text:
Talk:Sport in Australia

Participation
This article should have better information on sport participation in Australia.

There are surveys done by Roy Morgan and The Australian Sports Institute. While they differ they are broadly in agreement.

There is also a survey commissioned by cricket Australia. Is this NPOV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 00:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Firstly, that single post from you just there does not constitute discussion. You should not have re-added any content until some sort of consensus had developed here. That is bad faith editing.
 * Secondly, participation is notoriously difficult to measure, and inevitably misleading. Should we include all ages? If so, what does that prove? Soccer is well known for having high levels of junior participation (it is alleged mothers prefer it to "rougher" forms of football), which drops off dramatically at adult levels. How does one represent that in a national article covering all sport? We know that sports use such figures to demonstrate their success, and figures must depend on numbers reported by individual sports. Quite simply, I wouldn't trust them.
 * Thirdly, and logically from the paragraph above, I wouldn't trust material from a body representing a single sport, such as Cricket Australia.
 * Fourthly, defining a sport can be an issue here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Removing reasonably well sourced information is also bad faith editing. Not every edit needs a discussion on the talk page.

 * The advantage with Roy Morgan and the Ausralian Sports commission is that they are not interested in pushing any sport in particular. They are asking a statistically representative group of people what they do.

 * If the cricket Australia information isn't trustworthy shouldn't it be removed to start off with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 * The Australian Sports Commission survey has heaps of information as does the Roy Morgan Survey. Would it be worth having a table of participants from each as is done with the useful attendance figures here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 01:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Please address my comments about juniors, and where the raw figures come from. And how do we measure what kids play at school, in their own time? Also please read WP:INDENT. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 * There is no indication as to how cricket Australia addresses these issues. Also, I did address you concerns in saying 'the Australian sports commission has a lot of information there. If you go and look at their link you can see their survey has a load of tables about juniors and whatnot. Perfect information is not required and we're not going to get that. Useful comparative information from independent bodies like Roy Morgan and the Australian Sports Commission is good to have. I came to this page for this information and was surprised enough to go and check and found what I'd thought to be the case was widely reported.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 01:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Would a table with sources work that also included a disclaimer about how this kind of information was hard to verify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 * That would certainly address some of my concerns. And yes, the Sports Commission has a lot of data. It's just hard to summarise it all for a broad article like this. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Great. Thanks. I'll put it all in a table. There is also some ABS data in the article that will be in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 02:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 * But can you address the junior vs adult issue that way? It does matter. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The table is terrible! full of gaps. Are you saying no kids walk? It doesn't belong in a quality article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Would you accept the top 10 items from the Roy Morgan in one table. The top 10 from the adult Ausplay in another and the top 10 child sports in another table?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 01:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Any table with an obvious gap in it is unacceptable. Can you please bring anything you would like to add to this Talk page before actually adding to the article. By that I mean actually putting the table here first, not just talking about it. My personal view is that there are so many problems with collecting data of this kind that trying to publish precise figures is just little too ambitious. Definitions are a big problem. For example, does playing a sport at school count as participation? Does going bushwalking as a school Outdoor Education activity count as participation? Does backyard cricket count? These numbers are also used by proponents of various sports to promote those sports. Accuracy is not a goal of such people. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 * The New Zealand Sport page has straight numbers and is better than the Australian one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_in_New_Zealand#Participation . It's also worth noting that the current Australian page has outdated numbers and very dubious numbers from cricket Australia.

The following table is from http://static.ausport.gov.au/ausplay/?page=14

On the same page there is also an adult's top 10 through organisation/venue which might be better.

That page also has a table for children. Alternatively the following page might be good for club sport activities.

http://static.ausport.gov.au/ausplay/?page=16

It might also be worth including the top 10 from:

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7182-decline-in-competitive-sports-participation-australia-december-2016-201703200905 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 10:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Can you see the problem yet with your own uncertainty about the various sets of numbers that are available? We need quality in this encyclopaedia. it's very hard to get for these figures. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 * Of course, none of these figures are authoritative but they are useful. However, the article contains outdated figures in the first paragraph, single figures from sports promotions bodies including the very dubious cricket figures and fails to show how any of these are related except for the outdated ABS ones. In addition there is no disclaimer about the accuracy of the figures. When I saw this article I was very interested to see the cricket figures and thought that Big Bash and immigration might have caused a big spike in cricket players. However, a quick bit of searching showed this is just not the case according to figures obtained by Ausplay and Roy Morgan, neither of whom are likely to pushing sport X or Y. Comparative figures from independent bodies that are reasonably close are better quality than the numbers that are there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 10:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 * My concerns have already been explained above. What IS participation? Kids? (Ages?) Holes in data sets. Where do Ausplay and Roy Morgan get their figures? I am not defending anything there already either. It could well be old and/or biased, and should be removed if it is. We just don't need more meaningless numbers added. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 * It's defined for Ausplay in their methods description: https://www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/735232/AusPlay_Survey_questions_Dec_16.pdf . One thing that is easily definable and that is put in their method is 'did you pay for it through some organisation'. They then have this listed on page 16 of their results. This is clearly defined. The people who collect this data are clearly pretty serious about the numbers. Given that quite a large proportion of Australians participate in sport rather than just sit and watch it the perticipation section's small size and poor numbers downplay its significance. Particularly when there is a high quality data set like the Ausplay numbers out there. The fact that Roy Morgan's number correlate reasonably well also backs it all up. It's also worth noting that most of the sports that have pages have their own numbers that seem to be worse than the Ausplay ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 11:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 * That doesn't seem right. Who pays to go walking, cycling and bush walking? I do a lot of two of those activities. No idea how anyone could ever count my participation. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, taking back the indent level. The table I've included first here just asks 'did you do the activity in the past year'. They also have another table that asks did you do it through an organisation. Both should be included. Are you actually having a look at the references? --Siento (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 * " They also have another table that asks did you do it through an organisation." I've never been asked. Who does get asked? HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 * It's easy to find this information on the Ausplay Survey. They have an FAQ. Siento (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see the following three tables from the Ausplay Survey.

Adults taken part in last year
Also, there should not be any copyright concerns. Similar lists taken from Ausplay have been published by online news sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Dispute
This has been taken to dispute [|resolution]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 13:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC on Population-Wide Metrics
Should the sport in Australia page have participation statistics from Ausplay, a study funded and led by the Australian Sports Commission on sport participation. Siento (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It has been proposed to add the following tables to the article:

Children organised out of school in the last year
The data is from the Ausplay Survey which is a survey funded and led by the Australian Sports Commission.

There should not be any copyright concerns. Similar lists taken from Ausplay have been published by online news sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey
Please !vote ‘’’Yes’’’ or ‘’’Include’’’ to include the tables. Please !vote ‘’’No’’’ or ‘’’Exclude’’’ to exclude the tables. A brief supporting statement is requested. Please do not reply to other statements or provide lengthy discussion. Do that in the Discussion section

 * No Far too much precision is implied by the numbers in the tables, suggesting an accuracy that cannot possibly exist. The activities obviously require clearer definition too. Using the very first entry as an example, what on earth does "Walking" mean? Does 57.4% of the population never walk? Don't say readers can follow links. They should not need to, and most never will anyway. The figures are therefore going to be very misleading. This is not the only problem, but the lead sentence here says "brief". HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes The page has poor or outdated statistics that include higher alleged precision currently. The Ausplay stats are the best available. Wikipedia generally has good approximate statistics, for instance on GDP, GDP at PPP, percent of population that is vegetarian, vegan and many other things. The sport page should at least have something of similar quality. Siento (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 * No in the strongest possible terms There is no information contained on the Ausplay web site about the methodology used in the survey, the number of respondents and other information in order to form an opinion about the reliability of the data. What does pass for editorial content on that site makes it quite clear that the reports are being made with a particular agenda, which is to encourage people to participate.  Not a bad agenda, but the survey cannot be considered any sort of dispassionate attempt to understand the actual participation rates.  From what it says, it appears that the survey consideres a person to be a particiant in a given activity if they have done it just once in the preceding year.  This can hardly be used as any sort of reasonable measure of participations and will inflate the figures well beyond their usefulness and says nothing about the actual participation rates.  That fact alone renders this whole collection of data meaningless as a source of information on Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne talk  10:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Such surveys are inherantly inaccurate, see BMC Public Health (2018; 18: 895) Non-response bias in estimates of prevalence of club-based sport participation from an Australian national physical activity, recreation and sport survey the 2010 ERASS survey (a previous similar survey) data were found to be subject to considerable non-response bias and to massively over-estimate the prevalences of club-based participation in four major sports (my emphasis). - Nick Thorne talk 11:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes It is a joy to see some good information, reliably sourced. This is exactly where Wikipedia shines. --Pete (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes - Highly respectable organization for sourcing. I thought maybe these type of stats might be in a "Health in Australia" or "Fitness in Australia" article, but I didn't see any of these types of articles. As long as readers know where these stats came from, these charts should be included under the participation section or perhaps a subsection entitles "Survey of Australian sports participation." Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes, with a line or two about methodology, mentioning some of the objections above, so readers can know the percentages are at least a little approximate. ARR8 (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion
Provide your comments here. Be civil. Follow talk page guidelines.

From User:Siento above: "The page has poor or outdated statistics that include higher alleged precision currently." If they're rubbish, just delete them. "The Ausplay stats are the best available." That doesn't mean we must automatically include them. "Wikipedia generally has good approximate statistics, for instance on GDP, GDP at PPP, percent of population that is vegetarian, vegan and many other things. The sport page should at least have something of similar quality." See WP:OSE. It is not a reason to make the same mistake here. As I said above, the proposed figures imply a precision (NOT an approximation) that cannot possibly exist. That means they are not very good figures, so we should not include them, no matter what happens with other numbers in other articles. Does 57.4% of the population never walk? HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Figures on the population of countries, the actual size of a country, their GDPs, people's wages, The Gini Coefficient, vegetarianism and many other things are all approximations. Please start to attempt removing them if you object to them all. They are very useful. They give people a good idea of what is going on. The Australian government spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to collect these statistics. It's worth searching for 'sport in australia participation numbers' to see that they are the best around. Currently the figures in wikipedia are misleading. The 57.4% of the population refers to people who have said they walked for exercise in the past year. The New Zealand sports page and other sports pages include participation numbers as they should. Amusingly also the article has actually had a figure for walking for women for years but somehow this is OK. Also for anyone looking to vote on this issue please note how HiLo48 keeps raising that allegedly mothers make their sons play soccer and that he has been involved in a sport in Australia for decades and that he has fought a long battle to stop soccer in Australia being referred to as football as the Australian Sports Commission does. It looks like the sport he is involved with is not soccer and he has something against soccer. Modern figures seem to show that soccer is the most played team sport in Australia. It looks like it may be that his various arguments against accurate numbers are really just an attempt to avoid that fact being included in wikipedia. Siento (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I have not mentioned soccer in this discussion, but since you have... Do you really believe that around one in 15 Australian adults play soccer? Remember, "adults" includes everyone over, what, 15? So it includes people over 80, women, men, the disabled, etc..... Soccer is not at all popular in my neighbourhood, so it must be a lot higher than 1 in 15 in some areas. Come off the grass. I don't believe it. Why do you? HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 * This must have been written by someone else then "Soccer is well known for having high levels of junior participation (it is alleged mothers prefer it to "rougher" forms of football), which drops off dramatically at adult levels.". Note also that I've repeatedly asked HiLo48 to read the methodology of the survey and asked him which tables should be included. There are no answers. Merely a repeated recalcitrant refusal to including the best figures available. There was an extensive attempt for mediated discussion on this issue as well. There HiLo48 said that the problem was that people frequently use this page to push for a particular sport and exaggerate the importance, this being something older Australians used to argue about. It appears this is HiLo48's problem also. It's also worth noting that HiLo48 does not seem to actually care about the numbers that are there. At no point in the years of the Cricket Australia figures being including has he wished to alter those. He complains about the walking figures from Ausplay and again, for years has ignored the walking figures in the article. Siento (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I repeat "I have not mentioned soccer in THIS discussion". HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 * There is no meanigful data on that web site for the purposes you intend to use it on Wikipedia. The data is rubbish, by dint of their definition of participation. - Nick Thorne talk  10:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 * The ABS figures that are included on the page are the precursor to the survey. The Ausplay site literally includes this information. The walking figure doesn't seem to have bothered anyone. Why haven't they been removed for years? Again, are the figures obtained by 'Cricket Australia' likely to be good data? I'm sorry, I don't have mates on wikipedia to back me up. Nick T is also involved in reverting edits where people have written 'football' for soccer. Another approach woud be to include just the second two tables. Unfortunately that would drop walking out as a form of exercises, which would be less than ideal. If you folks actually cared about the numbers in this article why haven't they been improved for years? Laughable claims like Melbourne being 'The sporting capital of the world' are included. And with other figures, the figures for AFL, for instance, are actually higher in the article than those obtained by the Survey. And yet they have been there for years. Siento (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Now you're straying into WP:NPA territory. My comments were only about the proposed content, yet you make a point of discussing my editing history, which is entirely non-sequitur and about which your comments should be struck.  None of your reply addresses the issue I raise.  Instead you talk about things that have nothing to do with either this proposed change or my criticism of it.  You're not doing your proposal any favours. - Nick Thorne talk  11:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Siento, you are arguing over multiple things. Firstly, you are arguing the merits of your proposed new tables. That's all that should be happening here, and some people disagree on their merit. It's right to allow discussion to continue on that, preferably getting other people to the discussion. Secondly, you are also arguing that some existing content is poor. That's an entirely separate matter, and not part of this RFC. You are just confusing things by bringing the matter up. Thirdly, you also want to argue about the name "soccer". That clearly has even less to do with this RFC. It has been discussed extensively over the years, leading to part of Wikipedia's Manual of Style addressing the matter. Do have a look at WP:MOSFIA. It is a pretty clear guideline. Attacking people for following it is fairly pointless, and won't help your case here. Fourthly, as for Melbourne being seen as the sporting capital of the world, that's also way off topic, and seems to be very well sourced in the article to the SYDNEY Morning Herald. So, back to the actual topic - two editors have now drawn attention to problems they see with your proposed tables. I suggest you stick to doing nothing but addressing precisely those concerns, rather than heading off on irrelevant tangents, and attacking other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The ABS figures that are included on the page are the precursor to the survey. This is an argument for the deletion of existing tables as much as it is for replacing them. More so really if the accuracy of the application of those statistics, and the accuracy of gathering the statistics is seriously in question.
 * These statistics seem to be broadly studies of activity, rather than sport, so they are of only oblique interest to this article. Taking a walk is not a sport. Going to the gym is not sport. Yoga is not a sport. It is physical activity. The two terms are not interchangeable.
 * Please feel free to start your own article Recreational pastimes in Australia. --Falcadore (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 * OK, apologies for getting annoyed. It is a bit odd that figures for walking, riding and skateboarding have been in the article for years and yet no-one has removed them. The proposed tables are an update of these figures as the ABS no longer collects them and instead The Australian Sports Commission does. The third table would appear to contain items that are more clearly sports. The second has gyms and yoga in them but mostly matches competitive sport and has tougher criteria for participation. The first table matches the content of the current data in the article and is an update which is why it seemed appropriate. Including these tables but removing certain items would seem to be taking licence with the source material. As for the issue of Ausplay being biased toward sport it is worth looking at their summary report on children and it's clear that the worry is that sport and exercise by children and adults is decreasing. But perhaps the first table shouldn't be included but the second two should?

 * Apologies for raising the issues of football and soccer, something I really don't care about but was curious to see was something that had been edited by people with opinions on better participation data who hadn't edited the current data in years. With the quote about Melbourne being the sporting capital of the world the issue is that there isn't one and that the term is marketing spin. No city in the world has a representative in all the world's most viewed or played sports at the highest level. Sport is regional everywhere. This article from a Monash University academic describes the situation well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 10:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet again, wayyyyy off topic. There is no coherent discussion happening here on the subject of the RFC, and an awful lot on other things. This will all achieve nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No it isn't off topic.
 * This is an argument for the deletion of existing tables as much as it is for replacing them. Just because activity data has been in the article for years does not mean it should stay. This article was for many years not an article at all but a portal of links to other articles. Yes there is a point to be made about participation, but when the data highlights off-topic elements perhaps prose and a link achieves a similar result instead of no less than three tables that highlight off topic elements. --Falcadore (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's way off topic. The RFC asks "Should the sport in Australia page have participation statistics from Ausplay, a study funded and led by the Australian Sports Commission on sport participation." That's it. Nothing more. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Sad to read some of the comments above and be aware that their opposition to the inclusion of well-sourced data is because they don't want any sport other than their preferred addiction to be given a higher preference. Doubtless these same folk vote for the same political party every election, eat the same brekky every day, and dress to the same side every time they scratch their nuts.

I think baseball should be at the top of every ranking of sports codes, but do you see me complaining here because it does not have the prominence I think it should? Well, I suppose you do, but I digress. --Pete (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with two parts of that comment. Baseball is a great sport, and yes, you digress. The RFC asks "Should the sport in Australia page have participation statistics from Ausplay, a study funded and led by the Australian Sports Commission on sport participation." That's it. Nothing more. Nothing about the voting habits of other editors, or their sports preferences. or my love for muesli. Let's just all stick to that quite simple topic, eh? HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think some here have an agenda other than improving the Wikipedia. That's my point. Like some of the edits on Donald Trump for example. Personal politics, personal preferences; these should have no impact on our encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "I think some here have an agenda other than improving the Wikipedia." That's unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal. I was thinking project-wide, rather than this particular thread. If someone rejects good, well-sourced encyclopaedic information, I think they should need more reason than "I just don't like it" and some spurious Trumpian red herrings. --Pete (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's a good thing nothing like that is happening here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? On reëxamining the discussion, two things stand out:
 * The only voices raised in opposition are two editors renowned for their anti-football views. Surprise, surprise, this data puts football ahead of other sports, something that we've known about for years.
 * One attacks the precision of the numbers, the other wonders about the methodology. This is a government survey and we have their data. If there is any hard evidence that the figures are wrong, present it; don't throw mud just because you don't like the numbers they came up with.
 * An impartial observer might wonder that if some sport other than football - say, Aussie Rules - had a higher profile in these numbers then the two NO voices might suddenly be enthusiastically YES !votes. This is what I mean when I talk about agendas and Trumpian tactics. --Pete (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "The only voices raised in opposition are two editors renowned for their anti-football views" Can't be me. I love football. Now, which version are we each talking about? Apart from in this post, I always choose words that avoid ambiguity here on Wikipedia. WP:MOSFIA suggests we all should. Anyway, this isn't about soccer. I didn't raise that matter in this thread. It has only been raised by editors choosing to attack others. As for them being government figures, it's quite amusing to see you placing so much trust in the government. Please discuss the topic, and stop attacking others. The RFC asks "Should the sport in Australia page have participation statistics from Ausplay, a study funded and led by the Australian Sports Commission on sport participation." That's it. Nothing more. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sadly, not all editors are as high-minded as you. --Pete (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 * The only voices raised in opposition are two editors renowned for their anti-football views. I guess that includes me as the "other" editor. Sorry, Pete.  I don't hate football, or soccer  or any other form of football I just don't care about them.  I'm an equal oportunity football dismisser.  I dont care about pretty much any sport.  What I do care about is accurate language usage on Wikipedia, correct interpretation of statistics and the following of Wikipedia policy.  The numbers in the survey you seem so enamoured of are no doubt fine for the purpose for which they were compiled, which according to the information on that site is an agenda to encourage further involvement in physical activity.  A laudable aim no doubt, but irrelevent to the usage proposed here.  Exactly what questions were asked in the survey are entirely germaine to the uses to which the stats can be put.  In this case, are you seriously trying to suggest that someone who has only done an activity once in the last twelve months can be considered to be a participant in an organised sport?  Really? - Nick Thorne talk  22:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I dunno. If you only get one root a year, are you sexually active? Ah, rhetorical question there, Nick. Are you saying that any of the listed activities are preferentially affected? Surely there would be a bell curve of participation. Some would be occasional players, some would be addicted, most would be in the middle. If you have any solid information to the contrary, let us know, otherwise I'd have to say you are just blowing smoke, and I'm not sure why. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not that activities are "preferentially affected". It simply that the numbers are pretty useless, and very misleading at best. I ask again "Does 57.4% of the population never walk?" Despite the appearance of precision, they are rubbish figures. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The issue Pete, is that there is no discrimination in the way the figures are compiled. For an activity like, say bushwalking, then maybe once a year could be reasonably said to be participation. However, in an organised team sport once a year is not really perticipation at all, is it? As HiLo48 says, the number quoted for walking is utter nonsense, unless it is given a whole lot more context than is visible, making the whole table unreliable for Wikipedia use. These figures were not compiled for the purpose for which it is proposed to use them here. To use them in the manner proposed is a gross mis-use of the statistics. - Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk 00:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are both battling the pink on this. If you can find a reliable source making some strong criticisms of these figures, then fine. Otherwise you are attempting to insert your own research into Wikipedia for reasons unknown. The bottom line is that we have good government-sourced data on participation rates on various physical activities, and your own views as editors are irrelevant. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Try reading what I actually said, Pete. On the web site itself it states that the basis for inclusion on the survey is doing the activity just once in the previous twelve months.  This is fine for the purposes for which the survey was conducted, but to try and use that data say anything about actual participation in sport is pure synthesis.  The quoted figures simply do not do that.  You are using statistics compiled for one purpose for something else entirely.  I don't need to provide a reliable source to say that those figures are unreliablle for this purpose, the actual source says so itself. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  05:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not take your own advice, Nick? See my comments above about bellcurves. And where is a reliable source making the points you seem to want to use as a basis for inclusion? Just waving your editor hands about doesn't help much. --Pete (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "You are both battling the pink on this." "Just waving your editor hands about doesn't help much." The RFC asks "Should the sport in Australia page have participation statistics from Ausplay, a study funded and led by the Australian Sports Commission on sport participation." That's it. Nothing more. Nothing about attacking other editors. You really should not even be mentioning them. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed Skyring Pete. I've never heard of you before. Love to know how you believe I'm anti, or even pro-football.
 * I'm opposed because the data is polluted with off topic elements. But you know that because you said you read the thread. --Falcadore (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather a big gap in your logic above. If you think I've made a comment about you and football, please explain. But that's immaterial. This article is about sport in Australia, and the data is pertinent. Yes, it contains data on pastimes such as walking - presumably not the Olympic sport we all know and love. But it also contains data on sports in Australia from a good source. If we are writing an article about sport in Australia, rather than a list of organised sports, then the individual sports in themselves are not important. Whether football has a higher participation rate than cricket is not the plus or minus that supporters or detractors of those particular games might imagine. We're looking for the role of sport in Australian society and hey-ho, here are some good figures on that very thing. --Pete (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Falcadore Would you be in favour if it was just the last 2 tables? Then the tables would include fewer of the items that you don't want to see. Siento (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Because it remains off-topic. Please refer to my initial response. Use prose (and linked references) first instead of tables. Tabulation is lazy editting. Ask yourself what is the point you are trying to make in including these tables (or their predeccessors) and why tabulated data is so important as a method of conveying this information. --Falcadore (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Tabulated data is commonplace throughout Wikipedia. We could make a bar graph, I suppose, to present the information in a more visual format. If we were to summarise or otherwise manipulate the figures, then this would be original research, unless we found some reliable source that presented the information in an acceptable fashion. I'm not seeing well-source figures relating to sport in Australia as being off-topic for Sport in Australia. --Pete (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it is commonplace. That does not alter anything that I just typed. The prefered method of conveying information on wikipedia is still prose. It is not original research if you provide a link. You can make individual points about the data without dumping all of it into a table here. --Falcadore (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how prose would be a more effective method without being selective and therefore inserting WP:OR. But I live to be enlightened. Perhaps you could put up some draft wording to illustrate the point? --Pete (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how being selective automatically makes it original research. --Falcadore (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, think about it. Who is performing the selection? Not our source, which provides all the data. Not our reader, who doesn't know what has been deliberately excluded. It must therefore be the editor(s), and whatever criteria they use for omitting data is going to be their own choice. No original research s one of the planks of Wikipedia, along with Neutral Point of View, which directs us to include all views so as to give a balanced presentation, rather than including bias because we think our readers don't need all points of view. We expect incomplete data and spin from politicians, not folk like ourselves, beavering away on a compendium of knowledge. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the implication that I have not done so. Much obliged.
 * If the statistics compilation has already been performed by someone else, pointing out one fact in isolation does not constitute original research. The research has already been performed by the author of the study. --Falcadore (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should follow that link provided above. Original research in the Wikipedia sense has a very different and far wider meaning. If you don't understand this, then perhaps you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. Your response above indicates ignorance of a cornerstone of this project. --Pete (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I don't need to follow that link. I never try to blur the edges with references. It's directly relevant or I don't use it at all. My opinion has not changed. I did not !vote above and now will not. What has changed is my opinion of my opinion. I do not care enough to fight anyone on the subject. I decided two years ago that wikipedia was not important enough to spend this much time on it. --Falcadore (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Falcadore and Pete - Please follow both WP:MOSFIA and the convention in the proposed tables when wanting to discuss a football code. Your comments above are just plain confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On checking the source material ( page 15), I note that "Football", "Australian football", "Rugby league" and "Rugby union" are the terms used officially. Perhaps it is time for Wikipedia to synch up with the real world, where confusion does not seem to be a problem? --Pete (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is clearly not the place to discuss THAT off-topic digression. Anyway, with that logic, how can you support inclusion of these (government produced) tables, which call one of the football codes "soccer"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the government produced tables, which you may access by following the link I have helpfully provided. No need to thank me. I live to serve. --Pete (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 * As I was quoting someone elses use of terminology, altering it could have altered the meaning. It was not clear to me which code was intended. So I reject your critique User:HiLo48 on that basis. You should read these things more carefully. --Falcadore (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Misunderstood. But I WAS confused. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Falcadore In the article in the section on participation as in many places in wikipedia, a group of related numbers are presented in table. The source material is in a table. There is also a survey from Roy Morgan that is also in a table. The New Zealand page on sport includes information on participation in tables. FWIW one of the main things I use wikipedia for is looking up various numbers which are almost always contained in tables and are certainly most useful when they are. Siento (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User talk:Nick Thorne and anyone who has wants the survey methods searching for 'ausplay methods' yields a page on methods. On one of the previous discussions about this issue which is earlier on this talk page I've even linked to the actual survey questions used. As a summary some 20 000 Australians were asked about their sport and fitness activities. All this information should preface the tables. This would appear to be about the best possible way to say where survey data comes from. Siento (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A direct quote from the survey questions: Please include activities even if you’ve only done them once or twice in the last year. There you have it, the exact reason why these figures are meaningless. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  04:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User talk:Nick Thorne Do you object to the second two tables? If so for what reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 06:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 * See above comments re bell curves. This is basic statistics, Nick. --Pete (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pete, OK, I'll play. What is the arithmetihmetic mean, the variance and standard deviation? Does the data even have a normal distribution? If you cannot answer these questions then talk about Bell curves is just waffle. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk 07:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, even if the data has a normal distribution, so what? The inclusion criteria are still "at least once in the last twelve months", so the figures are meaningless with regard to actual participation in organised sports. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  09:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How are they "meaningless"? For any participation-type question like this - playing a sport, driving a car, going to church - respondents can only give a binary answer. Outliers such as the little old lady who only drives once a year - to umpire the annual church picnic cricket match - and the taxi-driver interrupting his twelve-hour shifts to attend daily mosque and plays in several weekly leagues to keep fit are both going to tick the same participation box. A reasonable assumption is that outliers are few, and most respondents would be somewhere in the middle. Unless in a professional league, most participants in any given sport would play on a weekly basis for a limited season, is my guess, because I see the local sportsgrounds active on weekends and sometimes evenings under lights, and idle during a weekday, unless it's a school oval when the reverse pattern applies. You seem to be pushing the notion that most participants are outliers, and that makes no sense at all. --Pete (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Outliers do exist. Any guess at how many exist for these studies is original research. This makes the apparent precision of the numbers in the tables very silly. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Outliers exist. That's the point. But they are outliers. Trying to pretend that it's all outliers is ridiculous, don't you agree? Bellcurves are basic statistics, not original research. --Pete (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "trying to pretend that it's all outliers". HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pete, not all distributions are normal distributions, without access to information beyond that obtained from the simple yes/no question it is impossible to say anything about how many of the responses were of the once a year type or the regular participants. The distribution could just as easily be a bi-nomial distribution with clusters at the once a year end and another at once a week. The fact is we just don't know and the surveys are conducted in such a manner that we cannot know. Any suggestions such as a reasonable assumption is that and most participants in any given sport would play on a weekly basis for a limited season, is my guess and I see the local sportsgrounds active on weekend are obvious and pure original research. You say You seem to be pushing the notion that most participants are outliers, no I am not, I have never said that at all. What I have said is that we cannot possibly know anything about types of participants in the activities based on the data of this survey because the inclusion criterias is so low. No meaninngful conclusion can be drawn from such data, at the very least it would need to have asked how often the respondants participated in the activities and then we might have some figures on which we could use statistical analysis, but instead all we have is a binary question. Useless. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk 23:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not the most stupid thing I've ever heard, Nick, but it comes pretty close. You want to reject a government survey because you have no way of knowing if it's nonsense or not. If you have any evidence that it's invalid, then put it forward. I've asked you this before, and all you've done is reach inside your own head to say you don't like it. Some facts, please. --Pete (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Lay off the personal attacks Pete. This is your first and last warning.  The facts have already been provided, there is no data about the respondants to draw any conclusions about them. Just because a survey was conduscted by a government agency does not lend it any credibility if the stated methodolgy is flawed. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  01:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I refer you to this policy document: When there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack.

 * My comment was aimed at your ridiculous argument, not you personally. Again. If you have any evidence that it's invalid, then put it forward. I've asked you this before, and all you've done is reach inside your own head to say you don't like it. Some facts, please. --Pete (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

 * The evidence is in the numbers themselves, with their implied accuracy. THAT is nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What accuracy? The population figures are given to two decimal places, but that's in millions. Every digit of precision is ten thousand people. That's pretty blocky. That's bigger than the towns of Renmark, Clare, and Hahndorf combined. That's not a high level of precision if you can hide nineteen superjumbos full of people sitting shoulder to shoulder into the rounding error! --Pete (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * More OR, eh? HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice pivot. Let us address the point that you raised about accuracy and precision. Tou said the figures were too precise, and it turns out that they are about as precise as Tullamarine. That is, not a lot. Could we look at this, please? --Pete (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say the figures were too precise. Misrepresentation is a poor discussion technique. It never helps. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pardon me! Are these not your words? Far too much precision is implied by the numbers in the tables, suggesting an accuracy that cannot possibly exist. Please explain the contradiction. --Pete (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are my words. Your earlier "paraphrasing", however, changed the meaning considerably. I hope it was an accident. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. Far too much precision is implied by the numbers in the tables, suggesting an accuracy that cannot possibly exist.
 * 2. I did not say the figures were too precise.
 * Perhaps you could pick one or the other, hmmm? --Pete (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing about precision, I'm arguing about accuracy. Perhaps you should read the article you linked to.  No matter how precise these figures are expressed it does nothing about the undelying problem that the survey does not discriminate between very casual particpants and regular ones, so its accuracy is unknown.  All the assumptions you have made about this are original research for the plain and simple reason that nothing has been recorded in the survey in order to make such comclusions. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  10:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. HiLo has inserted himself, and he is arguing about precision. He seems to be mightily confused, making a complete about face, but I guess we'll sort that out, probably intertwangled with this thread.
 * "HiLo has inserted himself, and he is arguing about precision. He seems to be mightily confused, making a complete about face." Not playing that game. I have said all that needs to be said ON the topic. Activity has shrunk to misrepresentation and insults from you, and responding to them. Not productive. I will only comment again to defend myself, hoping that isn't necessary. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. Far too much precision is implied by the numbers in the tables, suggesting an accuracy that cannot possibly exist.
 * 2. I did not say the figures were too precise.
 * These are your words, unaltered by me, HiLo. If you are unable to explain the contradiction, may I ask why? Is it about face? I ask because your !vote in the survey above is supported by the first quote, and if you have now changed your position, perhaps you should also change your !vote, lest you inadvertantly mislead other editors. --Pete (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

 * The survey is straightforward. Anyone who participated in a sport is counted as a participant. You haven't provided any evidence that the data is flawed in any way, but you have waved your hands around a lot. How many times must I ask you for evidence that the study is flawed that doesn't come from your opinion? --Pete (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I'm not interested in playing stupid word games with you. I have answered this question several times already, your refusal to hear is not my problem.  I have said all I intend to say on this sunject. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  01:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The reason I keep asking is because you haven't addressed the point. This is a government survey, and you haven't produced any external criticism of their methodology. The reason you give for your !vote is that you don't know if it's reliable or not. So, it's just your opinion, and last time I looked, Wikipedia wasn't a democracy and works on policy. If you have a reliable source for your opinion, that would be different. --Pete (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "The reason you give for your !vote is that you don't know if it's reliable or not." Wrong again. I will take you to ANI if you persist in misrepresenting my comments. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Peace. Perhaps you could rethink your methodology for reading talk pages? My response to Nick was not in response to you, HiLo. --Pete (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the ERASS, precursor to the Ausplay survey, BMC Public Health (2018; 18: 895) Non-response bias in estimates of prevalence of club-based sport participation from an Australian national physical activity, recreation and sport survey said the 2010 ERASS survey data were found to be subject to considerable non-response bias and to massively over-estimate the prevalences of club-based participation in four major sports (my emphasis). The authors plan to review the Ausplay data similarly, but there is no reason to assume that there will be any significant difference. This speaks directly to the accuracy/reliability of this sort of survey data. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk 01:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nick! Two points: 1. It's a different survey. Do you have anything for this one, the subject of discussion here? 2. If it's a precursor and it's been criticised, then why would you conclude that Ausplay would take no notice of pertinent criticism? I mean, if someone takes the time to criticise your work, do you shrug it off? --Pete (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice try. Next time read the link before commenting.  The article was about the inherent inccuracies of all such surveys and used the ERASS survey simply as an example. I'm done here, unless you can come up with something substantive. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  11:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Your argument makes no logical sense. At best, it's synthetic. At worst, it is sophistry. Given your long anti-football crusade stretching back years, I'm not quite so accepting of your bona fides as I once might have been. --Pete (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How can anyone respect the arguments of someone who blatantly, pointedly, and ambiguously defies Wikipedia's Manual of Style every time he mentions soccer, ignoring long-standing consensus? HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably familiar with the MoS, but I wasn't aware that football - the official name of the global sport - was mentioned. Then again I wasn't aware that snooker and pool were quite so heavily defined, so I'm open to your illumination. Do you have a reference, please? --Pete (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSFIA. But as seems so common with supporters of this proposal, you have again forced the discussion way off-topic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you say so. My question was in response to your reference to the MoS, which turned out to be something else. I refer to football in discussion by its official name, as I think that having a global name for the sport is less confusing than calling other - regional - sports by the same name. The topic for discussion is the inclusion of government data in this article, and I think we've pretty well come to a stopping point if we've moved onto other things. --Pete (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "...we've moved onto other things." Oh, that happened very early in the discussion, almost entirely led by those wanting the new tables included. Funny that. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For example, in discussing the reasons given by editors for their !votes. That is a system that works well. !votes in one section, with concise reasons, and discussion in the following section, where we can examine various questions raised. For example, whether the figures are too precise, a matter on which, apparently, one person may hold two conflicting views at the same time. --Pete (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * The second table has the heading "Adults through organisation / venue in the last year". What on earth does that mean? Does this mean how many people Cricket Australia claims play cricket? Similar for the other sports. If so, that's completely unreliable. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, this is easy to work out for anyone interested. From the survey that has been repeatedly linked have a look at page 4. See the question: "In the last 12 months, did you do any of this through an organisation – like a club or a gym; or at a venue – like a pool or an oval?" which is summarised as I did in the table. This information can easily precede the tables. This is easy to suggest. Siento (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 * As well as at least that much explanation, you definitely need a better heading. No reader, no matter how interested, should have to work out what our content means. Can you not see that there is a reason I and others have been asking so many questions here? Readers must never be forced to do their own investigation to find out what any of our content means. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Can you see that when questions are answered and new questions are raised it seems that there is a double standard here compared to the material already in the article? Given that you have repeatedly removed information from the article the questions becomes why do you apply one standard to this new content and a different one to the participation data already in the article? You object to walking in the table and yet haven't cared about walking in the article despite editing it repeatedly over the years during which it has contained walking. Siento (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 * This post is entirely off topic. All you are talking about here is other editors, you should be talking about content, in particular the RFC question.  If you don't have any response to the substantive questions about the content relating to the RFC that's fine, just don't keep trying to make this about other editors. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk  13:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes Siento. You framed the RFC. Please stick to the topic YOU chose, and avoid personal attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Is cricket the most popular sport in Australia?
Can someone confirm that for me? Is Australian rules football less popular? T3h  1337   b0y  04:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Popular" is an ambiguous word. Popularity can be measured by number(s) of active participants, or attendance at competitions, or TV viewership, or in many other ways. The one significant difference between cricket and Australian rules football is that the former is equally popular all over the country, while the latter is only very popular among around half the population on a geographic basis. See Barassi line. Note too that cricket is a summer sport, and Australian football is a winter sport. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sport in Australia


text:
User talk:Kiwimark

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

--JAranda'' | yeah 02:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Kiwimark


text:
DUV

DUV may refer to one of the following

 * DUV, "Druck- und Verlagshaus Frankfurt am Main", the publisher Frankfurter Rundschau
 * Dampfkessel Überwachungsverein (DÜV), German organizations founded in the 19th century to ensure the technical safety of steam boilers
 * Diffey weighted UV irradiance
 * Deep ultraviolet

title: DUV


text: Category:Danish educators

title: Category:Danish educators


text:
Leonard Nimoy discography

The discography of American actor Leonard Nimoy consists of SEE BELOW.

During and following Star Trek, Nimoy also released five albums of musical vocal recordings on Dot Records. On his first album, Mr. Spock's Music from Outer Space, and half of his second album Two Sides of Leonard Nimoy, science fiction-themed songs are featured where Nimoy sings as Spock. On his final three albums, he sings popular folk songs of the era and cover versions of popular songs, such as "Proud Mary" and Johnny Cash's "I Walk the Line". There are also several songs on the later albums that were written or co-written by Nimoy. Describing how his recording career got started, Nimoy stated;"Charles Grean of Dot Records had arranged with the studio to do an album of space music based on music from Star Trek, and he has a teenage daughter who's a fan of the show and a fan of Mr. Spock. She said, 'Well, if you're going to do an album of music from Star Trek, then Mr. Spock should be on the album.' So Dot contacted me and asked me if I would be interested in either speaking or singing on the record. I said I was very interested in doing both.... That was the first album we did, which was called Mr. Spock's Music from Outer Space. It was very well received and successful enough that Dot then approached me and asked me to sign a long-term contract." The albums were popular and resulted in numerous live appearances and promotional record signings that attracted crowds of fans in the thousands. The early recordings were produced by Charles Grean, who may be best known for his version of "Quentin's Theme" from the mid-sixties Gothic soap opera Dark Shadows. In addition to his own music career he directed a 1984 music video for The Bangles' "Going Down to Liverpool". He makes a brief cameo appearance in the video as their driver.

Studio albums

 * 1) Leonard Nimoy Presents Mr. Spock's Music from Outer Space (Dot Records), (1967)
 * 2) Two Sides of Leonard Nimoy (Dot Records), (1968)
 * 3) The Way I Feel (Dot Records, Stereo DLP 25883), (1968)
 * 4) The Touch of Leonard Nimoy (Dot Records, Stereo DLP 25910), (1969)
 * 5) The New World of Leonard Nimoy (Dot Records, Stereo DLP 25966), (1970)

Spoken word albums

 * 1) The Martian Chronicles (Caedmon Records, 1976)
 * 2) Illustrated Man (Caedmon Records, 1977)
 * 3) War of the Worlds (Caedmon Records, 1977)
 * 4) Green Hills of Earth (Caedmon Records, 1977)
 * 5) The Mysterious Golem (JRT Records, 1982)

Singles (45s)

 * "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" / "Cotton Candy" (Dot Records, 1967)
 * "Theme from Star Trek" / "Visit to a Sad Planet" (Dot Records, 1967)
 * "I'd Love Making Love to You" / "Please Don't Try to Change My Mind" (Dot Records, 1968)
 * "Consilium" / "Here We Go 'Round Again" (Dot Records, 1968)
 * "The Sun Will Rise" / "Time to Get It Together" (Dot Records, 1969)
 * "Outer Space" / "Inner Mind" (Paramount Records, 1970)

Cassettes

 * Leonard Nimoy / Micro-Cassette (Dot Records, release date unknown)
 * You Are Not Alone (MCA Records, 1987)

Compilations

 * 1) Highly Illogical (Rev-Ola Records, UK, 1993)
 * 2) Leonard Nimoy Presents: Mr. Spock's Music from Outer Space (Varése Sarabande, US, 1995)
 * 3) Spaced Out: The Very Best of Leonard Nimoy & William Shatner (Universal Music/Space, Canada, 1997)

Samples in songs

 * "Theme from Gutbuster" (2000) - song by Bentley Rhythm Ace on their album For Your Ears Only samples Nimoy's "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins"
 * "What's on Your Mind (Pure Energy)" (1988) - song by American synthpop band Information Society that uses a sample of Nimoy's voice from the Star Trek episode "Errand of Mercy".

title: Leonard Nimoy discography


text:
VDNKh (Moscow Metro)

VDNKh (ВДНХ) is a Moscow Metro station in Ostankinsky District, North-Eastern Administrative Okrug, Moscow, Russia. It is located on the Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya Line, between Alekseyevskaya and Botanichesky Sad stations. VDNKh was opened on 1 May 1958. The name stands for Exhibition of Achievements of the National Economy Vystavka Dostizheniy Narodnovo Khozyaystva (abbreviated VDNKh).

VDNKh is one of the deepest Metro stations being situated 53.5 m below ground. It is also one of the busiest stations, serving 107,377 passengers a day in 2009.

Originally, this station was planned to be opulently decorated in the manner of the other stations built in the 1950s, with mosaics by venerable artist Vladimir Favorsky along the insides of the arches between the pylons. However, in the wake of Nikita Khrushchev's attack on decorative "excessions", the place for mosaics, including existing mosaics as well, were crudely coated with incongruous thick green paint.

It was the deepest station in Moscow Metro from 1958 until 1979.

Transfers
Though not directly connected to VDNKh, Moscow Monorail station Vystavochny Tsentr is located within walking distance.

In popular culture
VDNKh is featured as the home of Artyom, the main protagonist in the novel and video game Metro 2033.

title: VDNKh (Moscow Metro)


text:
Lew DeWitt

Lewis Calvin DeWitt Jr. (March 12, 1938 – August 15, 1990) was an American country music singer, guitarist, and composer. He was a founding member of The Statler Brothers and the group's original tenor.

Biography
For most of his career, DeWitt sang tenor for The Statler Brothers. Songs he wrote for the group include "Flowers on the Wall"— which was a greatest hit during the late 1960s and early 1970s that made the group popular — "Things," "Since Then," "Thank You World," "The Strand," "The Movies," and "Chet Atkins' Hand." In 1968, while the group was under contract to Columbia Records, DeWitt recorded a solo single composed of the songs "She Went a Little Bit Farther" and "Brown Eyes" (the latter was penned by DeWitt).

In November 1981, DeWitt took a leave of absence from The Statler Brothers due to surgery and treatment for Crohn's disease, from which he had suffered since adolescence. At his suggestion, Jimmy Fortune was tapped as his temporary replacement. He rejoined the group in June of the following year (with Fortune having been offered a permanent position in the group's backing band), but this arrangement lasted less than a week. DeWitt officially retired that same month with Fortune becoming his permanent replacement.

Three years later, DeWitt, feeling that his health had gradually improved through continued treatment, decided to pursue a solo career. During this time, he returned to touring and  released two albums, Here to Stay (1984) and On My Own (1985). The latter album gave Dewitt his only solo chart appearance with a cover of "You'll Never Know", which made it to number 77. Despite the lack of success, he remained with the Compleat label through 1987.

DeWitt was married three times. From 1961 through 1973, he was married to Glenda Kay Simmers, with whom he had two sons and two daughters. He was later married to Joyce Anne Arehart, and then Judy Fitzgerald Wells.

DeWitt remained active as a performer until late 1989, when his health rapidly declined, which culminated in his death on August 15, 1990, in Waynesboro, Virginia. The cause of death was heart and kidney disease, stemming from complications of Crohn's. Lew Dewitt Boulevard in Waynesboro was named in his honor in 1992.

In 2008, DeWitt was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame as a member of The Statler Brothers.

In 2011, amateur video of DeWitt performing at the Burley Tobacco Festival in the late 1980s surfaced and was posted onto YouTube. The set is notable for the inclusion of what became his final single, "Moonset".

Until 2022, none of DeWitt's solo recordings had been released in any digital format, with some of them only being found on YouTube. That was until the summer of that year when most of his discography was finally released on Spotify, Apple Music, and other streaming services.

title: Lew DeWitt


text:
Talk:Global city/Mediation

E Pluribus Anthony's response to Nixer
Hello! The article is being disputed, but you (Nixer) have not provided any sources relevant to the topic of global cities to substantiate your claims. Marskell and I have repeatedly asked this and all that you have provided is circuitous, repetitive, fallacious argumentation with no relevant source material cited. Provide relevant sources/information and I don't see there being an issue in retaining the tag; otherwise, it just smacks of subjective opinionating and should be removed (as a concession, I added the tag to the Talk:Global city page).

Furthermore (corresponding to your points/statements):

(1) The main article (defining and providing a general overview of what a global city is) and the GaWC section are distinct and clearly defined. The GaWC used particular, clearly stated criteria to develop their lists/ranks; these are not wholly dissimilar from those defined in the section above it (and does not include notions like culture, for example), but needn't be verbatim.

(2) The GaWC list is a peer-authored treatise by 'students' (a working group) of the topic at a university in the UK and is one of numerous attempts to gauge global cities; see Global_city for more information. It may not be agreeable to some (as it appears to not embrace cultural significance, for instance), but that doesn't invalidate it. I would support the addition of other sourced information/indicators about global cities (and summarised in a table), but not removal of the GaWC information (which is directly relevant) or supplanting it with irrelevant information.

(3) Many of your suggestions about what to include are highly subjective and not directly relevant to the topic. Cost of living – while informative - is not directly relevant to global city stature; the GaWC report does not directly indicate this. Nor are the number of billionaires relevant. Can you cite any information or sources supporting your position? Perhaps in toto these characteristics – with others – help define the quality of life in cities ... and if such a summary is available and relevant to the topic, I'm all for including it. But even that may be supposition. If you find independent value in these topics, create unique articles on each of those topics, but don't muddy the global city article with irrelevant information. To make an independent comparison of indicators (i.e., on your own) would constitute original research and is untenable in Wikipedia.

(4) I et al. wholly support adding a table comparing world cities, not comparing other characteristics that may or may not define them or be wholly relevant. Again, you have not provided any source information to substantiate a table, and to do so independently (without authortiative corroboration) would constitute original research.

In addition, during these deliberations you initiated retaliatory edits on the Toronto article. There are two references referring to Toronto's world city status on the world city page/reference section (i.e., not just in GaWC list), only one brief mention in the Toronto article, and you edited the latter in response to our discussions. While inclusion of the reference sources is not discouraged, they would unnecessarily bloat the article and the links should suffice. You also altered the rank on the template there to emphasise that Toronto was 1st ... (in Canada), when this was already stated (as part of the template). This is condescending.

In summary, while we share and empathise with your sentiments, I do not believe you have yet met a burden of proof to substantiate your position and the systematic editions to the global city article you propose.

As well: I am sure that every user has an opinion on the topic; see this repose. Relatedly, Vlad Patryshev has not provided any supportive information, either, and his contentions are just as subjective as yours or mine. I have provided or cited relevant source information, though. :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Nixer's response
First, where did the main part of the article came from? Is there any source of the criterias of the global cities or is it's author Wikipedia? ;-) Why do you mix such terms as "global city", "world city" and "world-class city"?

Next. If there is any source of wide-accepted definition of a global city, then I consider any information related to the stated criterias relevant. For example, if a city needs an excellent transportation/education system to become global city then I consider worldwide metro rating and number of higher educational institutions relevant.

these are not wholly dissimilar from those defined in the section above

They ARE wholly dissimilar.

E Pluribus Anthony's response to Nixer, II
First: in the very first sentence of the global city article, all three terms – global city, world city, world-class city – are described to mean the same thing (which is thereafter defined) and all the terms are interchangeable. I (shall) attempt to use global city (as the article is entitled that), but others may use the other terms. I would imagine the article (definition/description, etc.) is an amalgam of text written to this point by various users, as other (usual) articles in Wikipedia are.

Next: the GaWC list is based on the provision of "advanced producer services [such as] accountancy, advertising, banking/finance and law." This is stated clearly in that section of the global city article and in the GaWC article itself.

In addition, these are NOT wholly dissimilar from the general characteristics describing what a global city is earlier in the article, particularly: and further down:
 * "International financial institutions, law firms, corporate headquarters (especially conglomerates), and stock exchanges that have influence over the world economy."
 * "Advanced communications infrastructure that modern trans-national corporations rely on..."
 * "Several powerful and influential media outlets with an international reach are based in world cities,..."

It has been acknowledged by a couple of users that the GaWC list seems heavy on economic items and light on cultural ones (present company included; see here, for a general summary). However, this does not discount the legitimacy of the GaWC list or work on the subject, nor does it make it controversial (it would if there's a general body of opinion that the GaWC list is). And the list is only one aspect of the whole article/topic.

Lastly: as cited above ad nauseum, you have failed to provide authoritative, relevant sources directly related to global cities. You provided one source (by my count) that – while informative – is not directly germane to the topic at hand: the Mercer report comparing cost of living in cities. I do not believe there is any mention in the Mercer article of global city stature or ranks. Moreover, the validity of such and similar indices (e.g., Mercer quality of life index for cities) in the global city article has been disputed previously. You have also provided a wealth of notional, subjective assessment and argumentation.

Your contention that you have provided relevant, citable information is circular and fallacious: two users dispute the applicability of your information – and, especially, your approach – and you have still not convinced us nor produced any relevant information – about global cities – since. As well, you took it upon yourself to make editions amidst our discussions based on this refutable information: you proceeded to create a table with arbitrary criteria and dots indicating ... what? Population? Subway length? Number of museums? This is original research and is prohibited on Wikipedia.

Moreover, even if your sources are (deemed to be) valid, and I really hope you can produce some, you still have not disproven the validity of currently cited (and referenced) information regarding global city stature – i.e., the GaWC list – nor have you attempted to reconcile the differing viewpoints. The burden of proof or disproof, methinks, is yours. E Pluribus Anthony 01:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Note: Furthermore, in response to what I characterise as subjective contributions by Vlad Patryshev today (e.g., many of the cities in the list are in Europe) (also see here, negative vote #9, for what another user called his "rant"), I edited them (my apologies!), and Nixer reverted them.

 * To that end, Catherine, I hereby request that steps be taken (as per (1) of the preceding request) to caution or prohibit all edits to the global city article by Nixer, et al. until this is resolved.

Modus vivendi
Hello! Despite some initial instability from both sides, we have both agreed to refrain from editing the global city until a resolution has been arrived at. At Marskell's suggestion (reiterating previous statements), Nixer has agreed to work on collecting relevant information and presenting it (at this workspace); Marskell and I have offered to (and will) assist him in incorporating and enhancing this information and the article.

Any suggestions regarding next steps? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 15:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, you've done the first steps, which is ceasing the antagonistic editing, and talking things over. Continue to work on the table -- I think that's a great start.  — Catherine\talk 20:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Catherine: hi! Agreed; it was getting problematic.  I think it's a good start, too; I propose an alternate approach to dually address concerns about having a table such as this and independently ranking items; also see our ongoing discussions here, particularly the very bottom.  What do you think?  Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 20:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

About terminology

 * "First: in the very first sentence of the global city article, all three terms – global city, world city, world-class city – are described to mean the same thing (which is thereafter defined) and all the terms are interchangeable. I (shall) attempt to use global city (as the article is entitled that), but others may use the other terms. I would imagine the article (definition/description, etc.) is an amalgam of text written to this point by various users, as other (usual) articles in Wikipedia are."

These terms have different meanings. Try to compare:

Toronto is a world class city with world-class financial, legal and adverticing services.

and

Toronto is a global city that influences worldwide.

What is true? There could be small world class town and even world class village, but it is difficult to imagine a global village.--Nixer 00:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * As I noted previously, the definitions were apparently previously arrived at. I will research this additionally shortly; however, glance at some of the article references, the Talk:Global city pages, and do some online searches to find instances of similar use.

 * I think the definition is pretty succinct, but nothing is perfect. If there is, somehow, an inconsistency in the definition, I'm sure the definition can be refined.  You need to demonstrate this, though; you haven't (yet).

 * As for usage, the terms do not have different meanings, depending on the context:

 * Thule is a world class city with world-class financial, legal, and advertising services.
 * This is redundant.
 * Thule is a global city that influences worldwide.
 * This is also somewhat redundant.

 * BUT
 * Thule is a world-class city with financial, legal, and advertising services.
 * AND
 * Thule is a global city with (significant) influence.

 * OR
 * Thule is a world-class city with financial, legal, and advertising services.
 * AND
 * Thule is a world-class city with (significant) influence.

 * OR
 * Thule is a global city with financial, legal, and advertising services.
 * AND
 * Thule is a global city with (significant) influence.

 * OR
 * Thule is a world city with financial, legal, and advertising services.
 * AND
 * Thule is a world city with (significant) influence.

 * OR
 * Thule is a city with world-class financial, legal, and advertising services.
 * AND
 * Thule is a city with global financial, legal, and advertising services.
 * AND
 * Thule is a city with global/world(ly)/international/significant influence.

 * You can also replace all instances above of 'with' with 'that has' or another preposition. However, that doesn't invalidate any of the terms used thus far; they can all be true, depending on the context and usage – and this is true of the current topic.

 * Also, villages (and towns) are much smaller than cities. However, note that the term 'global village' is an alternate – and not unpopular – term for the World Wide Web and globalisation of media/technology.

 * As well if you consult this link, for example, you will see a definition regarding 'world cities' – including concepts of 'dominance' and 'dependence' – and examples (and a map!). Moreover, other use may not be a contradiction: compare Olympic village.

 * I trust this is sufficient. By the way, did you glimpse at and consider my proposed list to add to the article?  Comments?  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony 01:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Resolution to mediation
Over time, as per the above, we've integrated conciliations in the global city article and, weeks later, no others have been integrated as of yet. A prior vote was posed (not without some difficulty) to determine if one or both of the current table and list are satisfactory and should remain or be deleted: a consensus was not reached, so both remain. Unless a groundswell of opposition is forthcoming, I believe the status quo is sufficient hereafter.

Upon attempting closure of this issue and suggesting removal of the tag atop the article, N. indicated the article requires additional input (worldwization), and clarification was requested. Some days have passed and additional clarification has not been forthcoming from anyone. Given the above, I think it prudent to remove the tag atop the article and have done so. As well, unless there's objection otherwise, I believe this issue and mediation to be resolved! Thoughts? Thanks for your input. E Pluribus Anthony 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Global city/Mediation


text:
User talk:TeamSeven

Welcome to Wikipedia
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers such as yourself:

 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nice with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Spinboy 02:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:TeamSeven


text:
User:Elapsed

 Declaration of POV
 * I'm an agnostic, but find religions interesting from a sociological and historical point of view.
 * I'm a skeptic and oppose pseudoscience.
 * I'm a liberal.
 * I'm a Pro-European.
 * I'm a vegetarian.
 * I'm a blood donor.
 * I believe in (and try to actively support) philanthropy.
 * I do not like professional sports.
 * I was born in the 1970s.
 * I'm single.
 * I have two sons and two daughters.
 * My homeplaces, professional life, and family are both in Região Centro and Baden-Württemberg
 * One of my favorite metropolis is Paris where I spend a lot of time every year
 * I've a doctoral degree from an European university.
 * I LOVE YOU.   ; )

title: User:Elapsed


text:
1951 NFL season

The 1951 NFL season was the 32nd regular season of the National Football League. Prior to the season, Baltimore Colts owner Abraham Watner faced financial difficulties, and thus gave his team and its player contracts back to the league for $50,000. However, many Baltimore fans started to protest the loss of their team. Supporting groups such as its fan club and its marching band remained in operation and worked for the team's revival, which eventually led to a new, more lucrative Baltimore team in 1953 that ultimately carried on the erratic lineage of the last remaining Ohio League member Dayton Triangles.

For the first time, the NFL Championship Game was televised across the nation. The DuMont Television Network paid $75,000 to broadcast the game. Viewers coast-to-coast watched the Los Angeles Rams defeat the Cleveland Browns 24–17.

Draft
The 1951 NFL draft was held from January 18-19, 1951 at Chicago's Blackstone Hotel. With the first pick, the New York Giants selected halfback Kyle Rote from Southern Methodist University.

Major rule changes

 * No offensive tackle, guard, or center would be eligible to catch or touch a forward pass.
 * Aluminum shoe cleats are banned.

Highlights

 * In Week One (September 30), the defending champions, the Cleveland Browns, opened with a loss, falling to their old AAFC rival in San Francisco, 24–10; the Giants tied the Steelers 13–13 in a Monday night game on national radio.
 * Week Four (October 21) in Detroit, the Lions had a 24–17 win cancelled when the New York Yanks tied the game, which would be important later.
 * In Week Five (October 28), The Browns beat the Giants 14–13 on a missed extra point, putting Cleveland half a game ahead to lead the American Conference. In Detroit, the Bears' Ed Sprinkle blocked a punt that Bill Wightkin fell on in the end zone for a 28–23 victory, while the Rams lost 44–17 to the 49ers, giving the Bears the lead in the National.
 * Week Seven (November 11) saw the Browns trailing the Eagles at home before preserving their American Conference lead with a 20–17 win. The Rams' 45–21 win over the Cardinals, and the Bears' 41–28 loss to the Lions, gave the Rams and Bears 5–2–0 records.
 * In Week Eight (November 18), the Giants hosted a rematch with the Browns and lost again, 10–0; the Giants would finish 9–2–1, with both losses courtesy of the 11–1–0 Browns.
 * Week Nine began with a Thursday night game in Detroit, in which the Lions beat Green Bay, 52–35, to raise its record to 6–2–1. On (November 25), the Browns beat the Bears, 42–21, in Cleveland.  The Browns were penalized 22 times, but still salvaged the victory.  Consequently, the 22 in-game infractions committed by the Browns made Cleveland the first NFL team to win a game, despite being penalized that many times.   The Rams also lost, 31–21, at Washington, and both fell to 6–3–0, giving the Lions the National Conference lead.  Meanwhile, the New York Yanks played spoiler again, tying the 49ers, 10–10, while staying winless at 0–7–2.  As with Detroit's earlier tie with the Yanks, the 49ers would regret having a win taken away later.
 * In Week Ten (December 2), the 49ers beat the Lions 20–10, while the Rams triumphed over the Bears 42–17, giving L.A. the top spot in a tight National Conference race. The New York Yanks finally won a game, 31–28 at Green Bay.
 * In the penultimate regular games of the season in Week Eleven December 9, the Lions held the Rams to field goals five times, and the lone L.A. touchdown wasn't enough to keep Detroit from winning 24–22. Meanwhile, wins by the Bears and the 49ers made a four team National Conference race, with Lions (7–3–1) in front of the Rams and Bears (both 7–4–0) and the 49ers (6–4–1) with one game left. But for the tying scores that had been made by the mediocre Yanks, the Lions and 49ers would have been 8–3 and 7–4.
 * Detroit, which had lost at home to San Francisco a week before, would face them again on the coast on December 16 in Week Twelve. The Lions led by 3 points in San Francisco with one quarter left, but lost the game 21–17, along with the National Conference title as both teams finished 7–4–1.  The Bears were stunned by the Cardinals, 24–14, finishing 7–5–0.  The Los Angeles Rams, who had been tied with the Green Bay 14–14 at halftime, poured on four touchdowns in the second half for a 42–14 win, an 8–4–0 record, and the right to host Cleveland in the 1951 NFL championship.  At Yankee Stadium, only 6,658 spectators turned out to watch the last game ever for the New York Yanks, who lost to the crosstown Giants 27–17.

NFL Championship Game
Los Angeles 24, Cleveland 17 at Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, December 23, 1951

Awards

 * UPI NFL Most Valuable Player – Otto Graham, Cleveland Browns

Offseason

 * Detroit Lions: Bo McMillin was replaced by Buddy Parker.
 * New York Yanks: Red Strader was replaced by James Phelan.
 * Philadelphia Eagles: Greasy Neale was replaced by Bo McMillin.

In-season

 * Chicago Cardinals: Curly Lambeau resigned after 10 games. Phil Handler and Cecil Isbell served as co-head coaches for the final two games of the season.
 * Philadelphia Eagles: Bo McMillin retired after two games after he was diagnosed with terminal stomach cancer. Wayne Millner served as interim for the rest of the season.
 * Washington Redskins: Herman Ball was fired after three games. Dick Todd served as interim for the rest of the season.

January

 * January 16- Pid Purdy, age 46, Running Back and Placekicker for the Green Bay Packers from 1926-1927.

June

 * June 30- Don Murry, age 51, Guard and End for the Racine Legion and Chicago Bears from 1922-1932

title: 1951 NFL season


text:
Call to Arms (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)

"Call to Arms" is the 26th and final episode of the fifth season of the science fiction television series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the 124th episode overall. This episode marks the start of the show's celebrated Dominion war story arc.

Set in the 24th century, the series follows the adventures on the Starfleet-run space station Deep Space Nine near the planet Bajor, as the Bajorans recover from a decades-long occupation by the imperialistic Cardassians. The station guards the entrance to a wormhole connecting Bajor with the distant Gamma Quadrant, which is home to an aggressive empire known as the Dominion. In this episode, the Deep Space Nine crew respond to the Dominion's recent annexation and fortification of Cardassia by deploying mines to prevent further Dominion incursions from the Gamma Quadrant, and the Dominion responds by attacking Deep Space Nine.

At the end of this episode, the Dominion captures Deep Space Nine; this leads into a six-episode story arc at the beginning of the sixth season depicting life on DS9 under Dominion occupation and Starfleet's efforts to retake the station. Many recurring characters make appearances in this episode, including Garak, Weyoun, Dukat, Martok, Leeta and Ziyal.

Plot
Upon learning that the Romulans and other major powers have signed non-aggression pacts with the Dominion, Starfleet Command orders Captain Benjamin Sisko to prevent further Dominion reinforcements from reaching Cardassia from their home territory in the Gamma Quadrant. DS9 crew members Jadzia Dax, Miles O'Brien, and Rom devise a plan to block the wormhole with a field of self-replicating, cloaked mines. The mines cannot be activated until they are entirely deployed, which will take some time to complete. Shortly after deployment begins, Dominion representative Weyoun declares that Deep Space Nine will be attacked unless the mines are removed.

Since Starfleet reinforcements are unavailable, Sisko asks the Klingon General Martok to patrol the border while the Defiant continues deployment. Sisko endorses the non-aggression pact offered to Bajor by the Dominion, in the hope that it will keep Bajor out of the coming war. Sisko officiates Rom's marriage to his fiancée Leeta before she and other Bajorans evacuate the station as a result of the non-aggression agreement.

Starfleet personnel remain to defend the station until the mines are completely deployed. Dominion forces attack and are met by DS9's armaments and Martok's vessel, the Rotarran. After the minefield is activated, Sisko orders the Starfleet personnel to evacuate as well, surrendering DS9 to the Dominion. He announces that while the Dominion was occupied with DS9, a combined Starfleet/Klingon task force wiped out an important Dominion shipyard. During the evacuation, Dax and her lover Worf are assigned to separate ships, and agree to marry if they survive the war.

Captain Sisko's son Jake remains on DS9 to serve as a reporter for the Federation News Service while the station is occupied by the Dominion. Rom remains as well, acting as a spy for Starfleet while working at his brother Quark's bar. Bajoran liaison officer Kira disables the station's systems by activating a pre-set computer program; and then she, Quark and security chief Odo welcome the Dominion occupiers, led by Weyoun and the Cardassian Gul Dukat, to the station. Dukat reclaims the station commander's office, where he finds the baseball Sisko left behind – a message to him that Sisko will return.

Sisko is upset to learn that Jake has remained behind, but cannot return to DS9 and jeopardize his crew for the sake of one man, even his own son. Soon, the Defiant and Rotarran join a massive armada of Starfleet and Klingon vessels.

Production
Deep Space Nine was produced during a transition period between motion-control work with physical models and computer-generated images. "Call to Arms" used a mixture of older-type model work such as motion control and computer-generated special effects. Production of the motion-control shots took weeks to get the desired look.

This episode used a fictional spacecraft design, called the Akira-class, which was previously used in the Star Trek universe in the 1996 film Star Trek: First Contact. The Akira-class design was shown again on this television show in the episodes "Tears of the Prophets" and "What You Leave Behind".

Reception
Keith DeCandido of Tor.com rated the episode ten out of ten.

A 2015 binge-watching guide for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine by Wired recommended this as an essential episode.

In 2015, Geek.com recommended this episode as "essential watching" for their abbreviated Star Trek: Deep Space Nine binge-watching guide, noting that this is the start of the Dominion war and involves the Gamma-quadrant wormhole by Deep Space Nine.

In 2016, The Hollywood Reporter rated "Call to Arms" sixth out of all Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes. In 2016, Gizmodo rated "Call to Arms" 31st out all Star Trek television episodes produced up to that time. This episode is noted for bringing together many narratives and character arcs developed over the course of the fifth (1996–1997) season, and moves them forward into a significant conclusion.

In 2018, SyFy recommended this episode for its abbreviated watch guide for the Bajoran character Kira Nerys. They recommend it as sequence including the episodes "Call to Arms," "A Time to Stand," "Rocks and Shoals," "Sons and Daughters," "Behind the Lines," "Favor the Bold" and "Sacrifice of Angels"; this includes from the season finale of Season 5 and the first six episodes of Season 6 of the show. They note that in this episode Kira is left behind on the station once again under Cardassian control.

In 2019, Comicbook.com ranked "Call to Arms" the ninth best episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, pointing out for the first time in the Star Trek franchise, a large war started involving the Federation.


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Baristanet

The original Wikipedia entry was clearly intended as a jab. However, Baristanet is considered seminal in the emerging citizen journalism movement.

A note from the editor of Baristanet
Frankly, we were surprised that anyone had made an entry for us on Baristanet -- even a disparaging one. However, we are considered important enough to have been invited to a panel on blogging/journalism at the Museum of Radio and Television last week. And we know of three or four citizen journalism sties that have come into existence by following our example.

Here are some articles that have appeared about us on the web:

http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:124827

http://www.radioopensource.org/hyperlocal-journalism/

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/06/28/malr_blg.html

http://www.mallasch.com/journalism/article.php?sid=1397

http://www.radioopensource.org/montclair-blogs-and-the-mayor/

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/04/11/clg_out_p.html

http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2005_01_04.html#008790

Debbie Galant Editor Baristanet.com