'country' (I can't BELIEVE I'm having to type this out). A page explaining that is not needed. The words 'state of origin' refer to two article-worthy topics: the interstate rugby league competition and the interstate Aussie rules football competition. One of these competitions is currently of greater relevance to the english-speaking world than the other (as google and wikipedia both prove) and is thus the primary topic.--Jeff79 10:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Doyle was speaking as "John Doyle, journalist and rugby league fan", in an interview with The Australian when he made that comment. He is many things, but a rugby union fan he ain't. As Jeff knows very well, he is not merely a comedian, and he wouldn't blithely trash rugby league in either persona (Doyle or Slaven). Possibly it is a case of shock tactics and he is trying to stir league fans into action, but it was a serious comment from someone with a deep love and knowledge of the game.
Jeff, maybe you're just trash talking, but it is looking like you don't understand the difference between description and prescription; between analysis and recommendation. That is to say, you wilfully interpret any statement of mine that harms your case as being anti-rugby league. It isn't going to work with me and there are enough people around who know my contributions to articles on various football codes. For instance, I wrote a fair proportion of the Australian content in History of rugby league, because it needed doing and Aussie league contributors were few and far between when that article was being put together.
All Wikipedia policies are open to interpretation. I have to say that I find the redirecting of "Peter Jackson" to the film maker controversial for the same reason why I'm objecting to your proposal. But whatever, that horse has bolted. This one hasn't. You can say Wikipedia changes with the times, but it hasn't been around long enough to really demonstrate that is what will happen (if the meanings of word and terms change in years to come). When it comes to the English language I'm a conservative, and if that means more dab pages and "one more click of the mouse", then so be it. Grant | Talk 12:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice not once in this discussion have I tried to diminish the significance of the Aussie Rules state of origin or Aussie rules in general. I avoid that type of thing altogether. I'm not interested in any point-scoring debate between the two codes of football. That isn't what this is about. Almost all of what I say here relates to why the RL SOO is the primary topic according to wikipedia policy when it comes to the words "state of origin" (hence the title "Primary Topic"). I also found the directing of Peter Jackson controversial, and when I tried to start a debate on that page, I was quickly shut down by someone quoting the primary topic policy. I'd have liked Peter Jackson to lead to a straight disambiguation page, but I learned that's not how it works here. I've already said I'd be happy with a straight disambiguation page for 'state of origin' too rather than the status quo. Although supposedly it should lead to the primary topic as in the case of Peter Jackson.--Jeff79 19:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Jeff, all fair enough, but what is the point in having a simple/straight dab page, when we would still need a State of origin (disambiguation) page to explain the concept? Some strange things go on in Wikipedia, I must admit, but I can't see why "one more click" is such a trial for the league buffs. In fact, I wouldn't be so sure that league fans are not interested in the concept in general --- only two other people (both anonymous) have strenuously objected to the present format, in the three years since I started the article (as 203.59.203.190). Grant | Talk 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've explained more than once that the "concept" of state of origin doesn't need to be detailed in a wikipedia article for the same reason that country of origin doesn't. State of origin just means the state that something originated from. Exactly the same as 'country of origin' or 'port of origin'. I think we can assume that people know what the words 'state' and 'of origin' mean. Only two topics related to the exact phrase 'state of origin' are worthy of articles in wikipedia. The history that is common to both can be mentioned on each page and at the end, if you must, you can say something like: The State of Origin phenomenon in Australia has served to generate greater pride in poeple's states, and as a result various other contests held sometimes involve competition between representatives of each state and assume the moniker 'State of Origin'.

Since it is so obviously the primary topic, the clicking through two pages to get to it bothers me, but what got me started in the first place was the fact that every time a link to state of origin is created in a league-related contribution "[[Rugby League State of Origin|State of Origin]]" must be typed out instead of just [[State of Origin]]. And believe me, not only "league buffs" will be going to the State of Origin article. It is one of Australia's (and indeed the region's) major sporting events, up there with the grand finals and the Melbourne Cup whether you like it or not.

I think you want to preserve this article because if there's a straight disambiguation page that will leave only one article with the words 'State of Origin' in its title, potentially strengthening my case for primary topic. To tell you the truth I'm not sure why the Aussie rules-related article is called "Interstate matches in Australian rules football" rather than containing the words 'state of origin'. People do call it "state of origin" right? I think a disambiguation page should read:

"State of Origin" may refer to:

  • State of Origin (rugby league), the annual Australian interstate rugby league football competition
  • State of Origin (Australian rules football), Interstate matches in Australian rules football

This makes it clear to anyone who searches 'state of origin' in wikipedia that (beyond the obvious meaning of the expression) there are two different football competitions in Australia that use the name 'state of origin'. I think that reflects reality perfectly.--Jeff79 19:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sports fans tend to be uninterested about sports that they haven't grown up with. That is natural. But the point of an encyclopedia is to inform, educate and expand knowledge, not to confirm and reinforce what people already know, and their prejudices. The meaning of "country of origin" is obvious to people from all of the world; "state of origin" is not, as very few countries have federal systems. Even fewer have domestic sporting contests in which players are forced to play for a team related to their regional origins.
The reason why why the Aussie rules-related article is called "Interstate matches in Australian rules football" is because state of origin is first and foremost a team selection rule. The fact that I have to remind you of this only proves why we we need a seperate article on the origin concept. Also, the first intercolonial/interstate match was 1879, so there were 98 years of state/colonial games before state of origin selection rules were introduced. There are still games involving the state Aussie rules leagues (e.g. there is a VFL v WAFL game in a few weeks time) which do not use state of origin team selection rules. The only Aussie rules event still utilising state of origin selection rules is the annual veterans game, which is Victoria v Allstars (i.e. the rest). Grant | Talk 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems all this time I'd actually been overestimating the relationship between the words 'state of origin' and Aussie rules. But it's good to see that this debate is starting to boil down to what it was intended to be: a discussion about the interpretation of wikipedia policy in relation to these three little words. For mine, I think you underestimate the english-speaking world's knowledge of the word 'state' and its implications. Certainly there's no problem in Australia and the United States. And I think we can assume that Canadians and Britons are fully aware of the word's implications too. That covers a good portion of the world's english speakers.

Really, there are only two ways that people are going to reach the article with the title 'state of origin': 1) by clicking on a link with those words, or 2) by typing them into the search box. Now, the greatest number of links made of the words 'state of origin' on wikipedia are on rugby league-related articles. So if someone clicks on them, it is because they'd like to read more information about the rugby league state of origin. What these people clearly don't need is an article explaining that 'state of origin' means the state that something/someone originated from. They are aware. I think the same can be said of people clicking on 'state of origin' links in aussie rules-related articles too. All of these people will get the details of how the concept was started in the article they reach, whether it be the league one or the aussie rules one. The second group of people that will arrive at an article entitled 'state of origin' are the ones that search the phrase. These people won't be pulling those words out of the air and just typing them in by accident, with no real idea what may come up. So they don't need an explanation of how much more there is to the expression "state of origin" than country or port of origin. They will have heard/read the words 'state of origin' somewhere before. Most likely from an Australian source with regard to one of two sporting contests. Both of these groups of people know what 'state' means. Even if they aren't aware that Australia is divided into states, I'm willing to say that every english speaker on earth knows that the United States of America is divided into states. That leaves very few (if any) readers that may require an explanation of the implications that the word 'state' has when preceding the words 'of origin'. Let's face it, every english speaker knows what "country of origin" and "port of origin" mean. Every english speaker is aware that some countries are divided into states. Beyond what is explained in both articles when it comes to the expression 'state of origin', I really don't see what else they would need.--Jeff79 05:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"What these people clearly don't need is an article explaining that 'state of origin' means the state that something/someone originated from. They are aware." No, wrong Jeff. As the prolonged debate at talk: football (word) and similar places has taught me, no-one really knows whether a majority of the world's English as a second language speakers use "American" or "British" English, so I wouldn't be too sure that "a good portion of the world's english speakers" does understand the implications of the word "state" in SOO. For instance British people, in my experience, generally use the word state to mean "a government or regime", rather than a geographical area that is one part of a country/nation. While British people may be aware of the word's different meaning in the US, my two years spent living in the UK tell me it's a big stre-e-e-etch to suggest that they are aware of Australia also being a federal system, let alone relating that sense of the word "state" (i.e. one part of a federal system) to "State of Origin", even if they are fans of rugby league.
As for your second paragraph, you are speculating on why people are visiting this article, and there is no evidence that people who visit it are not interested in the information here. Grant | Talk 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
In fact, when I just did a Google search for "state of origin" on ".uk" sites,[4] the first entry is a reference to Australian rules(!) and on the first results page there are several references to the movement of goods, rather than any sporting contest. Grant | Talk 13:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The information on this state of origin article is present in the rugby league and aussie rules articles. If this becomes a disambiguation page no information will be lost. People will click on one of the two articles. They won't just stop at the disambiguation page and give up because there's no information on it. They will click on one of the two articles and those without a sense of the word "state" (i.e. one part of a federal system) in relation to "State of Origin" will promptly be informed: The first sentence of the Rugby League State of Origin article reads:

Australia's Rugby League State of Origin is an annual series of three interstate rugby league matches between the Maroons, representing the state of Queensland and the Blues, representing the state of the New South Wales.

Any uncertainty about the word state is taken care of there I think. The first sentence of the Aussie rules state of origin article reads:

Australian rules football matches between teams representing Australian colonies/states and territories have been held since 1879.

No problems there either.--Jeff79 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to agree on this. It will probably have to go to mediation. Grant | Talk 07:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. But I don't know how to arrange that.--Jeff79 05:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We can go to Wikipedia:Mediation, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I'm easy.

At least we haven't ended up in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ;-) Grant | Talk 12:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm doing the Medcab request.--Jeff79 20:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
For others who may be interested, the mediation is taking place at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-11 State of Origin. Grant | Talk 05:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State against state, mate against mate

When and by whom was this tagline first used? And can we find the right place to put it into the article? I think it should be mentioned as it reflects a great deal of what State of Origin is all about.--Jeff79 02:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin Conspiracy

I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere in wikipedia (correct me if I am wrong) but there is what appears to be a widely known "conspiracy" in regards to why the third game is rarely 'dead rubber', and mostly a decider. Of course this is good for ratings/sponsers/viewers and promotes the possibility that an external force is behind the high rate of deciders. There is of course a thousand reasons for this being merely an unfounded conspiracy, but in the pursuit of objectivity shouldn't this be included in the article?

I only have one source (aside from unreliable forum entries) being http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200605/s1634515.htm which reports on a player acknowledging the possibility of a conspiracy. His case doesn't make this the best source (and is also ambiguous), but wondering if there were any other sources anyone knew of before maybe including it in the article. Drewhoo 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State location map

While I think that the state location map is good, I don't think it should be it's own section. Perhaps it could be placed at the top of the article where the logo used to be?--Jeff79 (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How does that look? •Florrie•leave a note• 08:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Great.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)