Talk:Essendon Football Club supplements saga

I have found a number of historical issues and incorrect statements in relation to this saga written on this page. In fact this article is correctly so poor and factually inept. And I should know. I am the man at the center of this whole episode. Stephen Dank. So if anyone wants to write anything or contribute to this page at all, I would expect that they get their facts right and not write some of the rubbish that I saw here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.167.40 (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that the saga or scandal has absolutely nothing to do with any supplements. There was no allegation, proven or unproven, about the use of supplements. the Saga is exclusively to do with banned performance enhancing drugs. It should be noted that the term "supplements" was only used in a highly partisan sense by those advocating for the now convicted offenders in an effort to publicly "minimise" the sense of the gravity of the offence. It is highly irregular of wikipedia to allow this article to continue to have this dishonest, counterfactual, PR driven name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.82.4 (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

To COMMONNAME or not to COMMONNAME

In two minds about whether or not to move the page from Essendon Football Club supplements controversy to Essendon Football Club supplements saga. The latter is unquestionably the WP:COMMONNAME and it's not really any more or less neutral than the former; but there's something overly colloquial about the latter that has me questioning whether or not it should be the title. Not going to push either side, but it might be worth considering. Aspirex (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd support renaming to "saga", though I agree it doesn't overly matter. It's the clear common name and Wikipedia has a tendency to overuse "controversy". Jenks24 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. In my opinion 'saga' is a more informal word and 'controversy' fits the bill. MasterMind5991 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference question

Do editors consider THIS REFERENCE to be acceptable for including the names of the allegedly accused players in the article? Afterwriting (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. 2 supports to 1 oppose, and the stats seem to bear out the assertion that "saga" is the WP:COMMONNAME  — Amakuru (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Essendon Football Club supplements controversy → Essendon Football Club supplements saga – The use of "saga" to refer to this topic is far more common in reliable sources than the generic "controversy", which appears to only be used because it's the Wikipedia default for any current issue. As an example, a Google News search gets 1790 results for "Essendon supplements saga", compared to 0 exact results for "Essendon supplements controversy". Similarly, you get 11,100 results for "Essendon saga", compared to 4 for "Essendon controversy". Jenks24 (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the page with the title as it is; as I said in an above point, "saga" sounds less formal than "controversy" and this article should also keep in line with other articles such as AFL siren controversy and Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks supplements controversy for the sake of consistency. MasterMind5991 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I guess I don't really understand how "saga" is an informal word. As I said above, Wikipedia defaults to "controversy" for nearly any ongoing issue because we so desperately want to NPOV and people can nearly always agree that something is controversial, no matter what their opinion on the issue. In this case however, there is such a clear common name and it is also one that most people can agree fits, whatever their opinion on the story, because it has dragged on for so long (especially compared to the two examples you've given). Jenks24 (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't really argue with Jenks' statistics. I always tried to avoid calling it "the saga" in the text because it was – I think it was borne more out of a concern that the use of 'saga' to describe anything other than a Norse saga might be regional. But I now think I've seen enough examples to be confident that these concerns were unfounded, and for such a wide disparity of Google hits, I'd agree with changing the title. Aspirex (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

PAGE TITLE

There has been some interesting discussion of this page's title already.

However, I think this has missed the real issue.

This is a 'doping' scandal/saga/controversy, not a 'supplements' one.

Health supplements are usually taken orally, as a tablet, capsule, powder, etc. This is the kind of the stuff sold by retailer Supps R Us.

The Essendon players were banned for injections they took over months (and kept secret) that contained a prohibited substance.

A 'supplements' saga is the way the AFL would like to describe it, but as ASADA, WADA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport have made clear, this is about doping.

Also, 'case' is a more neutral term than either 'saga' or 'controversy'.

I think "Essendon doping case" would be a more accurate and neutral title for the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomsonNotThompson (talk • contribs) 04:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Essendon Football Club supplements saga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730014126/http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/i-took-banned-drug-watson-20130624-2ota0.html to http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/i-took-banned-drug-watson-20130624-2ota0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Table outlining statuses of players

Hello everyone,

I have had to revert two edits from a user who had changed the players' statuses to the present (e.g. Jobe Watson who was still playing in 2016 has retired; I have reverted this to him still at Essendon rather than him having retired, which he did in 2017). Can I make this clear - the table is to remain as it is so to avoid any confusion. MasterMind5991 (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)