Talk:State of Origin

Aussie Rules at the Top?

State of origin is synonomous with Rugby League and the majority of people who will be looking at this topic will be doing so with the intent of researching Rugby League state of origin. Rugby League state of origin was far more popular and successful.

Also, the reasons for state of origin coming about have nothing to do with AFL. Queenslanders had been pushing for a state of origin competition for decades but meeting much resitance from their NSW counterparts. To understand this better, I think we need to add another section, explaining in more detail, why state of origin exists. I'd be happy to add this but not until i've had an oportunity to do more research on the subject. In short, it had a lot to do with NSW clubs buying Qld players and either using them in the NSW team, or at the very least, making them ineligible to play for Qld. The concept may have been tried in VFL first, but that does not mean the idea was taken from the, unpopular, VFL state of origin.

But in any case, Australian Rules state of origin does not belong at the top of this thread any more than a speal about the State of Oregon (sounds similar, but it's irrelevant).

I won't call it "rugby" if you don't call it "VFL" or "AFL" ;-) Sorry, but even the name "State of Origin" was invented in Aussie rules. WA, SA and Tasmania had exactly the same issues as Queensland did, and had also been campaigning for changes to the selection rules for many years before it happened. I might add that this page didn't even exist before I wrote the first version, including fair mention of RL, but I doubt that would carry any weight with bigoted league supporters ;-) Grant65 (Talk) 12:28, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe two pages, one each? Wikipedia is rife with pointless granularity - I mean there people working on a page for each suburb of Canberra. What a colossal waste of effort. Paul 16:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

There is not really much on Aussie rules in the article at the moment, considering the 22 years that origin was part of the game. I had been thinking about creating a separate Aussie rules origin page, but as Jim says below, it is an important historical point that the concept originated (heh) with Aussie rules.Grant65 (Talk) 00:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Why ignore 1980 and 1981? I've never heard of any other sporting body ignoring past statistics at the point of a rule change. When the state of origin series moved from a single game to a 3 part series, this was a RULE change.

The first two games were trials, the 1980 game was only formulated after NSW lead 2-0. Had a deciding game been required, it wouldn't have even happened. Paul 16:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

If use of the term 'series' is incorrectly applied to 1980 and 1981 then it seams to me that the term 'series', when used in state of origin statistics, was invented, for no reason other than to make NSW look good. In this case, the 'series' statistic should be omitted completely.

Are you actually familiar with the meaning of the word "series" Paul 16:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me, *Paul*, that you want to have your cake and eat it too. You altered the stats yesterday to include an exhibition match, which was not an official state of origin match, in the stats. You seem to want to exclude two legitimate games won by queensland but then be able to add an illegitemate game won by NSW. You can't have it both ways.

All 3 one off games count in the stats but not in the series tallies. Seems blindingly obvious, really. Check some of the player's game totals, e.g. Lewis's 31 include all three. So if want to play revisionist, a bit of work to be done, adjusting all the official tallies. No reputable League statisticians would count these single games as series (see if you find a cite for 12-11), not even Barry Gomersall would Paul 16:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

We're celebrating 25 years of state of origin. Not 23.

Years Holding State of Origin Shield This is the most important statistic of all. I don't know why it was removed. If team A holds the shield, then team b has to beat team A to get the shield. Pretty simple really. A draw means you didn't win and we keep the shield. RL isn't the only sport that works (at least did in the past) this way.

Sorry if you don't like the fact that Qld has held the shield for 3 more years than NSW has but this is a matter of record... a fact that you can't dispute. You've offered no explanation for removing this stat.

It isn't a stat, that's why. It's like years holding the Ashes, no-one thinks in those terms, it's the result of the series. And I very much doubt the Shield even existed prior to 1982. Paul 16:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

--All stats are included-- Stop the semantics, includes years, and series, and shield retained.

The most important stats are the games won and points scored, the show the real stroy, which is that there is no appreciable superiority on any side. Thank god we haven't a fight about Grasshopper here yet.

-- Hmmm... the results do appear that way once you add the results of an unofficial exhibition game ;-) If Qld had won that game they sure as hell wouldn't be included. NSW media is incredibly biased when it comes to rugby league.

Here is your bias revealed, which clears things up immensely. Paul 16:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

A fact reflected all throughout the games history and the only reason for these inventive statistics.

I'd say that's where your ignorance is revealed. It's well documented that the NSW media wrote Qld off in every game during the early eighties. Even after Qld continued to beat them. I'd say that's an example of a strong bias.

However. I'm willing to leave things the way they are so long as all stats stay as they are and my disclaimer remains where it is. --

I for one think the stats should stay. They're a correct reflection of the facts. I also think Aussie Rules belongs at the top. It's well documented that Ron Mcauliffe got the idea for state of origin directly from the VFL boss of the time, so the above arguments don't hold water. I'd be supportive of a move to create separate RL and Aussie Rules pages for state of origin. They are afterall, different subjects. Both of which have the potential for a great deal of content. Jim

Just wanted to add that every Qlder should be very greatful to both Ron Mcalliffe and the VFL for the concept of the state of origin. It put the fire in the belly of rugby league in Qld. If it weren't for them, we'd probably be following AFL ;-)

Thanks Jim. Perhaps one of the contributors here can take a look at Queensland Rugby League which is basically a stub. History of rugby league also needs a bit more Aussie content I think.Grant65 (Talk) 00:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

State of Origin, Rugby League I've thrown together a new page called State of Origin, Rugby League. It is Rugby League specific. I've moved the stats from this page over to that one.

I took the additional step of removing the 25 state of origin highlights on the grounds that they were either largely based on opinion or, if taken from another source, a blatant breach of copyright. I've also removed the section on '# of years holding SOO shield' because it makes NSW people cry. Jimbo Jim

A recalcitrant

194.46.230.53 has accused me of "valdalism" in putting Aussie rules first, even though it is historically accurate and I wrote most of the article. Once again, for the record, Australian rules football invented the name "State of Origin" and Aussie rules used the concept first. No mater how much you hate the game, you can't change history. Take it to Rugby League State of Origin. Grant65 (Talk) 03:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Good luck trying to convince him/her/it --Paul 06:56, 10 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.

The article still suggests that the concept of state of origin was invented by the VFL when it was clealy an emulation of rules already enforced in other nations such as the united kingdom and ireland where players were already required to play for their home state. If use of the term state has your little insular Australian mind spoofed then perhaps you should look it up. Ireland is a state as is scotland, england and wales. NZ is a state and Australia is a state. Yes Aussie Rules ppl invented the term 'state of origin' but they did not by any stretch of the imagination invent the concept.

Of course the article does state the above facts but then goes on to contradict itself.

Traditionally the constituent parts of the UK are not usually referred to as "states", they are "countries" or "nations", which is why they have separate national teams in rugby union, soccer etc. We are talking about the next level down, which would be counties in the UK. If you can show me where the actual term "state of origin" (or "county of origin") was used in the UK or elsewhere before Aussie rules used it, I will be glad to change the article. Since you are clearly not an Australian, perhaps you can explain how you come to be such an "authority" on Australian rules football? Grant65 (Talk) 00:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he is a Briton because he is wrong about British rugby league. You do not need to play for the 'state' (nation) you were born in. Iestyn Harris was born in England but played for Wales as his family is Welsh. State of Origin is closer to the county games held between Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumberland (and sometimes other counties) which was held over from the old rugby union county games.GordyB 13:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Google... Results 1 - 10 of about 93,000 for "the irish state". (0.28 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 1,640 for "the scottish state". (0.42 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 562 for "the welsh state". (1.15 seconds) Results 1 - 10 of about 33,100 for "the english state". (0.27 seconds)

I live in Ireland where the country is regularly referred to as 'The State'. In fact, the term state would be more frequently used by the local media than the term 'Country' or 'Nation' when referring to Ireland.

>If you can show me where the actual term "state of origin"

Well that would be completely irrelevant since i'm not disputing that Australian Rules football came up with the name 'state of origin'. What i'm suggesting is that that is all they came up with... the name. The concept was not original in 1977.

So what makes you think i'm not one of the 300 thousand Australian people living in the UK anyway? And if not, perhaps I am British or Irish and simply subscribe to Sky Sport!

I work with British and Irish county councils regularly. Counties don't have governments. They have councils. They're more closely related to an Australian shire or city than an Australian state.

At worst you might be able to pick up on suggesting that wales is a state. While england, scotland and the republic of ireland certainly are states, Wales doesn't actually have a proper government with its own legislitive powers. If you want to draw comparisons there, Wales is like an Australian Territory (NT or ACT).

You've got it arse about. Before 1998 Wales and Scotland were countries/nations without states; since 1998 they have had their own limited governments. They are nevertheless still part of the (broader) state known as the UK.

The concept was not new in 1977, in terms of national teams but it was new in terms of sub-national teams. NSW, Victoria, Qld and WA are not nations like Wales or Scotland. Gordy is correct; they are closer to British counties, which have far greater powers than Australian local councils.Grant65 (Talk) 14:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole question of whether England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland are nations or states is a red herring. I don't think there was ever a requirement that you had to be born in a particular place to represent that team at rugby league. I think the Yorkshire versus Lancashire games are more meaningful in terms of origin games. I think county cricket might well be the first time that players played for the area of their birth rather than just their club team. AFAIK originally you had to be born in that county to represent it, Yorkshire retained this rule until about 1991.GordyB 17:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The other thing I would point out is that the first rugby league international is considered to be Wales against a touring New Zealand. If Wales were not considered to be a national team then this would not be an international, New Zealand against Queensland would not be considered an international.GordyB 17:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Quite an argument over such a trivial matter, heh? Even if one buys the Eng/Sco/Wal/Ire thing is equivalent to NSW/QLD/Vic etc. (quite a stretch, IMO), I hardly think it played any part in the concept and formulation of SOO, and as such not relevant to the article. BTW are 194.46.241.113 and 62.254.168.102 the same person? --Paul 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The first IP officially emanates from Belfast and the other one from Dublin. Since they are only about 150km apart, my guess is yes. Whatever the case, it is in his/her own interests to register with Wikipedia, or at least sign his/her name. Grant65 (Talk) 23:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I miss State of Origin. At least in our, you could see every state play. With Rugby league, they're bought it to Melbourne. Why? So we can watch two other states beat each other? Where's our enjoyment in that. If you were from ACT, NSW, QLD, NT (Allies), WA (Western Australia) or SA (Croweaters) you couls watch your team play. Who are we susspoed to go for here, even if we do like Rugby?

Move page

I know the AFL fans are not going to agree with it, but does anybody agree that the State of Origin article should be about the Rugby League version with a section up the top saying "for the AFL version see Interstate matches in Australian rules football link". I mean being realistic, the AFL version doesnt even exist anymore and the Rugby League version of State of Origin is one of the biggest sporting events in Australia. It is aired all over Australia, in England, New Zealand etc.. and even America! The Rugby League version also is one of the highest rating shows in New South Wales and Queensland. 99% of people who type State of Origin into Wikipedia will be looking for the Rugby League information NOT AFL information. A lot of people probably have never even heard of the AFL State of Origin. And whats this business about "AFL started State of Origin first".. Rugby League Interstate matches have been around for years (take for example Charles Fraser (rugby league footballer). He played for New South Wales back in 1915. Origin back then may not have been dubbed "State of Origin" but a similar concept certainly existed. What does everybody else think?

Leave it as it is. This article about the idea of SOO and others about the specific SOO played in each country / sport.

SOO in rugby league didn't start until 1980 (according to RL article). Prior to this state teams did compete but qualification was down to residency rather than origin, so they weren't SOO.GordyB 13:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the general concept of State of Origin.

Why then are there match reports listed under the AFL section. Edit it down to a few sentences and leave details for the specific pages. Bongomanrae 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've taken it upon myself to make some needed changes. In my opinion it could still do with more editing but I would rather not proceed without further discussion. Bongomanrae 10:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done a partial reversion because the "match reports", as you call them, of the first Aussie rules origin game and the non-origin VFL-WA game which preceded it, demonstrate why origin came into being. That is, the effect was a huge reversal of the way in which Aussie rules state games had usually played out. I think I'm right in saying that the result of the first Qld-NSW origin game echoed the reversal in the WA-Vic game. Grant65 | Talk 14:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

• Interstate matches in Australian rules football
• Rugby League State of Origin

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 alone? 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 ideally 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,[1] 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)

For the record, the mediator, User:Wizardman, found that:

From the looks of it, the way it is now seems fine. For a primary topic argument to be effective, there would hve to be evidence that is it worldwide accepted as the general primary topic, which I don't see at this point.--Wizardman 15:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Return for 150 years celebrations

I feel it should be mentioned for the return in Aussie rules next year, that it will not be played as a best of states (e.g. SA, WA, VIC) rather like a VIC vs 'the rest' like in the EJ Whitten games rather than the original format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.160.97 (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Rugby Union

For several years prior to the S14, S10, S6 ( or what ever you want to call it) NSW Waratahs and QLD Reds played "State of the Union" EVERY year. It might not be CALLED State of Origin, but there is no question that it works under the origin system. This sentence should be ammended.Proberton (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you mean this sentence "however the concept has never been used in rugby union." Nothing stopping you from outlining the history and selection rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.207.160 (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)