Talk:Gaelic Athletic Association/Archive 1

Misc
I'm surprised this wasn't here already. I did some research on the GAA some time ago, I'll have to dig it out, if I still have it.

This article needs to be organised into major sections, for instance "History", "Organisation" and such - any proposals? Djegan 20:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Gaa In Dublin
I Know Dublin is largest population cantre but considering Kerry have won more football championships and been in more finals then any other county would surely merit a section regarding GAA in that county. Also Kilkenny and Cork have a similar history in hurling which should warrant a mention.
 * Stick in a section then --Me or a Robin 14:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Crest?
Why are there crest of other sports on the side of the page here. This is the Gaelic Athletic Association page not the Sport in Ireland page.--Play Brian Moore 00:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is like having links to an artists other albums on a page of any given album by said artist as well as on the artists homepage. Tunney 00:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really, these are completely seperate sporting bodies not music artists.--Play Brian Moore 00:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Because people may well want to find out about other sports organisations in Ireland. Such templates are used to pull together themes, whether sports, religions, politics, etc. The items in the list are joined by two criteria: topic and location. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 01:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So shall I add this template to the NI soccer page then?--Play Brian Moore 01:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means. I thought it was there. These sort of templates are ideal for things like country pages and individual pages. It was originally created for the Ireland page to allow links to each one of the major sports in Ireland. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 01:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Bloodly Sunday
Points of discussion

(Gnevin 18:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC))
 * Over use of the word black?
 * Importance? Second section in before aims of the gaa needs to be moved
 * History ? Should be merged into a history section ?

I moved to timeline, not all that relevant. EamonnPKeane 19:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Planned Major Change
This articial is far too long i plan to make the following changes. Please feel free to make suggestions, i will give it a week before i make these change's


 * Major GAA grounds: Removed ,short line about Category:Gaelic Sport Grounds added
 * Presidents of the GAA: removed and spun off into new Presidents of the GAA
 * The GAA across Ireland and the World: Removed and new GAA oversea created to cater for
 * 1) The GAA in Britain
 * 2) The GAA in Europe
 * 3) The GAA outside Europe


 * Possible new Category:Admistrative units of the GAAto cater for the gaa counties and provinces in ireland
 * Important dates of the GAA : Remeoved, History of the GAA created
 * GAA League templated removed

(Gnevin 18:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Its not so much that it's long it more that it's disorganized and needs to be reworked. The size of the article comes from it being overpouplated by lists. Here are my thoughts:


 * Make a new section called History and move Foundation of the GAA, The GAA in the twentieth century, The GAA today, Important dates of the GAA (delisted), and parts of The achievements of the GAA into it.
 * Aims of the GAA, incorperate into the intro, as it is basiclay their already.
 * GAA internationals, keep and expand, possibly as part of a new section for the GAA abrod.
 * The GAA across Ireland and the World, split into an expanded structure section, for the structure of thr leagues and the all=irelands in ireland, and the GAA abrod.
 * Presidents of the GAA, spin out into a new expanded article, with the list and explaning what the position is an entales.
 * Major GAA grounds, drop

Their is a lot of work that could be done, i would recomend lookng at articles on similar spors ougs, like The Football Association, National Football League, Australian Football League, and/or National Hockey League or ideas. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's my take on the structure of this article. I think that each section should be roughly the same length, should read in an interesting way without being too detailed, and each section should have a 'see also' leading to a more concise article.  Then we need to sit back and see how the whole article reads from start to finish.  I'd say that the fewer details we get on this particular page, the better it's going to read. The 'accusations of sectarianism' section I think should be re-named 'Criticism' to stay in line with other wikipedia pages.  One or two extra pictures wouldn't go amiss, but I've only started using images lately on wp so I'll defer to more experienced wikipedians on that for now. Thoughts? --Eamonnca1 21:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah that sounds good (Gnevin 14:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

Neglect of the parish basis of the GAA
I adjusted the opening paragraph which stated that the GAA is largely based on the county structure. I added the parish level, which is the original level. Just in case my adjustment is controversial the parish level was the original unit upon which the GAA built, even though the GAA Clubs championship didn't begin until 1971. Many historians have pointed out that the factionalism which was rife between parishes in nineteenth century rural Ireland was channeled by the GAA into sporting rivalry at the local level. The first All-Ireland in 1888 was in reality between clubs, not between entire county teams. In Hurling, the winning club in Galway (Meelick) faced the winning club in Tipperary (Thurles) on April 1 1888 in Birr. In football, the winning club from Limerick (Commericals) played the winning club from Louth (Dundalk Young Irelands) on April 29 1888 in "the Big Bank" field in Clonskeagh, Dublin. These two matches played in April 1888 were, officially, the 1887 All Irelands just in case you get asked in a quiz. Today the county level naturally has higher attendance figures but the parish remains the pulse of the GAA in every county so I think it's important to mention that at the start. El Gringo 21:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just taken a fresh look at this opening paragraph. It's a bit heavy on detail, I'm not sure if the intro is the best place to get into specifics about the structure.  That can all go into the 'structure' section and the structure page.  In fact, I think it already is covered, but I think the comments above could all be added into the appropriate places.  I recommend we take out the parish business and replace it with a more general intro explaining what the games are in general terms. --Eamonnca1 01:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The last peer review of this page suggested a page of this length should have 3/4 paragraph intro while i . The current intro about is a little heavy of details but we all need more in the intro (Gnevin 00:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC))

Tactics
I need some help here. There's a ton of information on the web about soccer tactics but next to nothing on hurling or gaelic football tactics. I think wikipedia would be a good place to put this sort of info, so I'm proposing we create new sections called Gaelic Football Tactics and Hurling Tactics. Problem is, I don't know enough about the games to even begin a stub! --Eamonnca1 18:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Map of Ireland
Forgive my ignorant Saxon ways but wouldn't soccer be more popular than either 'gaa' or 'hurling' in the parts of Northern Ireland that have a unionist majority? Also isn't rugby union the most popular sport in Limerick? Or is that only in the town of Limerick rather than the county, I also thought that Gaelic sports weren't all that popular in Dublin. I can only guess that the map was intended to show which Gaelic sports were most popular in each county rather than what is the most popular sport in that county. Perhaps the legend should be amended.GordyB 15:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gaelic Football is way more popular than soccer in Northern Ireland. Many GAA club games attract bigger crowds than the semi-professional Irish League soccer games.  Just because an area has a unionist majority doesn't automatically mean that soccer will be widely supported.  The map indicates sporting preferences, not political allegiances.  --Eamonnca1 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Higher attendences don't necessarily indicate a more popular sport, the Northern Irish league isn't exactly the Premier League or even the Scots Premier League. There are plenty of Rangers / Celtic / Man Utd etc fans in NI that actually travel to Britain to watch the games. If you are gong to talk about which sport is more popular than another, then you need to consider participation numbers, media interest etc. But this is a side issue, the map legend is updated and there's no need to argue about whether soccer is more popular than GAA sports in Antrim.GordyB 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have updated the map accordingly. Theirs more than two games/sports in Ireland. Djegan 19:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually you updated the legend, not the map. Just pointing out cos that confused me ;) jnestorius(talk) 01:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a little cheeky to say that Football is equally as popular as Hurling in County Cork. While Cork have won 6 All Irelands in Football, it hardly makes it a dual county. On that basis Dublin should also be a dual county as they have won the All Ireland Hurling title 6 times. Niall123 00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not about all-Irelands won; otherwise Fermanagh is a "dual county" with 0 of each. Also, Dublin's last hurling all-Ireland was 1940.  In any case, this really should be discussed at Dual County rather than here.  I do think "both sports are equally popular" is too specific a claim; I've replaced it with "both sports have considerable support" (which might be a bit too vague...). jnestorius(talk) 01:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Considerable support" is a far better term than what was previously used. I would imagine that following this years championship, Westmeath should be inline for dual status county as well.  Westmeath had a large attendance at Hurling matches this year compared to football matches. Niall123 13:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to be to be that this treats counties as if they are uniform. There is very little Hurling played in West Cork, and very little Gaelic Football in East Clare: unless the map is to subdivide counties, there is little option but to describe the counties as dual interest, although that may not tally with the experience in specific localities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Foundation of the GAA
I've added a note to hint that the original aims of the GAA were a bit different from what it ended up doing. Originally it was intended to ressurect the Tailteann Games and promote athletics with a distinctive Irish flavour, it wasn't until a bit later that hurling and football predominated, but the original name Gaelic Athletic Association has stuck. --Eamonnca1 19:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sectarianism
Lots of potential for POV here. I'm proposing that we remove the following if someone doesn't come up with a citation soon:

"relatively few non-Catholics have been affiliated with the GAA"

--Eamonnca1 18:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As a general point if a section is marked as been substandard or requiring citation and this is not forthcoming within reasonable time then agree, remove it. be bold. Djegan 18:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Still no sign of a citation. I've pulled the plug on that.  --Eamonnca1 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the parts about the counties that voted against the lifting of Rule 21 and the relaxing of Rule 42. Who voted for or against it is of no interest to anyone except for those who want to find something to whinge about. The association has made good progress in removing outdated rules. There's no need to harp on about the handful of members who wanted to keep them. Wikipedia's not a soapbox. --Eamonnca1 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've re-worded this section to make it read a bit better, some things were popping up in odd places. I've also taken out the bit about pitches being named after "IRA members," it's more accurate to say that some pitches are named after prominent figures in the fight for Irish independence since many of them pre-date the IRA by several centuries. --Eamonnca1 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the following:

"This event has called into question the practice of Government funding for GAA grounds being renovated. "

The news article linked says no such thing. One MP lambasting the GAA in the usual manner does not mean that the practice of government funding of GAA grounds has been 'called into question.' If the people responsible for dispensing the money were having second thoughts about funding the GAA, then the statement would be correct. --Eamonnca1 05:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Aidan Lavelle
Doesnt anyone remember hear about this, if so please give a link (Gnevin 21:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC))

Please cite and readd

 * 1) In its structures (parish, county, province and national) it created a structure of national and communal loyalty, an achievement given that the various elements owed their origins from a variety of sources: Catholicism (the parishes), British law (the counties), and Irish history (the provinces and the nation). Its achievement in popularising counties was particularly marked. It made the counties seem a natural sense of local definition. (The modern Irish counties were largely a creation of British law such as County Londonderry. Some owed their origins to ancient Irish counties such as County Tyrone . The overwhelming power of "the county" remains embodied in the existence of one county team for Dublin, even though in terms of population it could sustain a number of teams. An attempt in recent years to create North Dublin and South Dublin teams was never implemented. Similarly local counties with a history of no success whatsoever in the championships retain their county teams rather than merge with far more successful neighbouring counties.
 * I'm putting it back in, I'll add the citation later. It's more likely to get cited if it's on the page where more people can see it but with a 'citation needed' flag added.  In any case I've done some citing on this very topic. --Eamonnca1 08:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Grounds
1 - "high quality" is POV. 2 - Information on naming grounds after terrorists has been removed, even though the ditor knows the info to be true. I find this bizarre. Traditional unionist 00:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * High quality is not pov as the GAA ground are some of the best in ireland as for the Information on naming grounds after terrorists has been removed, even though the ditor knows the info to be true should be covered in thAccusation of exclusivity section and a proper reference should be supplied (Gnevin 02:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC))

Saying they are the best in Ireland is a value judgement, therefore POV. Unfortunatly the newspaper references have been removed, presumably as the publication is, sadly, no longer with us. The thread on Slugger O'Toole seems to be to be a valid reference though, if for no other reason than the accuracy of the claim in the post are not challanged in the comments, which are extensive.Traditional unionist 02:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No one said they where the best just high quality which they are .As for the theard on Slugger O'Tooles what does that prove? (Gnevin 01:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC))
 * Blog postings are not valid references on Wikipedia. --Eamonnca1 03:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could quantify high quality and provide definative proof that GAA stadia are of high quality. Most GAA stadia I have come across are certainly not high quality, but that is subjective and I wont be putting that in a wikipedia article.Traditional unionist 18:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd question the number of GAA stadia you've come across but since i can't cite high quality ,wiki favours you so you can remove it (Gnevin 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

Achievements
I'm expanding this section since the GAA's achievements haven't been done justice yet. Also, is the following really necessary?

"albeit that both standardised games bore little resemblance to the original sports such as caid"

What's that got to do with the price of fish? American football bears little resemblance to the rugby from which it evolved. I'm sure soccer's very different from the medeival pastimes that spawned it. Sounds like someone came into this page trying to pour cold water on the achievements. If I don't hear an opposing argument to deleting this within a day or two I'm going to delete that. --Eamonnca1 07:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * i'd like to keep the caid link how about something like
 * like many sports hurling and football have evolved from less organised roots. Football evolved from the many caid games played around the country 
 * (Gnevin 12:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC))
 * It's good info but it belongs in the history section. --Eamonnca1 15:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Challenges facing the GAA
I've added this section because I think this article so far has fallen into the age-old GAA trap of focusing on details rather than the big picture. The specific number of clubs and grounds is all well and good to have here for the sake of completeness, but up to now this whole article has not read very well. I think that if this article is to stand a chance of ever being featured, it has to address bigger questions of what the GAA is, what it does, and why it's so important. --Eamonnca1 08:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic games
I suggest making a page called Gaelic games and removing the redirect as the gaa and Gaelic games are not one and the same  (Gnevin 14:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC))
 * Good call. --Eamonnca1 01:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done (Gnevin 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Are you sure? I'm still getting the redirect... --Eamonnca1 19:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, uppercase G in Games. I've changed the redirect from Gaelic games.

Criticism
I'd like to add some criticism but cant really think of how


 * The GAA was founded to promote athletics but didnt
 * Not sure how this could be construed as a criticism, it was just a slight change of policy

--Eamonnca1 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok that fine i'll accept the gaa decided to focus on the four Gaelic games (Gnevin 12:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC))


 * Handball has gone in to steady decline in recent years
 * Has it? --Eamonnca1 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes the number of players has declined greatly (Gnevin 12:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Has the GAA been criticised because of this in a notable way? If it's just you criticisin then it's original research. --Eamonnca1 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ,, (Gnevin 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
 * I see no criticism of the GAA in any of these articles. --Eamonnca1 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Find the word decline (use crtl f in firefox) (Gnevin 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
 * I saw it. I saw no criticism of the GAA. A comment about the decline of handball is not a criticism of the GAA. --Eamonnca1 19:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it up too you but the decline of handball is a criticism but i just cant find any references(Gnevin 23:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC))


 * Rounders is barely played and from the rounders site 2008 Rounders season is set to be a memorable year in the GAA Calender. All Rounders Units are expected to contribute in several ways to the celebratuion of the Golden Jubilee year, fifty years on from the first officially recorded GAA Rounders match in recent decades. Ideas for commorative events ' 1958 seems very late for the 1st recorded match in decades (Gnevin 02:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
 * I wouldn't add criticism for criticism's sake. I think the article covers it pretty comprehensively as is. --Eamonnca1 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its a major criticism of an organisation that is founded to promote a game that it goes decades with out organising an official game (Gnevin 12:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Maybe so but unless you can find any notable criticism elsewhere then it has to count as original research and wouldn't be appropriate here. --Eamonnca1 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (Gnevin 01:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
 * All I'm seeing there is a link to the Rounders website - no criticism. --Eamonnca1 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it up too you but the decline of rounders is a criticism but i just cant find any references(Gnevin 23:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Rule 42

 * Rule 42: Should the following sentence be included considering that the international rules are a GAA organised event and therefore unlike American football or concerts aren't really that controversial at all? "Since the 1960s, the GAA has allowed its flagship stadium, Croke Park, to be used for International rules football — a compromise between Gaelic football and Australian rules football — in matches between Ireland and Australia."Cilldara 17:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree and removed it a game developed by the GAA could hardly be considered too apply under rule 42 (Gnevin 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC))

How about changing the heading 'Bans on other sports & Rule 42' to 'Relationships With non-GAA Sports.' The reason is because there's now more to be said about the post-ban era since there are hardly any bans left. --Eamonnca1 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Relationships With non-Gaelic games & Rule 42 . would be better imo(Gnevin 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC))


 * It may be worth expanding on rule 27 which banned players from participating in or even watching 3 specific english sports. Pnelnik (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

20th century/Challenges merge
To simplify the layout more, I think the sections 'The GAA in the 20th Century' and 'Modern Challenges' should be merged into a single section titled 'Changing Times' or something. --Eamonnca1 01:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing times would defiantly not be a encyclopaedic title and i think the separate sections are fine . With the 20th century section pointing out important events and should be expanded  (Gnevin 02:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

Image:Countieshf.GIF
This is a quite nice graphic, which superficially appears correct, I am however concerned about it's tracability, does anyone know where the figures came from which lead to defining the counties ad F/H/D? The Fashion Icon 07:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was based on counties which compete at league 1 in both hurling and football, dublin are the only team in div 1 in hurling and football not included but football is far stronger in Dublin, for more info ask User_talk:EamonnPKeane (Gnevin 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC))
 * Thanks, that is kinda what I thought, although success and popularity don't always coincide, I'll drop a note on the user talk page and see if that's what it is The Fashion Icon 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Criticisms" section
At present, this section looks as though it presents the criticisms, and counterarguments, of editors here. An encyclopaedic article os not the place to conduct a debate. If there are reliable and trustworthy journals (those that are non partisan would be strongly preferable) that could be cited, there is grounds to include it, but editors presenting their own criticisms and rebuttals is at best OR, and may verge on POV. Kevin McE 17:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The 'Criticism' section is getting out of hand IMO. Some people are coming in and doing a hatchet job on the old Gah with GAA enthusiasts presenting the counter-arguments.  It has grown to the point where the counter arguments take up more space and the title should be changed to 'Responses to criticism.'


 * Personally, I think the Rule 21 section needs to go, Gnevin disagrees. Where do we go from here?  Take a vote on it?  I'm proposing that the Rule 21 section be removed, all in favour or against please post your vote below with the reason. --Eamonnca1 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Rule 21 is long gone. Criticising the GAA for past transgressions sets a precedent where every single organisation on wiki is in line for a lambasting because of any skeletons it might have in the cupboard.  What's it going to be next?  Adding a critique to the US Government page because of slavery? --Eamonnca1 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support removal for treatment elsewhere Rule 21 was a significant issue in the culture and assimilation of the games, and that it existed, and has now been rescinded, should be treated of in the history section (the same would surely be true of Eamonn's example of slavery in the USA): its presentation as a criticism is not encyclopaedic, and invites POV edits.  I would suggest that something similar could be said of each of the sections under "Criticisms".  Kevin McE 17:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I've no problem moving it should be once it's included,criticism seems the most logical section, US slavery has an article,rule 21 doesn't and doesn't need one, removing Rule 21 all together is some what of attempt to whitewash history Gnevin 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gaelic Athletic Association.png
This image has been nominated for deletion (not by me). Its been widely used inappropriately on user pages, and non-core articles. Djegan 23:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up ,i've added a fair use claim Gnevin 01:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
In my eyes the criticism part of this article is getting too big. It should be compacted, or put in a different article Hereitisthen (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA
I have failed this article for GA status. ' ( bananabucket '') 08:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * a big reason why this article has failed is because it fails the referencing and sourcing criteria that is required at WP:GA? in a significant way. There are many unreferenced paragraphs which do not cite any sources at all.
 * The footnotes and sources that are there, especially in the bibliography, need to be filled out in a consistent manner with the full details of the book. For the book list, using cite book should make this consistent with the full book details. The notes of the websites need to be filled out fully with the author, publication date, etc. ✅
 * There are some sources that are from the GAA itself and these need to be changed to make sure that the statistics used are reliable
 * In general the standard of prose is somewhat informal and the article needs a copyedit and a more formal style.
 * The lead seems to be misused in that it is used to explain what gaelic football and hurling are.✅
 * Some parts of the article should be prosified where possible
 * It is unusual that there is a history section at the top and then down the bottom there is another historical evolution type section✅
 * "The GAA was founded by Michael Cusack from County Clare. Pupils at the Academy he founded were encouraged to get involved in all forms of physical exercise" - which academy? What is the prior background of Cusack?✅
 * There are also one-sentence paragraphs that need to be better integrated in the main body.
 * cns need to be attended to. ''' Blnguyen ✅

Naming
Isn't the mentioning of the naming of competitions, grounds and clubs after Irish national heroes as a criticism a bit ridiculous? I'm sure you'll find the exact same thing in pretty much every single country in the world, England included, so why is it considered controversial here? I want to remove this but I'll seek consensus first, because I know you wikipedians can be cunts about such things. Antic-Hay (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a valid criticism in the sense that Unionist feel its a problemGnevin (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That unionists have a problem with something doesn't make it a 'valid criticism.' Remember they once had a problem with catholics having jobs, (and many still do) but I don't think anyone would consider that a valid concern. I mean, on a page about Martin Luther King, do we include a criticism of him because some people had a problem with him being black? You'll find bigots in all walks of life but that doesn't mean that their retarded views should be considered encyclopedic. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Valid in that it can be cited, we cant ignore this Gnevin (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * THis is a valid criticism - there are Protestant people who are uncomfortable playing for their local clubs who are named after IRA volunteers, and thus don't play when otherwise they may have - when I get time I'll try to seek out a source for this.--Macca7174talk 11:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall Edwin Poots saying something about the naming a while back Gnevin (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Achievements section
Where is the discussion about deleting the achievements section from this page? A lot of the information in there was factual content with sources cited. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted it, because it is so blatantly POV. Yes, it was referenced, but it the references were all selected to support a predetermined and POV conclusion. I notice that you restored it, and I won't remove it all again without further discussion, but I have deleted the unreferenced final para.
 * The remaining material is still problematic and POV, and should be integrated with the criticisms section, as well as checked for factual errors such as the claim that the county structure is no longer used for local govt. With the exception of Dublin and Tipperary (divided into 3 and 2 parts respectively), the county structure is still the basis of local govt in the Republic, and so far as I am aware none of the local authority restructuring has breached county lines (the Kilkenny/Waterford boundary dispute has produced much verbiage but no action). This is a contrast with N. Ireland, and even more starkly with England, Scotland, and Wales, where county boundaries were in many cases ripped up. Given that factual error, the assertion about the GAA's role in county loyalty falls apart.
 * That's the problem with this material: it starts with a premise and selects material to support it. I will tag it now with pov-section. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

 * Attendance
 * The article claims that "1,962,769 people attended GAA games in 2003", and cites the GAA attendance figures. The statistics in the referenced document do not support that claim. The document reports a total of 1,962,769 attendances, which is not the same as "people", because the total figure will include many people who attended more than one game, and will therefore be counted more than once. those 1.9 million attendances could represent 190,00 people each attending an average of ten matches each (I have no idea whether that's the case, but I do know that it is wrong to assume that each person attended only once)
 * Indentification
 * the claim that "it is the traditional / GAA county boundaries that people most identify with" is referenced to a report relating solely to County Cavan, and the report itself says on p5 that "Co. Cavan has the potential for a strong identity, given the congruence of county boundaries with the old region of East Breifne and the emphasis and re-emphasis of those boundaries through modern administrative structures. Furthermore, historical work suggests a strong county identity". In other words, Cavan was intentionally selected as a special case for study; that's fine, and it's an interesting study, but it's a huge leap to take the example of a study on specially-selected county and claim that as the basis for conclusions applied to the whole island.

All this arises from the problem that the achievements article was written as a piece of hagiography, and references were then tacked on because they appeared to support the statements in that article. That's why I deleted the text; because it's a back-to-front piece of research, a misapplication of references to support conclusions which had already been drawn. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * BHG is correct about people attending more than one game. Also, the figure in the document seems to be only for senior inter-county hurling and football championship games, so I changed that as well. Tameamseo (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good changes, Tameamseo; your revised wording seems like a much fairer representation of the statistics, and you're quite right to note that the figures exclude attendance at club games.
 * I have also added a fact tag to the assertion that "hurling and football are also the most popular spectator sports in Ireland". It may well be true, but a claim like that does need some reliable research to back it up. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BHG can you point out any further issues? Gnevin (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One issue is the removal of the POV-section tag while the section was still under discussion with identified problems :(
 * Another is the issue is the addition in the last day or so of unreliable sources as references, such as http://www.online.ie/Sport/GAAClubs
 * The final paragraph remains deeply problematic. The references don't support the key claims, and much of it remains factually incorrect. It should simply be deleted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't need to be told to do itGnevin (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, previous removals were promptly reverted, and I didn't want to edit war. I have now removed the worst paragraph.
 * However, while that removes the worst factual and referencing problems, it doesn't resolve the fundamental problem with the section, which is that it is POV in structure and intent. The aim of this sections remains to say "look at all the good things the GAA has done", and that's simply not how these things should be approached. Balanced coverage is achieved by integrating the criticisms into the narrative, not by having a "GAA is great" section followed by a GAA-bad section. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again i'm brought back to do it,I am getting really sick of people saying fix x,y,z and then showing no interest in fixing x,y or z themselves.I spent a lot of time looking for reference for this section only to be told well references aren't good enough. If you can think of a better way to edit/format this section then by all means suggest or do it, as far as i'm concerned their is a pro section and con section which balance each other and the article is WP:NPOV, now you seem to have an issue with the current structure, and issue which no amount of reference from my self or other will resolves so i suggest you change it or discuss your planned changes instead of drip feeding of ideas until the article ends at a version your happy with, if you have the issue with this article then show us a  proactive solution   .  Gnevin (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The GAA and TD's/Poltics
Is it worth mentioning the GAA tie's with people like Bertie, Jack Lynch and others ?
 * I don't think so, unless you want to couch it in terms of the association's prominence in Irish life. Do other articles about sports bodies do anything similar? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah was going for in terms of prominence in Irish life, are any other sporting bodies truly similar to the GAA?Gnevin (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles on county teams
Is it worthwhile putting up redirects on "The Dubs" or "The Banner County" to reflect county teams? I'd do it, but it'd probably be better coming from someone with more GAA knowledge... Happy to help though. --Bardcom (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can do no harm but The Dubs is all ready taken, and some such as The lake county could point to 3/4 articles Gnevin (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put up some redirects on the "Dub" dab page. Bur I didn't look at any other county nicknames.  --Bardcom (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms and questions
Have inserted a couple of sentences at the start of this to give an example as to why the GAA is perceived as a nationalist organisation. This is important context. Nothing has been removed.Mooretwin (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

In the "naming of grounds, etc. after nationalists", have also changed "national heroes" to "nationalist heroes", which is more neutral and accurate language. (The whole point of the section is to highlight the GAA's affiliation with nationalism - the "national heroes" are not heroes to Irish unionists!) Have also added in factual information about Kevin Lynch to aid the casual reader, who will not necessarily know that the INLA was a paramilitary organisation or that Lynch was convicted. These are pertinent facts. Mooretwin (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The casual read can click on the link to the INLA, no need to get into the one man's freedom fighter argument here when a link to the INLA can let the read decide for themselves Gnevin (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with "one man's freedom fighter": I've used the word paramilitary and not terrorist deliberately. It's important to state up-front that Lynch was a convicted paramilitary, as this is the reason the naming of the ground is so controversial!Mooretwin (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I see you've removed - without discussion - the perfectly reasonable context regarding the perception of the GAA as a nationalist organisation at the start of the entry. That is unreasonable and I have restored it. There's also no reason to revert from "nationalist heroes" to "national heroes" - the latter is POV, the former is factual. I've not changed your reversion re. Kevin Lynch, except merely to say "convicted" - this is a reasonable compromise - no mention of paramilitary anymore.Mooretwin (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Without getting into the nitty gritty of it, personally I think it would be OK to add a few words to the relevant sentence to highlight that naming the club after lynch is controversial (given illegality of INLA) - but only if there is a secondary source referencing the "controversy". Maybe the change to reflect "convicted" is enough however. Guliolopez (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I would be happy with that, but I see a nationalist editor, Pureeditor has simply reverted the changes without explanation or discussion. This is surely out of order? There is absolutely no reason to remove the important context as to why unionists perceive the GAA as nationalist. This is essential information, surely?Mooretwin (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I should note that there is a lot more that could be said about the GAA's perception of being nationalist, but I have restricted it to the "for example" text.Mooretwin (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note what you wish but please provide WP:V when WP:Citeing these changes.Gnevin (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on, man, it's common knowledge that the Southern flag is flown in NI - Rule 15, GAA Officil Guide. I've added in the reference, just for you! Mooretwin (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It maybe common knowledge but wiki doesn't work that way ,this is a touchy issue for many people so all i'm asking i to Cite what you add Gnevin (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(Deindent) Have added an additional supporting ref, in the form of CAIN journal report on this specific area. See in particular Section 1.3 "Sport in Northern Ireland after Partition" and 1.5.2 "Sport and the Northern Ireland conflict -> Gaelic Sport". It's all there. Frankly I think that stating "the GAA were targeted by loyalist paramilitaries" (without explaining why) was a little remiss. In my opinion, the current wording reads quite a bit better now. (Without reading like an "excuse" for loyalist violence). Guliolopez (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy with that.Mooretwin (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are editors citing criticism based on their own opinion of certain facts? Sources must be cited for this sort of information. Domer48 'fenian'  17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's all sourced.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please show me which source has drawn the conclusion "In Northern Ireland this can identify the GAA as a nationalist organisation among unionists" based on the information immediately before that sentence? Domer48 'fenian'  17:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Done.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see nothing about anthems in there? And is it safe to assume that as you have just added a source, you have retracted your earlier comment of "It's all sourced"? Domer48 'fenian'  18:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, but we were talking about different things.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Domer48. What is it that you feel needs a cite. The statement that you removed simply stated that:
 * "For example, Rule 15 requires that the flag of Ireland is flown and Amhrán na bhFiann, the Irish national anthem played at matches even outside the Republic of Ireland and as such has been played at GAA events in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, USA and others. In Northern Ireland this can identify the GAA as a nationalist organisation among unionists."
 * The first part of this abstract deals with fact that is cited by reference to the GAA handbook. There is no commentary or criticism here. The tricolour is flown, Amhrán na bhFiann is sung. What's to dispute here?
 * The second part deals with the fact that (when these things are done in Northern Ireland), some unionists point the use of the symbols of Ireland (the anthem and the flag) as suggested of a nationalist bent. Again, this is supported by reference to an excellent and balanced report on the role sport has played in the conflict in NI. (On both sides)
 * Again, these is no criticism here. Or commentary. Just fact. "The GAA uses symbols of Ireland that they perceive as nationalist". Again, where precisely is the criticism or the opinion here?
 * Everything is nicely cited now, and it all makes sense. (Whereas before it just said "Loyalists petrol bombed the GAA and killed it's supporters". Without providing any context. Which was sadly remiss. And is now corrected.
 * Unless you can explain more specifically where the problem is, then there will be difficulty in addressing those concerns and building consensus. Guliolopez (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you point out which sentences in the "excellent and balanced report" (not the one TU just kindly added) source the previous version of the article please? I looked, and could not see them. Thanks. Domer48 'fenian'  18:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Sourcing is adequate.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthems still? As before, the line "In Northern Ireland this can identify the GAA as a nationalist organisation among unionists" is commentary, and not supported by the CAIN reference that I can see. If, as Guliolopez asserts, it is sourced by CAIN, there should be no problem telling me the sentences in question. He seems to misunderstand what fact is. "The GAA uses symbols of Ireland" is fact. "The GAA uses symbols of Ireland that they perceive as nationalist" is opinion. Opinon that can almost certainly be sourced as has been partially done, but still opinion. Domer48 'fenian'  18:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't agree Domer. I don't want this to become a conflict issue, but I think there has been plenty of balanced research into this, and I don't think the last part of that is really questionable at this stage. That Amhrán na bFhiann and the tricolour are considered nationalist symbols in NI is well supported by the refs and elsewhere. (The fact that they were banned for so long (for this reason), and the fact that you still won't see a tricolour in the St.Patrick's day parade is pretty evidential of that fact.) I really don't think it's reasonable to challenge that. (As below, I'd challenge the "storing arms" piece. But I can see why unionists would perceive the use of the tricolour in a non-political organisation as questionable. I think it's a bit blinkered of them. But I can see it.) Guliolopez (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That they are nationalist symbols is hardly in dispute. However in my opinion you cannot take this and claim that unionists have a negative opinion of the GAA based on no sources whatsoever, you need a source. Domer48 'fenian'  18:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Tricolour was never banned in Northern Ireland, and there are plenty of them about at the Belfast St Patricks Day parade (which is why the struggle to get public funding)Traditional unionist (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"2.7 The GAA is perceived by the Unionist community as a sectarian organisation because of its ban of the security force personnel from membership and because of its past association with political issues such as the hunger strikers (Sugden, 1995:203). The Protestant community in Northern Ireland feel alienated from the GAA because of its nationalist aspirations and because of factors such as the flying of the Irish Tricolour at matches, the naming of GAA grounds and clubs after republican heroes (e.g. Casement Park) and also because of the discovery of arms caches on GAA property (Sugden, 1995:203)."

Northern Ireland Assembly Library Research Paper. The supporting references are from the book the CAIN article is an abstract of.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Traditional unionist. Your addition of "and the storing of weapons on GAA grounds" may be going a little bit too far. I doubt very much that that could be construed as evidence of institutional bias or involvement. It was more likely an individual action. (If I put arms in my local scout troop hall does that make it a military organisation? No. But if they put them there themselves, that's another matter.) Granted it didn't help perceptions, but I don't think is a balanced example. Is there a secondary source for that one? Beyond the assembly report? A news cite possibly?
 * Domer. I certainly can. See here. Focusing on sections 1.3.2 and 1.5.2. You will also note that the report points out sectarian implications for where and how community support follows other sports as well. Not just the GAA. Again, as I was saying earlier, I have no strong opinion on the goals of the GAA one way or the other. (Although I think they have been very successful in retaining some an important sense of Irish identity under difficult circumstances. Though - obviously - that isn't appreciated in all communities). That said, I think Mooretwin's additions were balanced and appropriate. Traditional unionist's additions are a little more strongly worded, and could possibly do with tempering a little bit. In the interest of balance (but without compromising the points). Guliolopez (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "We were going fine until ye both stuck your oars in" Grossly incivil. I assume you are familiar with WP:OWN?  When adding referenced material I don't expect to be abused like that.  Secondly, is the addition referenced and contextualised by WP:RS?  Yes.  Problem?Traditional unionist (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies if that seemed a bit strong. It wasn't intended as abuse in any way. All I'm saying is that Gnevin, Mooretwin, and myself were trying to figure this out by consensus, and without recourse to editwarring. And then, when two editors - who proudly align themselves with differing community viewpoints - joined in, it became something else. The tone changed. That's all I was trying to say. Apologies if it seemed a little short, but it was just intended as a reminder on WP:CON. Anyway, I don't claim any ownership here whatsoever. In fact, if you wanted to have a look, you'll see that I've barely edited this article at all. I only felt some non-partisan oversight was required when Mooretwin got shouted down when trying to add in what seemed to me to be perfectly balanced (and "missing") context on "why loyalists dislike the GAA". I'm happy to leave ye fight this out between yourselves, but - frankly - I can't see CON arising here without a less partisan rudder. Guliolopez (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you look you'll see that I've barely edited this article (certainly in the recent past), so blaming me, even in part, for the change in tone is utterly unreasonable.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. I've apologised, so if you've gotten over the perceived slight, can we get back to the discussion now please. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you feel that responding like that is acceptable is says much more about you than anything else.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Look. I'm not trying to be contrary (quite the opposite) but if you you want to comment any more on something that you perceive I have done "against you", I'm happy if you want to take that to my talkpage. I've apologised for my earlier edit summary (which I didn't think was out of order but am happy to acknowledge how it could be perceived as such), and continuing to discuss that here isn't going to help this discussion. This talkpage is about the GAA article. Not about the annoyance I may have caused you. I don't think I've ever had a conflict with an editor before, and I hope my edit summary tone doesn't cause one. Anyway, as above, I'm not trying to shut this down. If you feel there is more to be achieved, I would like to move it from this talk to my talk. That's all. Cheers Guliolopez (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at both of those sections, and neither of them deal with flags and anthems. Unionist attidues yet, but not in relation to those specific things. Therefore I am concerned that rather than accurately report what the CAIN source says, it is being used to draw conclusions based on other facts. We should not do that, in my opinion. Domer48 'fenian'  18:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Domer. I wasn't offering those sections by way of support of the flag/anthem assertions. Just in general. However, section 1.4.2 of the CAIN report and section 2.7 of the NIAssembly report do explicitly refer to the flying of the Tricolour as a divisive issue. Anthems are dealt with in both reports as much in reference to God Save the Queen as Amhrán na bhFiann, but the points are there. Again, while I understand the point about "synthesizing" the references in support of the argument, I don't think that's the case here. Guliolopez (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms and questions - broken

 * Can editors be careful when adding in words like republican and sectarian to the article, ask yourself is it 100 % needed, if not then don't include it as these are loaded words Gnevin (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are aware you've just removed a fully referenced section? Did you read the reference?  There is no reasonable explination for your edit.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've re added and re gigged your edit, sorry but when i see words like republician throw in for no reason i tend to consider the whole edit suspect
 * 1st, auto revert is not a good policy. It's quite insulting really.  2nd, your addition to that sentence makes no sense. 3rd, not to be trtie, but do you have a reference that it wasn't authorised by the GAA?  More to the point, it's a bit like saying water is wet.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't auto revert but it wasn't a good revert either, blushes here. The GAA has never pass a motion that it would store/harbour or keep arms . So while your reference and point is very well made the counterpoint needs to be made that the GAA never decided this as a policy and that they arms where stored by few individuals acting against the rules of the association. Anyway ,i'm a big supporter of WP:BRD and believe that we've made progess on this article over the past few days by following this rule of thumb,and would like to continue to do so without having to discuss every edit. Gnevin (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Proving a negative is not easy! I'm not saying it shouldn't be there because it's inaccurate though, I'm saying its a truism that makes the point look funny.  It's probably not GAA policy or GAA authorised for members to jump up and down while shouting profanity at the referee during matches......stuff happens.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes stuff happens but when i read that line about the weapons it appears as it was authorised by the GAA time to BRD this again
 * Does it? I don't think that assumption is provoked at all!Traditional unionist (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I've taken a other stab at this, as I've said I don't really want to talk this to death if all possible . Gnevin (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've edited again and removed mention of "sectarianism", concentrating instead on nationalism. I've included a scene-setting introduction about the GAA's history, which leads nicely into the current controversial practices and rules, etc.Mooretwin (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right away you need to read WP:RS. Blogs are out in general.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed. The Sugden & Harvie article can serve as a reference for the whole sentence, anyway.Mooretwin (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see why you've removed the references to sectarianism?Traditional unionist (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They seemed controversial and unnecessary - the essence of the criticism is political, rather than religious (although I accept sectarianism can be political.Mooretwin (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not for us too remove entire sections of text just because we feel they are controversial or unnecessary. The reference provided by Traditional unionist is one of the best in the article and does exactly what it says on the tin Gnevin (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove an entire section: I improved the section with a sensible introduction, and I didn't remove any references! It is poor writing to begin the section suddenly with "The Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) would argue that it has always promoted Irish rather than Catholic identity". This sentence would only make sense in response to a charge that it promoted a Catholic identity. There were also some dreadful spelling and grammatical errors in the rewrite. I'm content if someone wants to add something about sectarianism (perhaps a new subsection is warranted), but the section needs a sensible introduction.Mooretwin (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the template. We need to integrate the relevant criticisms and questions into the main article. Something I believe can be done. Right now it looks like a Trivia section for all the different qualms the unionist/loyalist comm have with the GAA. Interestingly, the most relevant criticisms such like province based seeding for the Championship are absent (i.e unionists don't care about that). This makes the section even more POV.Billlogalneedslove (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The section is stable and sits quite well, what are your specific quarrels and what is your suggested solution?Traditional unionist (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. How about starting with integrating the "Naming of competitions, grounds and clubs after nationalists" section into the "grouds" section? Billlogalneedslove (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather it all be in one section than have every section and every second paragraph Gnevin (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats fair Gnevin, but that directly contradicts WP's manual of style. Quote: Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other. Note also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So whats wrong with working along with wiki guidelines? Billlogalneedslove (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something or does that quote support Gnevin's approach over yours? You want to distil the controversy section into paragraphs so they ignore each other don't you?Traditional unionist (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, I think we are looking at the context of the quote in different ways TU. I interpret the guideline as stating that the different criticisms of the GAA should neatly be integrated (a manner that folds debates into the narrative) into the article without a distilled section (or sections as stated in the quote). Forget my previous idontlikeit mention BTW, thats belongs to the deletion debate arena, my mistake! Billlogalneedslove (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I feel the current way folds the issues nicely into the narrative Gnevin (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As do I.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK but could you please expound on your reasoning behind going against wp guidelines? We need consensus, and in order to get that we need a discussion. And with seeing your last replies, I must refer you to WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Billlogalneedslove (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) :User:Billlogalneedslove we had a WP:Discussion and WP:CON was reached please don't WP:BASH as we can both play at that game. I don't see how we are going against guideline Gnevin (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR breach on Gaelic Athletic Association
Hi, despite receiving a prior warning, please revert your recent edit as you have breached 3RR on Gaelic Athletic Association. In addition, despite several requests, you have not opened any discussions on the Talk page (take a look at WP:BRD). --HighKing (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not me who wants to change the article: it's you. So the onus is on you to start a discussion if you wish. And you also breached 3RR! All I have done is removed unverified claims from the article. I even modified it to take into account your own unverified claim. Mooretwin (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Making inaccurate claims doesn't help. I have not breached 3RR, but you have.  That said, I don't really want anyone to get blocked over this.  And although the GAA website does not appear to mention anything about a "Catholic" parish, it does use the term "parish" and defines it as  "A parish for the purpose of this rule shall be, subject to County boundaries, the district under the jurisdiction of a Parish Prient or Administrator".  So the Synod definition is also unreferenced.  I'm inclined to agree with your reversions, given the reference to "Parish Priest".  What other meaning could it have... OK?  --HighKing (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So let's get this straight. First, you made three reversions in 24 hours, and so did I. But you DIDN'T breach 3RR, yet I did?? ... Right.  Second, I removed an unverified claim about a "Synod definition", which you restored.  Yet you agree that I was right to remove it!  Third, the restored version was verified, you claimed it was not, yet now you acknowledge that it is ...  What a preposterous exchange this has been! Mooretwin (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You made 4 reversions. At 13:28 you reverted the anon IP address, and at 16:04, 16:17, and 22:17, you reverted me, all within 24 hours.
 * On the matter of the edits, you appear to be ignoring what I actually said and appear to not fully grasp the importance of references rather than opinion and interpretation. You restored an unreferenced claim.  Both claims are unreferenced.  I challenged your restoration and asked you to take it to Talk (as per WP:BRD and you started an edit war by ignoring the request and reverting.  You then breached WP:3RR, ignoring several other requests to take it to Talk (where this conversation *should* be happening).  This isn't about right and wrong - WP doesn't care about right/wrong or truth - it cares about verifiable information.  And had you followed WP:BRD that's what I would have asked - same thing I'm asking for now - please provide a reference for the phrase "Roman Catholic".  If you feel you want to move this discussion to the GAA page, feel free - it's probably best there anyway..  --HighKing (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't restore an unreferenced claim. The claim was referenced. Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a reference for "Roman Catholic" that I missed. Apologies - can you please point it out?  --HighKing (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't start an edit war. I merely removed unverified claims. Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reverting without discussion is normally considered an edit war, especially when requested to start a discussion. --HighKing (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm content with the article. If you want to change it, start a discussion. Why would I start a discussion about not making any changes? Mooretwin (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked for a reference is all. The discussion is normally required when challenged, not for every edit.  I'll remove the Roman Catholic reference for now, until a reference can be found, OK?  --HighKing (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold on - you RESTORED an unreferenced statement, and now you're claiming that all you did was ask for a reference?? The Roman Catholic reference stays as it is verified in the note. Mooretwin (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the reference? --HighKing (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I did: it was me who put it there some time ago.Mooretwin (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you explain your claim that "I asked for a reference is all", when you restored unreferenced text? Mooretwin (talk) 10:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Continued on the GAA Talk page --HighKing (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Hi Mooretwin, please remain WP:CIVIL - your comment of "Wise Up" in the edit summary is unnecessary. In addition, you have once again breached WP:3RR - please revert your changes or you will be reported. --HighKing (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that I am the victim of "gamesmanship" of some kind, by those with more Wiki experience. Someone edited the article with an unverified claim and I restored it - then High King made the same unverified edit, which I restored. He continued to do so until I reached 4 edits, knowing that he would only reach 3, given that the first edit was by an Anon. It is totally unjust that the person restoring unverified edits is punished, yet the person making them goes unpunished. Mooretwin (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a matter of principle, I will not revert my last edit - punish me if that is what you want to do. I will accept the punishment. The text which I have restored is perfectly acceptable and verifiable. You seem to think that because the words "Roman Catholic" do not appear in the GAA Guide, that it is possible that the parishes are not RC parishes, despite the reference to "Parish Priest". That is a preposterous claim. If you are genuinely in doubt, however, read this: http://www.hardgospel.net/index.php?do=articles&sid=2&rid=25, and this http://www.anfearrua.com/story.asp?id=480 (and before you quote yet another rule at me, I know that blogs are not acceptable for references, but I show you this as part of the discussion). Mooretwin (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you revert, I will also revert my edit too, until we agree (or until a reference is found). This would leave the article with the "Roman Catholic" text intact in the short term?  Let me know.  --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the advantage of doing that, rather than just leaving as is? Mooretwin (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A self-reverted edit does not count against 3RR - check out WP:3RR and the exceptions. But more importantly, it shows good faith towards WP and other editors. --HighKing (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you.Mooretwin (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you going to revert your revert? Still hasn't happened.  --HighKing (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you respond to my question above - "How do you explain your claim that "I asked for a reference is all", when you restored unreferenced text?"? Thanks Mooretwin (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Mooretwin, I challenged your reversion and asked for a reference because there was no reference that backed up the claim you restored. Normal behaviour is for you (the person being challenged) as per WP:BRD to then open a discussion (and it would have probably just been a quicker path to where we are now, but without the 3RR).  I'd prefer to move on from this point and address the issue - the reference does not support the use of "Roman Catholic".  In fact (and it's rather odd ???) there's a distinct lack of any references for this.  It is for this reason that I removed the "Roman Catholic" link (I mistakenly thought we'd agreed that - apologies again).  What about I place a  tag there for now?  --HighKing (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference is there and was there. An Anon editor introduced an unverified claim, which I removed. You restored this unverified claim. It is unreasonable to do this while demanding that I verify the original text, which was already verified. The reference does support the use of Roman Catholic - please see my contribution at 10:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC). Mooretwin (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Hi Mooretwin, you say that you merely restored a verified claim, yet it was you who added this claim originally at the end of July. In addition, the document you provided as a reference does not appear to back up this claim. It does not use the text "Roman Catholic", or to any kind of "Catholic" for that matter. Yet you reverted the edits on the basis that you were merely restoring "agreed" and "verified" text (which you had added in the first place)? Can you point out on what basis you believe that the text was "agreed" and "verified"? And more importantly, don't forget to show the reference for your "Roman Catholic" insertion. --HighKing (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. I know I added the referenced statement: I said so at 10.15 this morning.
 * 2. I refer you yet again to my contribution at 10.26 this morning.
 * 3. I never claimed that it was "agreed", although the change was made as part of wider changes and discussion which appeared to reach consensus.
 * 4. It is verified by the reference. Mooretwin (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin, thank you. I confirm that we both agree that "Roman Catholic" does not appear in the GAA guide - the reference you provided when you inserted this text.  Therefore it appears that you agree that there is no basis in the reference for the term "Roman Catholic", and that you are relying on an interpretation (your) of the reference.  This type of interpretation is not allowed, as per WP:SYNTH.  And requests to you for additional references both yesterday and today have not yielded any additional acceptable references that might have backed up your claim.  Why can't we simply remove the term and continue to use the simple term "parish" on its own?  --HighKing (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I refer you once more to my contribution at 10.26 this morning, which you seem very keen to ignore. There is reference to "Parish Priest". This means that the parishes are Roman Catholic parishes. You know this. I know this. Everyone knows this. It would seem that you are being obtuse in your objections to a statement of the obvious.
 * Referring to parish on its own would be pointless, since the whole point of the sentence is that the parishes are RC parishes. (Read the first part of the sentence.) Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are Parish Priests exclusive to the Roman Catholic religion? Also, what's the reference to an "Administrator" - what type of parish has an administrator?  --HighKing (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term “Parish Priest” is exclusive to the RC Church. What other church do you suggest uses the term? The parishes of what other church do you suggest that the GAA chose as its administrative basis? I imagine that busy parishes have administrators, and that in the event of a clerical vacancy, the role of the parish administrator may become relevant for the purposes of the GAA Guide. Mooretwin (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You are wrong that "Parish Priest" is exclusive to Roman Catholics. You'll find that the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Anglican Communion of churches also follow Canon Law, which makes provision for Parish Priests.  I'm sure there's others too.  And again, you're mixing up truth/belief with the requirements for a WP article which asks that information follows WP:V and WP:RS.  Also, you imagine isn't very useful as a reference in relation to a parish.
 * You're being obtuse. Even if the Eastern Orthodox Church uses the term "Parish Priest", it has a minimal presence in Ireland, and does not have sufficient parishes upon which the GAA might base its organisation. The very suggestion is ludicrous. The Anglican Church does not use the term "Parish Priest": if you peruse the Church of Ireland constitution you will not find a single reference to the term. It is preposterous to suggest that the GAA, prominent in the organisation of and support for which were Roman Catholic priests, would have based its organisation on the parishes of the recently-disestablished Church of Ireland: at that time a church associated with landlords, unionists and the Establishment. Anyone with any understanding of 19th and 20th century Irish history would find that suggestion to be laughable.
 * I wasn't suggesting that my imaginings were useful references: I merely answered genuinely what I thought was a genuine question. Mooretwin (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not being obtuse - I'm just not leaping to assumptions over terms, and I'm trying to keep this article free of "interpretations". Do you agree that this is the best course of action?  --HighKing (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that you are deliberately seeking out my edits and objecting to them - on this occasion - on spurious grounds. No reasonable person with a knowledge of Irish history would condlude that the GAA is organised along the parishes of any church other than the Roman Catholic Church. Your allusions that it is organised along Eastern Orthodox or Church of Ireland parishes is laughable. Mooretwin (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I ask you again to respond to my question above - "How do you explain your claim that "I asked for a reference is all", when you restored unreferenced text?"? Thanks Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded to this already. See my response at 11:36.  --HighKing (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The response wasn’t adequate. You reverted to text that contained an unverified claim – why did you do this? Mooretwin (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the response is adequate. What difference does it make to the fact that your reference appears to be equally unverified, which is the text you were re-inserting, and the text you originally inserted?  Which is what this discussion is about, no?  --HighKing (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that you sought to undermine a valid contribution to the article on the grounds that it was unverified (despite the fact that it was appropriately referenced), by restoring an edit which included an unverified claim. Can you not see the hypocrisy in such an approach. I naively thought you might be willing to acknowledge this. Mooretwin (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point is only valid if you don't WP:AGF and you believe I was deliberately restoring an unreferenced claim for kicks. From my point of view, I was reverting an unreferenced claim to a previous version, and asked for you to provide/explain your reference, expecting a discussion would take place (as per WP:BRD).  I wasn't trying to get in your face, or promote another unreferenced claim over yours.  If I wanted to, I could have reported your 3RR and you would have been blocked with the other version in place.  We're even carrying out this conversation while your version remains in place ... which we're still trying to resolve.  I'm at a loss as to why you believe there is some hypocrisy on my part.  --HighKing (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed an unverified claim. Then you restored it and I became the subject of an allegation of making unverified claims. If your interest was merely assuring that there were no unverified claims, why would you restore an unverified claim? This I genuinely cannot understand. It appears to me that you have been chasing me around Wikipedia, objecting to good-faith, constructive edits. Mooretwin (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you want me to say that hasn't already been said about the reversions. But you're now claiming I'm chasing you around Wikipedia objecting to good-faith constructive edits?  Where and when has this occured?  AFAIK, I've asked for one single reference for this one article, and we've jointly edited the Olympic Council of Ireland to use referenced material also. Once again, to end this, I suggest that we simple drop the unreferencable text in this article.  --HighKing (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)What about a proposal to end this. You've placed a citation required tag in the sentence, and I'm also looking for a reference. What about we delete the opening sentence altogether? --HighKing (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No: the GAA's perceived and actual associations/links with the RC Church are relevant and it is important to include these in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? I can understand why the links to nationalism are relevant, and I can understand how nationalism in Northern Ireland tends to split along religious lines, but is there a seperate religious point you're trying to make? Also, the easiest way to get rid of the "citations required" tag is to simple delete the sentence, so are you arguing that the sentence is wrong in some way?  --HighKing (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The GAA's identification with the RC and nationalist community is relevant in creating its perception in the Protestant and unionist community. It's primarily a political thing, but the religious/church aspect is also relevant. Re. the "citation required" tag, I don't know if the first part of the sentence is wrong or not (I didn't put it there). Mooretwin (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic" parishes?
I quote from John Grenham, Tracing Your Irish Ancestors (Dublin, 3rd ed., 2006, p. 32) concerning church records: 'Both Catholic and Church of Ireland parishes are organized on the diocesan basis first laid out in the Synod of Kells in the Middle Ages, and remain almost identical, although the Catholic system has amalgamated some of the small medieval dioceses.' It would seem that a certain poster is trying hard to invent a "Roman Catholic parish" basis for the GAA structure. The Synod of Kells, which established all these parishes, was in 1152 AD. That's the twelfth century. The reformation in Ireland began in the 1536-7 parliament. That's the 16th century. So, what makes these 12th century parishes "Roman Catholic"? Considering the Anglican church uses the same parishes, could they just as easily be "Protestant" parishes? 86.42.119.12 (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They may have been a single set of parishes in 1152 (!), and maybe both churches had the same parishes for a century or two after 1536(!), but they don't in 2008, nor did they in 1884, when the GAA was founded! (Even your source only claims that they are "almost identical"!) What a ludicrous suggestion that the GAA is organised according to Anglican parishes, with Anglican priests mentioned in the rule-book!! Mooretwin (talk) 07:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then again, it's not really ludicrous if one can understand English. Putting !! all over the place is no replacement for calm, reasoned and intelligent discourse. It's like putting a bad soundtrack to a bad movie and hoping the soundtrack will save the movie. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Having discussed this with Mooretwin at length (section above this one), I believe it's a reasonable assumption to say that the GAA is organised according to RC parishes, since at the time the GAA founded, they organized at parish level - as the parishes were in 1884, and not according to how the parishes were in 1152. There is also mention of the term "Parish Priest" in the GAA definition of parish, a term used most often in RC but unusual in Anglican ministries.  While there is no explicit mention of the term "Roman Catholic", neither is there any mention of anything that can be assumed to mean anything other than Roman Catholic, so your text is even more unsupported than the unreferenced (but logically sensible) text supported by Mooretwin.  --HighKing (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The parishes in 1884 were coterminous with the parishes of 1152. Well, at least the parishes in 2006 were. Unless they just reverted to the 1152 boundaries in 2006? And also "parish priest or administrator" was, to be precise, the term. That does make a difference to this "RC" argument. The GAA is Irish; the newcomers are simply trying to tell us what is and is not Irish now, and make us "sectarian" just as their forefathers tried to represent us as "barbarian". It is about projecting us, the Irish people, as backward, and themselves, the British, as progressive. That is precisely what is going on here, as it has gone on for centuries. You know it, I know it: we all know it. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Now, please. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that all original boundaries were based on the 1152 parish boundaries way back when, but the GAA didn't use these boundaries - they used ones that were in existence at the time. And since the boundaries for RC parishes and other parishes diverged before the foundation of the GAA, it is reasonable to assume that the GAA based their parish boundaries on RC parish boundaries.  Personally, I'd be happy to remove the term "Roman Catholic" as there is no reference or source for this.  But it's incorrect to state that the parishes were based on the original 1152 parishes, and even more unreferencable. --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to the anonymous editor at 21.46 on 2nd September:
 * (1) I'm not sure how he or she knows that the parishes either in 1884 or 2006 were coterminous with the parishes of 1152, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that RC parishes were not coterminous with Anglican parishes in 1884, nor in 2006.
 * (2) The reference to administrator does not make a difference to the RC "argument" since the RC Church has parish administrators - and presumably these are the people referred to in the GAA guide.Mooretwin (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (3) As for the ridiculous allegations about "newcomers", and "Irish people" - that is completely unfounded and unsubstantiated nonsense (particularly - assuming it is aimed at me - since I am actually Irish), and presumably in breach of Wikipedia policy. Mooretwin (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I live in Kilmainham in Kells, County Meath. In this townland, completely coincidentally, is the ruins of the late medieval religious building where the Synod of Kells met in 1152. Today, however, we are part of Kells Catholic Church parish, a fact which is easily verified. Moreover, we have our own GAA clubhouse and teams in this townland and are completely separate from other GAA teams in this same parish, such as Kells's Gaeil Colmcille. In fact, within this parish we are rival GAA clubs. For this reason alone I find the claim that our clubs are based on modern Catholic Church parishes rather dubious. Here's our website: http://community.meath.ie/kilmainhamgfc/, and here is Gaeil Colmcille's: http://gaeilcolmcille.meath.gaa.ie/. Seanruad.com has the confirmation that we are in the parish of Kells, County Meath: http://www.seanruad.com. 78.16.223.146 (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm this, I've added a reference confirming the parishes are Roman Catholic. Mooretwin (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, you did much more than that: you removed a lot of referenced information which did not correspond with the political point you wanted to make. You then inserted your "sources" such as from the British nationalist historian Richard Holt who ranted on about the evils of the GAA and how backward its founders were. You did this without consensus. Wikipedia has a word for this: vandalism. 213.202.161.100 (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I restored the version, which had been stable for ten months following discussion here. An anonymous editor had made several controversial changes in July without seeking consensus. These changes included:
 * adding an illogical, unsourced claim that GAA is associated with IRish nationalism because it is "the principal voluntary body promoting Irish sport and culture";
 * removing the sourced statement that GAA is organised according to RC parishes, included after discussion here;
 * adding in an irrelevant statement about parishes having more than one team (how does that lead to a perception of nationalism or sectarianism?), which would be better placed in the organisation section;
 * adding in an irrelevant statement about the GAA flourishing in the 1880s (how does that lead to a perception of nationalism or sectarianism?), which would be better placed in the structure section;
 * You or he are welcome to seek changes to the article, if you would like to propose any. Mooretwin (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"A County Bye-Law may confine membership of a Club to a Catchment Area, which may be a Parish" Why does Mooretwin feel the need to remove this? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the above (!), because it has nothing to do with perceptions of nationalism or sectarianism. If it is notable enough for the article, it would be better located in a more relevant section.
 * It has plenty to do with it. The rule clearly states that the local area may or may not be a religious parish, which undermines the idea that there's a sectarian rationale for the rule. You want to claim that the local area is always a religious parish, which is incorrect. Some people constantly claim that the base unit of the GAA is a catholic parish. This is incorrect. The base unit of the GAA is the club. The parish rule relates to player eligibility and does not necessarily coincide with catholic parishes. To claim otherwise is inaccurate POV. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant point is that the GAA elected to organise itself according to the parishes of one particular Christian denomination, thus indicating a cultural association with that denomination. The fact that there are some exceptions does not alter this. Mooretwin (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From a certain POV, that might be true, but we're not here to post POV or your own OR. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a verifiable fact, not POV, that the GAA uses RC parishes as part of its organisational structure. That's all that the article says. The statement is referenced: there is no OR involved. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be a verifiable fact that the GAA uses catholic parishes as a handy geographical demarcation in most cases in Ireland, but to say that this aligns it closely with the catholic church is your own OR and is not a verifiable fact. It is POV. The fact that you want to remove a very important piece of evidence that would undermine this claim, coming from the same cited source, only confirms that you are pushing POV. Furthermore, the GAA also uses a county boundary structure that was devised by the British, and does not use the local government boundary system that has since evolved in the 26 counties since independence. I could imply that this aligns the GAA closely with the British, but then that would just be OR. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say that this aligns it closely with the catholic church, although maybe you are right that the connection between the use of the Roman Catholic parishes and the consequent association of the GAA with the Roman Catholic community ought to be made explicit, if a source can be found. The fact that sometimes clubs are not based on parishes is not "a very important piece of evidence that would undermine this claim", as it doesn't alter the fact that the GAA primarily uses Roman Catholic parishes as part of its structure. (The source that I have (Garnham) refers to "the choice of Catholic parish as the basic unit of administration reinforc[ing] the religious identity of the association".) Mooretwin (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's what your source says, then fair enough, but an opposing view should be included here, and the rule book citation that you removed should hence be put back in. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The rule book doesn't provide an opposing view. It simply says that the catchment area of a club may be a parish - this is not in opposition with what the article currently says. The article says the parish is the primary unit of administration: this is true, whether or not other units are also used. The word "primary" indicates that it is not universal. Mooretwin (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The parish is not the primary unit of administration, it is not ANY unit of administration. The CLUB is the primary unity of administration. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what the source says. (And clubs are primarily based on parishes, hence parish is the basic unit.) Mooretwin (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the source is incorrect. The parish is not the basic unit. The club is. The parish (or other geographical marker, such as the halfway point between US cities) is used to determine who can play for what clubs to ensure that local teams represent a local area. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a disingenuous interpretation. A bit like saying the county isn't the basic unit of country cricket in England, but rather the county cricket club is. Or countries aren't the basic unit of international football, but rather national associations are, etc. GAA clubs generally are parish clubs. Mooretwin (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No they are not. As has been explained to you before (which you dismissed as 'irrelevant') there are usually multiple clubs in a parish. The structure of English county cricket or international soccer has no analogy whatsoever to the GAA club structure. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You've just said that the catchment areas for clubs are parishes. The source backs what the text says. The text was arrived at after discussion above. Mooretwin (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in these:
 * ... the GAA’s great strength is that it is by and large based on the parish unit, as players go out to represent their families, their parish and their club.Dungarvan Observer
 * It should be no surprise, therefore, to find that the parish is also the basic unit of the GAA and the linking of each club to a parish, and each member to their native parish (unless validly transferred), is enshrined in the Official Guide. An Fear Rua
 * Here's an RTE GAA show called Pride of the Parish.
 * Officials all over the country have been requested to organise local events which will show the modern GAA in a positive light in every one of the GAA’s parishes all over the country. Mullinahone Parish web site.
 * Mooretwin (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Another one:
 * And they're games that were incredibly well suited to rural Ireland at that time, because the GAA's master stroke was basing the organisation of the games around the local parishes. (Mike Cronin, speaking on "Irish Sport & Nationalism", The Sports Factor, Radio National [Australia], 19/01/01. Available here. Mooretwin (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources that you're quoting here do not say anything that could be construed as relevant to the POV that the GAA is sectarian. They simply make statements about the GAA's structure in relation to catholic parishes (some of which incorrectly say that the parish is a unit of the association) but does not say anything that implies that this makes the association sectarian or perceived as such. In fact, the context of the quotes refer to the GAA's successful distribution across the country. To say that any of this makes the association sectarian is OR, POV, and thankfully doesn't seem to be getting much of a consensus. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As already noted, Garnham refers to "the choice of Catholic parish as the basic unit of administration reinforc[ing] the religious identity of the association". The text doesn't say that that using RC parishes makes the GAA sectarian. Mooretwin (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As already noted, Garnham is talking through his hat with the same POV that you're trying to push. You're not achieving consensus with your political point. You might as well drop it, particularly given your history of being banned for edit warring. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Clubs are not based on parish, parish and club coincide sometimes for geographical reasons. Tfz    12:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what the sources say. Five sources say otherwise: Catholic parish is the “basic unit of administration” (Garnham); GAA is “based on the parish unit” (Dungarvan Observer); “the parish is the basic unit of the GAA” (An Fear Rua); “every one of the GAA’s parishes” (Mullinahone Parish); the GAA based “the organisation of the games around the local parishes” (Cronin). Anyway, if you admit that "parish and club sometimes coincide", then you admit that clubs are sometimes based on parish. Please restore the referenced text that you deleted for no good reason. Mooretwin (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CoI, Jew or Muslim can found them too, it's not an RC thing, and I should know that. I prefer the present wording, as it's less leading. If ref goes back, then npov and less pov wording to be used. Tfz     12:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the above comment makes no sense to me. If you're suggesting that the parishes are not Roman Catholic parishes, then you are wrong: see discussion above, and this is supported by the source. Mooretwin (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The parishes have been around since long before the Reformation so it strikes me as convenient for a certain viewpoint, to say the least, to start calling them "Roman Catholic" when, if anything, they are Christian parishes. At any rate, there is no shortage of evidence confirming that townlands are also the basis for GAA clubs and, moreover, that GAA clubs, rather than parishes or townlands, are the foundation stone of the GAA. Indeed the entire "Roman Catholic parish" thing is simply an attempt to portray the GAA as sectarian. I have no problem with it being described as nationalist (just as all those Irish League soccer teams are unionist); claiming it is "sectarian" is simply a lie.Dunlavin Green (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that different denominations use different parishes, and the GAA parishes are based on the Roman Catholic ones and not, for example, the Anglican ones, it is not so much "convenient" as "correct" to state this fact, which is supported by the sources. You may think that it is a lie to say that the GAA is sectarian, but your views are not notable. In any case, the article doesn't say that the GAA is sectarian. It does, however, note (supported by reliable sources) that the GAA is perceived by unionists as sectarian. Mooretwin (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored the referenced text. The term "parish" is used both in rule 31 and in rule 58, but the only definition of the term offered anywhere in the text is that under rule 58, where it says "A parish for the purpose of this rule shall be, subject to County boundaries, the district under the jurisdiction of a Parish Priest or Administrator". The reference seems solid, but maybe Tfz would like to propose a different wording for the accompanying text? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The pair of you can work together if you wish. Tfz     14:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Several edits have been made to change the meaning of the text, so that it no longer matches the sources. I can't think of any valid reason for these changes, and certainly they should be discussed first. I reverted the changes, but now TfZ has restored them. He ought to self-revert. Mooretwin (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look above you'll see that this piece of the article has been discussed to death. If the sources say that the parish is the basic unit of the association then the sources are incorrect. The parish is not the basic unit of the association, the club is. The only purpose of the parish rule relates to player eligibility and stops people from flocking to the most successful club. You're determination to make a political point by misrepresenting the GAA is noted. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion on the sources is not what matters: what matters is the sources. You may wish to read the opening paragraph of WP:V. There are several sources which support what the article text says. I'm not making any political point - (if anything, the impression is that you are, given that you are seeking to change the meaning of sourced text to something other than what the sources say). And your point about player eligibility is disingenuous, given that you are recognising the parish demarcation while arguing against it at the same time. Mooretwin (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Recognising parish demarcation while arguing against it? What does that mean? You're trying to portray the parish rule as evidence that the GAA is aligned with the catholic church, an argument that is spurious to say the least. It is as nonsensical as suggesting that the GAA is aligned with the British because it still uses the original British county system. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It means what it says, i.e. that you are arguing that the parish is not a unit of administration, while at the same time acknowledging that parishes provide the demarcation for clubs, i.e. that players are eligible for their parish club and that clubs therefore represent parishes. The article does not say that the GAA is aligned with the catholic church. Mooretwin (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Eamonnca1 has just made the most salient point of all: if, as Mooretwin contends, the GAA is "sectarian" because, allegedly, the "Catholic" parish is an organising unit (don't mention the club!), then the GAA is, by the same warped logic, "imperialist" because the county unit, a unit invented by English and British colonialists, is an organising unit of the organisation. Both "arguments" are patently ridiculous from start to finish. It is a sheer ethnically-based hatred for Irish-Ireland which is motivating this attack on the GAA by the self-declared British wikipedian,User:Mooretwin. Nothing less, but possibly considerably more. Dunlavin Green (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunlavin Green, that's an quite unnecessary personal attack on Mooretwin. It's quite possible to disagree without labelling your opponent as hate-mongering racist.  (Note I had mistakenly attributed the comment to which I was replying another editor. now corrected)
 * Your point about the counties might make a little sense if you hadn't conveniently ignored that the counties have been retained by the state in independent Ireland. Whatever their origins in the colony, they are an integral part of the administration of the country, and tagging their use as "imperialist" ignores the 20th-century history of the counties. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I never contended that the GAA is sectarian. Indeed, I have expressed no personal views, and my personal views are irrelevant. What matters in Wikipedia is verifiability, and sources support the statement that the parish is the primary unit of administration. When an editor resorts to unwarranted and unfounded personal attacks, it does not give confidence in his or her ability to edit constructively. Mooretwin (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin, I did not make a personal attack. You have quoted sources that incorrectly state that the basic unit of the GAA is the parish. The erroneous statements of these sources are irrelevant in the face of the only document that counts, i.e. the GAA Official Guide, rule 1.9 of which states: "The Association is a democratic organisation comprising the following units: (a) Clubs (b) County Committees (c) Provincial Councils (d) Central Council (e) Annual Congress." The word 'Parish' does not appear in Rule 1.9 as claimed by your sources. The Official Guide is verifiable. You may download it from <a href="http://www.gaa.ie/files/official_guides/2009_official_guide_part1.pdf">here</a> if you want. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Brown Haired Girl, I did not 'conveniently' ignore that the counties have been retained by the state for the simple reason that they have not. There are no longer 26 counties in the ROI, there are about 29 county-level authorities, and none in the north since they were abolished in the 1970s. The GAA sticks to the original counties as devised by the British, and the county identity has been strengthened and maintained by the GAA, a lot more so than some non-existent 'parish' identity. My point stands. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You made a personal attack on my talk page. Your opinion that a quoted source is incorrect is irrelevant: what matters on Wikipedia is not the personal opinions of editors, but reliable sources. What the official guide says matters less than what the secondary sources say. The secondary sources say that the RC parish is a basic unit of administration, which appears to be borne out by the parish rule in the GAA guide which confirms that parishes are indeed used to demarcate eligibility for clubs. You are seeking to alter the meaning of sourced content, without any source to support you. You are relying on your own personal interpretation of the rules. Mooretwin (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not make a personal attack on your talk page. My message was no different in tone from a message that you left on my talk page on April 30th, 2009. For the time being I'm going to overlook the rude message that you left telling me to stay off your talk page. As for secondary sources being more reliable than primary sources, second hand sources post that the GAA Official Guide names the Parish as the basic unit of administration.  Meanwhile a link to the actual Official Guide itself (from the horse's mouth) shows that it says no such thing. You cannot possibly argue that the Official Guide itself should be ignored in favor of poorly researched half baked articles that completely mis-quote it. See WP:HOAX. Your statement that the incorrect assertion is borne out by the parish rule is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Your statement that I am relying a personal interpretation of the rules (which you don't seem to think that you are doing) is way off the mark.  The rules say in black and white that the basic unit of the association is the club. It would be a bit difficult to interpret this any way other than to assume that the basic unit of the association is the club, particularly when the word 'parish' doesn't even appear on the same page.  --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the post on your talk page and saw no personal attack. You accused me, however, of making "POV edits". And WP prefers secondary sources, rather than primary: see WP:OR. My statement that you are relying on a personal interpretation of the rules is not "way off the mark". On the contrary, seeing as you are not using a reliable source's interpretation, you must therefore be using a personal interpretation. Mooretwin (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite obvious that Mooretwin is editing tendentiously, pushing his own point of view into the article, and ignoring reliable sources, and consensus. Tfz     17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tfz you say it as if you are surprised. BigDunc  17:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a bit surprised that it's still going on. Noooo, he wouldn't like that done to the UUP. Tfz     18:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Time to call a halt
Guys: this is ridiculous. Two of you are each so entrenched in your opposing viewpoints that you are by now entirely determined not to yield to the other, few other parties have shown much stomach for the battle, and consensus is not going to be acheived on the matter by this method. Quit the edit-warring, slap a disputed content template on the section in question, and take it to Dispute resolution. Kevin McE (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus has been reached. We've got Mooretwin on one side, and everyone else on the other. For some unfathomable reason he seems to think that his minority-of-one opinion is 'consensus.' --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you really think you have the evidence for that, then bring it to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: either way, turning this page and article into a battleground is not achieving anything. Kevin McE (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What is happening here is that a group of editors is editing the article in an attempt, for whatever reason, to change the meaning of the text, so that it is no longer supported by the sources. I do not have a “viewpoint”: all I have done is to defend the integrity of the article by reverting these changes. Incredibly, these editors appear to be demanding that my restoring of the article requires consensus, and not their attempts to change it. I have also been accused of edit-warring, yet the “war” has been created by attempts to impose unsupported meanings into the article. I have engaged in discussion, provided ample sources, but nothing appears to satisfy these editors who are determined that the article conforms, not with the sources, but with their own personal ideas. Now they appear to be arguing that three editors seeking to impose unsourced content on an article should have their way against one editor seeking to prevent such changes to the article. That is not what Wikipedia is about.

Let’s look at each of the changes which the editors (most recently Dunlavin Green) are seeking to make:

1. Removing the words “and sectarianism” from the subtitle.
 * The sub-section deals with both perceptions of nationalism and perceptions of sectarianism, and therefore the subtitle is appropriate. Perceptions of sectarianism are dealt with in the third paragraph, and the sources refer to perceptions of sectarianism within the unionist community. There is no apparent reason, therefore, to alter the subtitle, and none has been offered.

2. In the first paragraph, replacing the words “the cause of an Irish Republic” with “the cause of Irish independence”.
 * The source refers to “the cause of an Irish Republic”, and not “the cause of Irish independence”. No reason has been given for this change.

3. In the first paragraph, inserting “can” into the phrase “that excludes the broad Protestant unionist population”, so that it reads “that can exclude the broad Protestant unionist population”.
 * This change significantly alters the meaning of the sentence. The source does not say that the GAA’s stressing of political aspirations can exclude the broad Protestant unionist population: it says that it excludes (i.e. that it does exclude). To say that it “can exclude” the broad population does not even make much sense – the author was referring to the Protestant unionist population collectively, not to individual members of that population.

4. In the first paragraph, replacing the words “According to one sports historian” with “In the view of one British sports historian”; and “another noted” with “Another British sports historian has contended”
 * The perceived nationality of the historians is not relevant and can only have been added in an attempt somehow to discredit them (presumably based on the crude assumption that British historians are not objective).

5. In the second paragraph, replacing the words “is primarily organised according to Roman Catholic parishes” with “although it sometimes uses Roman Catholic parishes as a geographical demarcation for player eligibility”
 * This is the only change that any of the editors have attempted to discuss. The statement that the GAA is primarily organised according to RC parishes is supported by the sources. During discussion, I have also provided additional sources to support the statement. The editors seeking to change the meaning of this sentence have not provided any sources and are relying on their own interpretation or understanding of GAA structures (which often appear to be semantic or disingenuous).

6. In the third paragraph, removing the words “or sectarian” from the the statement that “Certain GAA practices and rules reinforce a perception within Northern Ireland unionist circles that the GAA is a nationalist or sectarian organisation”.
 * As above, the sources refer to perceptions of sectarianism within unionist circles. No reason has been given why this should be removed.
 * I removed that, as it's leading. Northern Ireland state was quite palpably sectarian, and that's well sourced. Neither would I agree with a paragraph title sectarian on Northern Irish soccer. Tfz     10:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

7. In the third paragraph, removing completely a sourced sentence about a debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to sports glubs facilitating the commemoration or glorification of terrorism.
 * No reason has been given for this deletion. The sentence refers to a very relevant debate prompted by activities referred to in the previous sentence (i.e. a hunger strike commemoration on GAA property). The debate of such an event, and the passing of a motion, in the elected legislature of Northern Ireland is surely notable.

I have no wish to edit-war, but if this group of editors is going to persist in changing the meaning of the article so that it is no longer supported by the sources, the only options are to revert their changes, or to allow them to change the meaning. Neither option is desirable. It seems ridiculous to describe these petty attempts as a “dispute”, but if dispute resolution is the only way to put an end to the changes to the text, then sobeit. I only ask that the text be restored to its original state and not be allowed to sit with the unsupported edits most recently made by Dunlavin Green.


 * You may claim not to wish to edit war, but there is undoubtedly a situation here whereby the two main protagonists are evidently not going to agree a phrasing or let the matter lie, and that is to the detriment of the goal of producing a stable, accurate and reliable article, which I assume you share. So what good reason have either of you got for refusing to take the matter to those processes within Wikipedia that are designed for such circumstances?
 * Did you read what I said? "... if dispute resolution is the only way to put an end to the changes to the text, then sobeit". Personally, I don't see why those editing the text can't seek changes through the normal process of discussion, instead of provoking edit-wars. I also don't see why unsourced changes should be allowed to stand pending resolution of the supposed "dispute". Mooretwin (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting very silly.
 * Very silly. I've posted a notice at Content_noticeboard to try and get a resolution to this. Forgive me for taking so long to do this, I'm getting to grips with the finer points of wiki procedures. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted a response to your notice, but for some reason it wouldn't display unless I posted it above yours. If you can fix it, go ahead. Mooretwin (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. Adding anything below the references seems to mess the page up, you can go on editing above the references. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, only one of the seven changes is being discussed at the dispute resolution. I'm going to restore the original text but leave Eamonnca's change in respect of parishes as an indicator of good faith, pending compromise. (Note that a compromise has been proposed, but so far rejected, unfortunately.) Mooretwin (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MT, I support your latest edits. I'll take a look at the compromise.  --HighKing (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring again
Eamonnca has removed referenced text from this section. I restored it, but BigDunc reverted - ironically quoting WP:BRD, even though it was Eamonnca who was bold, and I who reverted. Therefore under WP:BRD it is up to Eamonnca, and not me, to seek consensus for his removal of the text. The text itself was a compromise following a previous dispute involving Eamonn, so he knew that his edit would be controversial. I call on Eamonn or BigDunc to self-revert now. (The referenced text removed said "although rules provide that Roman Catholic parishes may be used as the basis for clubs, which are the basic unit of administration", which was a compromise following a dispute over the previous text which said "the parish is the primary unit of administration". The compromise was arrived at in the interests of consensus, even though the original text was fully supported by references.) Mooretwin (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You always seem to be involved in these edit wars don't you MT? BigDunc  08:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to avoid edit wars. Are you going to restore the referenced text that you removed, or explain your reasons for removing it? Mooretwin (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your erroneous POV edit may have been supported by secondary sources, but the correct edit (mine) was supported by primary AND secondary sources. You have been posting this lie time and again that the Catholic Parish is the primary unit of administration no matter how many times it has been refuted. If you have some motivation for doing this other than pushing a political POV then I would love to hear it. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The text didn't say that the parish was the primary unit of administration. Please desist from ad hominem comments and restore the referenced text. Your "correct edit" amounted merely to deleting reference text, so it doesn't make sense to say it is supported by primary and secondary sources. Mooretwin (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please specify what text you want restored. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The text you removed: "although rules provide that Roman Catholic parishes may be used as the basis for clubs, which are the basic unit of administration."   Mooretwin (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That text was removed because, as you know and as I stated in my comments, the cited sources do not support the claim. One is a definition of a parish for the purpose of the parish rule (which I have tried to explain to you many times is simply an eligibility requirement that restricts players from flocking to the most successful club) and the other is a claim that the original structure was based around the parish. None of these can be interpreted as saying that the parish is the basic unit of administration. What part of "the club is the basic unit of administration" do you not understand? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The text didn't say that the parish was the basic unit of administration. It was changed as a compromise following your complaints. Please restore the referenced text. Mooretwin (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I see what it says. Interesting how a quick read of it would make a casual reader think that the parish is being named as the unit rather than the club.  But here's another problem with the text.  The full context of it is that it is preceded with the following: "The GAA claims that it has always promoted an Irish rather than Catholic identity, although...." The 'although' followed by your sources implies that the parish rule contradicts the GAA's position that it is non-sectarian. It is a subtle way of saying that the GAA is sectarian because of the parish rule. If you can give me a source that says "a group of unionists have objected to GAA activity y because of the parish rule" then you might have something. Now you have done a very good job of digging out references to the parish rule, and posting them alongside claims that the GAA is sectarian. You have yet to connect one with the other. "Some people think the GAA is sectarian" is a valid statement.  "The GAA has a parish rule" is a valid statement. "Some people think the GAA is sectarian because of the parish rule" is not a valid statement, it is WP:OR. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The text doesn't say that some people think the GAA is sectarian because of the parish rule. The sentence balances the GAA's claim not to be promoting a Catholic identity, with the fact that it has a parish rule, based on Catholic parishes. It then goes on to list at great length various cross-community activities at a local level. So the tone of the paragraph is generally very positive. Sectarianism doesn't come into it until the next paragraph, which deals with unionist perceptions. Mooretwin (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It may not say it explicitly, but it uses weasel words to imply it. It basically says "The GAA claims to be non-sectarian, although it's organised according to catholic parishes." It's a bit like saying "The victim claimed she was raped, although she was wearing a mini skirt." Nice try though. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't imply it at all, and doesn't use weasel words. I think you're being over-sensitive. Sectarianism isn't even mentioned. It is notable that the organisation has a rule based on Roman Catholic parishes - quite unique in sport as far as I am aware - and it is reasonable to include this fact in the text. I'm guessing you are a GAA supporter who feels uncomfortable about the use of the RC parish being mentioned, but surely you can see that it is more than balanced by the rest of the paragraph, which is largely praise of the GAA's cross-community activity. The Garnham source refers to "the choice of Catholic parish as the basic unit of administration reinforc[ing] the religious identity of the association", yet the text omitted this, even though it would be entirely in place in that particular section. In fact, it would be reasonable to use this Garnham view as a counter-balance to the GAA's own view about not promoting Catholic identity (or perhaps the other way round: Garnham says it reinforces a religious identity, but the GAA disagrees). What do you think? Mooretwin (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections within the next few days, I'm going to restore the referenced text which was removed by Eamonnca on 29th January, and again - following restoration - by BigDunc on 2nd February. As discussed above, the text that was removed was actually a compromise following previous discussion with Eamonnca - even though the previous version was supported by a reliable source. If there are objections, this will have to go to dispute resolution, and the original text (prior to the compromise) will be back on the table. Mooretwin (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I object to the re-introduction of weasel words. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, but what about the restoration of the text that you removed? Mooretwin (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the text that I propose to restore doesn't contain any weasel words. The text says "rules provide that Roman Catholic parishes may be used as the basis for clubs, which are the basic unit of administration". The original text stated "the GAA is primarily organised according to Roman Catholic parishes”. The original text is supported by a reliable source, but in the interests of consensus, it was changed. I'll wait another couple of days for any objections. Mooretwin (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

'Over 1 million' members?
This article says there are over 800,000 members in the GAA. Over on the BBC today - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7962884.stm - there is an interesting article on the GAA "business model" which puts the membership figure at 'over 1 million'. Which is correct? 86.42.96.251 (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Gay GAA Resource
Gay GAA resource was inserted and deleted. I reverted the deletion since it seems to be a good faith website. Thoughts? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It fails WP:EL for a start. It's an anonymous website, with ads.  (Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority.)  I'll remove it again. --HighKing (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarah's edits
A lot of edits by Sarah changed the meaning of the text so that it no longer said what the source said. I've reverted most of these, but kept some of her other changes. Any other changes should be discussed here first. Mooretwin (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah, you've just made the edits again without discussing first. See WP:BRD. Mooretwin (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

British GAA and constitution
Did the ban on members of the British security services extend even to the British GAA? As far as I know most of the clubs were started by immigrants to places like London, Manchester and Leeds, especially since the 1950s. But it doesn't seem too much of a stretch that some of those would join the local police. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was an Official Guide rule so it would have applied to members worldwide, but I don't think it would have applied to local constabularies in Britain. Depends on how the rule was worded. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The local police in Britain where not considered British security forces . While the RUC and the British army where . Gnevin (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Garrison games
, the reference quoted says up to 1970 the reference backs up the claim for the usage of the words Garrion games not the entire sentence Gnevin (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please fix your grammar? It's very hard to understand what you're trying to say sometimes. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In a nut shell the reference doesn't back up the claim that In particular, sports associated with British origin are particularly frowned upon Gnevin (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added another reference which hopefully helps. Mooretwin (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance of the reference . It doesn't prove GAA usage of the term or that the GAA have this attitude as an organisation . Just that some people who may or may not be GAA members may have this attitude Gnevin (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've qualified it to refer to GAA followers, as per the source (which uses the word "lovers"). Mooretwin (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance ? One minute we are talking about Rule 42 the next we are attempting to wedge in a comment about the fans? Also I'm a GAA and Rugby fan . I'm not frowning. The line are particularly frowned upon amongst GAA-followers if we decide it is relevant it needs to be word like ''are frowned upon amongst some GAA-followers Gnevin (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The source says "long derided by lovers of Gaelic sport as English-imposed "garrison games". I'm happy if you just want to use that verbatim. I'm not attached to "frowned upon". Mooretwin (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but the source tars with the one brush. It's too general. I also still don't see the relevance to Rule 42 Gnevin (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means, find another source that doesn't tar all with one brush. Is Rule 42 not the ban on garrison games? Mooretwin (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok added that its a common name but removed the POV Gnevin (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems ok. Mooretwin (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers please
Can we please have page numbers added to the reference (Cronin) or the following claim:

...where the sport is played almost exclusively by members of the mainly Catholic nationalist community, stressing political aspirations that champion the cause of an Irish Republic and that excludes the broad Protestant unionist population.

--Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * pp.25-26 Mooretwin (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Referencing claims of popularity
Gaelic football and hurling are the most popular activities promoted by the organisation, and the most popular sports in the country in terms of attendances and second only to (Association) football in terms of participation     .

I've tagged the latter two as not being in the refs. given. The ESRI report is a primary source. No page reference is given, though it may be assumed the (incorrect) conclusion is drawn from table 3.4 on p22. The phrase used in the article misrepresents the source. Regarding the last ref. from the FAI (and based on an unspecified ESRI report), we again have an 'apples and oranges' situation, but in any case the assertion that the main sports promoted by the GAA, namely football and hurling are "second only" to Association football is not backed up. Sloppy referencing at best. Can the article wording be edited to reflect the references accurately, or more appropriate references applied, or the unverified claims removed please. RashersTierney (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Happily: you and I have both made clear in edit notes why the cited document does not support the text, and the IP contributor has simply rplied with something approaching paranoia. Kevin McE (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re. the statement "Gaelic football and hurling are ... the most popular sports in the country in terms of attendances", the reference doesn't support this as far as I can see (I would also query whether the source is a reliable one). Under the "Achievements" section, the reference to back up the statement "The Gaelic games of hurling and football are also the most popular spectator sports in Ireland" refers only to the Republic of Ireland, therefore I propose that the sentence be amended to make this clear. I suspect they are the most popular attendance-wise in the whole island, but there is no reference to support this. (Mooretwin (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This source - Sports image rights in Europe by Ian Stewart Blackshaw, Robert C. R. Siekmann p161 seems to back the substantive claim, and also appears to be a WP:RS. Wording would need to be slightly tweaked accordingly. RashersTierney (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like it is discussing only the Republic, notwithstanding the chapter title. Mooretwin (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fair observation. Whats broadly under discussion in this source is legal issues particular to specific jurisdictions. RashersTierney (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and the following references to "soccer" relate only to the South. Mooretwin (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * John Taylor of the UUP did say some ten years ago that the GAA is the "largest sports organisation in Northern Ireland" and therefore their funding from the British state of £300,000 was understandable. What sports organisation is more popular or supported than the GAA in the North? 86.44.62.128 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)