Talk:Gaelic Athletic Association/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RM about GAA

There is a rm here Gnevin (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Numbers of volunteers etc.

There appears to be a discrepancy and some dubious claims in this article regarding numbers. The lede states there are 1 million members out of an island population of 6.2 million. Then the section entitled "Achievements" states there are 800,000 members. Which number is accurate? Secondly, the infobox states there are 1 million volunteers but does not provide references. I would seriously doubt this number is accurate. Out of a population of 6.2 million on the island a guaranteed 1 million (Ulster Unionists) are not involved, we know that roughly 60,000 people are born in the Republic every year, and as I doubt under-5s could be counted as volunteers that leaves a further 300,000 discounted. There are also approximately 250,000 immigrants with little or no contact with the GAA. We also have to take into consideration that there are many who have no interest in the GAA, as well as those who do support the GAA but do not volunteer. If we take all the numbers into account we are looking at every 4th or 5th person in the entire country volunteering for the GAA. Basically I think the number in the infobox may represent the number of members, but the number of volunteers is likely far smaller. I, for example, am a member of a local GAA club, but in no way am I a volunteer, although I would like to be if I had the time. Is there any references for the claim that 1 million people are volunteers? --MacTire02 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Persons of unionist background involved with the GAA certainly represent the exception not the rule. There are some though despite what you make it sound like.

Anyway, I too doubt the GAA has a million actual volunteers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.153.235 (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I joined the GAA when I was in national school, about the age of 5 but at most 6. I'm probably still on the books even though I haven't played in 20 years. I'm OK with that as the GAA does a huge amount for my local community. I don't think this article gives enough space to the social and cultural aspects of the GAA. 86.44.62.128 (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Article here [1] says "Few organisations in Ireland can match the Gaelic Athletic Association for breadth, scope and scale. It has 6,000 officers at all levels and total membership in excess of half a million people." --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems that there are two parallel issues here: the actual number (inexcess of half a million/800,000/1 million have all been mentioned here), and the designation of people as "volunteers". A clear citation is required for one of the number claims, but an alternative phrase seems necessary to replace "volunteers": it is at best open to misinterpretation, and the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not to confuse. People do not gat paid to turn up and cheer for their parish team, but that does not make their status as supporters "volunteers". Kevin McE (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at this Gnevin (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Cultural background

This isn't a big deal but why does GNevin think the title "Cultural background" makes no sense? It makes perfect sense to me. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It makes no sense in that context. I would expect a section called Cultural background to discussion Scór etc not deal with controversial rules and sectarianism Gnevin (talk)

Official Guide

The following text has been re-added:

Today, the preamble of the GAA Official Guide contains the statement, "Since she has no control over all the national territory, Ireland’s claim to nationhood is impaired". The "basic aim" of the GAA is "the strengthening of the National Identity in a thirty-two county Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes." Rule 17b limits membership to those "who subscribe to and undertake to further the aims and objects of the Gaelic Athletic Association, as stated in the Official Guide."

This is simply a statement of the rules in the Official Guide and not a criticism of them. WP:CRIT says "Explicitly calling such statements "criticism" in the text of the article without any serious reason to do so (ie, if they are not negative criticism) can result in a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." User:mooretwin should either revert the edit warring or provide a citation that actually says something critical about these rules from a notable source. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent controversial incidents

Would User:mooretwin please make up his mind about whether or not it is appropriate to include an exhaustive list of recent controversial incidents on a wiki page. On this page he thinks it is, on Linfield FC he thinks it is not. It's very hard to figure out the correct etiquette on wiki when established editors don't show a bit of consistency. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Consistency should be shown on both articles. We shouldn't favour one over the other.

On the edits in general Eamonnca1; "Nationalism and claims of sectarianism" is hardly cumbersome in the slightest and appropriately describes the sections contents. We should strive for accurate headings, not ones that sound like a cover up or downplay. Like how is it anymore cumbersome than "The Gaelic Athletic Association in the twentieth century"? Mabuska ^(talk) 12:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagged as original research

The source for the sentence "Some GAA competitions, grounds and clubs are named after Irish republicans which has also alienated the Protestant community in Northern Ireland" does not source the sentences that come after it. Who is to say exactly which names have caused any alienation? If examples are going to be cited, evidence is needed that that those specific names have caused alienation. O Fenian (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It was Gnevin who added in the bit about alienating the Protestant community, so take it out if you like and restore it to its original location, thus resolving your concern. However, the statement about alienation relates generally to "competitions, grounds and clubs named after Irish republicans", therefore straightforward logic tells us that any competition, ground or club named after an Irish republican has alienated the Protestant community. There is no need for a source to say that one particular competition, ground or club has alienated the Protestant community, since these are merely examples of a general alienation. Mooretwin (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add it , I moved it from a the opening para where it was just randomly placed Gnevin (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you added it to the paragraph in question! Mooretwin (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So WP:SYNTHESIS is OK now? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. You cannot take a source saying that Unionists object to certain (apparently undisclosed) names and combine that with a list of names as "examples" without sources showing that Unionists object to those specific names. O Fenian (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree (there's no "synthesis" involved in providing examples in support a statement), but if it upsets you so much, I offered you the option of taking out the bit about "unionists objecting" (as you put it). It was Gnevin who put it in and I expressed opposition to him doing so! He moved it from earlier in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is, read the policy. O Fenian (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy relates to synthesising material from different sources to make an original statement/argument. It doesn't cover making a statement and providing examples. The examples don't alter the meaning of the original statement, or add any new point. But - as I suggested - why don't you remove the bit about Protestant alienation, and then your concern is addressed? Mooretwin (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do add a new point. Where is the evidence Unionists have taken exception to those specific names? O Fenian (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

None is needed. Or at least the citation about alienation caused by republican names is sufficient because, as already explained, it's basic logic. They take exception to nationalist/republican names. Sam Maguire, Patrick Sarsfeld or whoever are examples of nationalist names. It couldn't really be more simple. But - as I've suggested several times now - why don't you remove the bit about Protestant alienation? And why do you fail to respond to the suggestion? Mooretwin (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In you opinion its basic logic but it's really WP:OR Gnevin (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No, not in my opinion - it actually is basic logic. A "takes exception" to a nationalist name - X is a nationalist name, therefore A takes exception to X. But we can move the "take exception" clause from the sentence back to its original location. Mooretwin (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving it doesn't make it disappear alienation would still need to be proven, the current location makes more sense anyway Gnevin (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would not waste your time any more. The policy has been explained, I will bring the article in-line with police in due course. O Fenian (talk) 11:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Mooretwin have you read WP:SYNTHESIS your explanation above is a prime example of it, we cant use logic to say what different sources are saying either the source says it or it doesn't. Mo ainm~Talk 12:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not an example of synthesis. Synthesis is "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. All we have here is a statement that clubs are named after nationalists. Gnevin added to the statement to say that Protestants are alienated by this. Where's the synthesis? Mooretwin (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Structure/impact

Why are we talking about the structure of the association in a section about the impact of the association? The fact that the CLUB is the basic unit of administration is already dealt with in the Structure section. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry wrong section ,moved Gnevin (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets be nice

Lads some of the comments here are getting a bit personal , lets get this about the content not the editors Gnevin (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of controversially named clubs/cups

Once again User:mooretwin has chosen to edit war rather than use the talk page. This time he's trying to censor the fact that the number of GAA clubs and competitions with controversial names is 'relatively small.' In a previous version of this article he diligently trawled the web looking for every controversial or almost controversial name he could find and listed them in the article. It came to a grand total of about ten clubs. Hardly an impressive figure given the hundreds of GAA clubs throughout the world. That sounds 'relatively small' to me. If he continues with his refusal to communicate on this then I'll go ahead and revert his edit. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

May be relatively small but its still notable and should be included to show that there is such an element. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but there's nothing wrong with saying that it's a small number. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that it's not a small number, either in absolute or relative terms! There are dozens, if not hundreds, of GAA competitions, grounds and clubs named after Irish nationalists and Irish republicans. The article refers to "some", which is the most neutral word to use - it doesn't indicate large numbers or small numbers. Mooretwin (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless you have a source Eamonnca1 that its a small number then its synthesis and original research and should be avoided. We shouldn't add in statements without evidence. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree Mabuska but on the same note we shouldn't add in clubs unless strong evidence says it's controversially named (Lynch's being on the only one the springs to mind). Are there really people who are offended by The Maguire Cup, O'Connells , Davitts or Parnells ? Gnevin (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Who mentioned controversial? All the article says is that some GAA competitions, grounds and clubs are named after Irish nationalists and Irish republicans. Mooretwin (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Gnevin wiped most of the text. I assume he didn't read my post above and I have reverted. Gnevin's rationale for removing text isn't valid. Mooretwin (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I read your post I just don't agree with it.You need to prove the name has alienated the Protestant community Gnevin (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to prove anything. The text didn't say that any of the named clubs "alienated the Protestant community", until YOU added this in! The text merely said that some clubs etc are named after nationalists and republicans. As this article comes under 1RR, you need to self-revert. Mooretwin (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It was always in the section I just moved it to a more relevant location. The article only comes under 1RR for you I think my edit is fine lets see what others think Gnevin (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you've deliberately moved text from the general section into a discrete section in order to change the meaning of that section and thereby justify your removal of text. The point about names alienating the Protestant community was a general one. There is a discrete section entitled "Naming of competitions, grounds and clubs and commemorations of nationalists", in which it is appropriate to provide some examples. Why do the reader a disservice by removing examples? Mooretwin (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And 1RR applies to everyone on NI/Troubles-related articles, not just to me - you should self-revert and try to seek consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

To me the point about alienating the Protestant community is the entire point of the section. Otherwise why not have a section about clubs named after tea drinkers and car drivers. The entire reason this section is here is about the interaction between the GAA and the Protestant community Gnevin (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The section, as the title says, is about nationalism and claims of sectarianism. The GAA is a nationalist organisation, regardless of whether or not the Protestant community is alienated. This is very notable and worthy of inclusion in the article. Of course, the fact that the Protestant community is alienated is also notable, but the organisation's nationalism is notable in its own right. There are no clubs named after tea-drinkers or car-drivers by reason of them being tea-drinkers or car-drivers. If there were, it would also be notable. Please self-revert in deference to 1RR. Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the notable rules section. It clearly belongs in the Nationalism and claims of sectarianism section. Whilst the rules aren't sectarian as they don't mention religion, it is quite clear, in fact as clear as the fact the sky is blue, that they are based on nationalism and the desire to promote and protect the nationalist and Gaelic cultural identity from external influences.

Can you seriously say Gnevin that those rules weren't created to promote and protect the nationalist and Irish Gaelic cause? Mabuska ^(talk) 15:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they where created to protect the organisation and it's games Gnevin (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct. The rules in question that have been moved into that section are 21, 27 and 42. As explained and cited, rule 21 was there for the protection of members because the it was suspected that the RIC was trying to infiltrate the GAA with spies. It remained in place throughout the troubles because of continued harassment of GAA members by the security forces in the north, again a safety issue. Rule 27 was a protectionist measure that rightly or wrongly aimed to ensure that Gaelic games had priority over other sports and that people would commit to GAA sports at the expense of others. Nationalism had nothing to do with it. Rule 42 was/is another protectionist measure rightly or wrongly aimed at ensuring that the GAA does not provide assistance to competing organisations. The rationale for these three rules can quite easily be separated from any nationalist intentions and are quite justified in having a section of their own. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If you say so. I;'d still safely bet nationalism had a lot to do with it.Mabuska ^(talk) 18:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Bet away. Wikipedia is not a casino. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Never said it was. Ever heard of figure of speech? Mabuska ^(talk) 00:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be clear in your mind, but that would be WP:OR. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I reverted and was reverted , so go figure Gnevin (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This source makes the connection between nationalism and the various bans:

• From a sporting perspective the most important aspect of this was undoubtedly the formation of the Gaelic Athletics Association (GAA) in 1884. It brought together several strands of the nationalist movement which sought to promote Gaelic sport as a means of resisting British cultural influences. The GAA’s first charter included regulations which banned members from taking part in or watching games not deemed to be ethnically Irish or organised by the GAA and effectively barred members of the security forces from joining. (Sugden and Harvie, 1995) Mooretwin (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well that exerpt from that source gives good a foundation that the "Notable rules" section could belong as a sub-section of "Nationalism and claims of sectarianism" and backs up my views on them. Another one of Eamonnca1's original research assertions is shown to be faulty (the other being the use of RC parishes as sourced by O Fenian).

So is there a source to contradict this claim? Otherwise there is grounds for it to be sub-section of said section. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No source provided, but Gnevin has taken out "Notable" rules from the "Nationalism" section. Mooretwin (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source that shows that the "notable rules" were motivated by nationalism:

"*The GAA had succeeded in uniting its membership around a shared love of Gaelic games and a general acceptance of what was involved in being an Irish nationalist. In order to do so, as we shall see, it had enforced fairly exclusivist rules, including a ban on playing and watching foreign games and a rule that stipulated that members of the crown (British) security forces could not join the GAA. Although these restrictions clearly had the effect of driving away most of the already small numbers of Protestant supporters of Gaelic games, they may well have helped to forge a sense of national affiliation that was able to transcend power struggles within the association and serious political schism beyond." (Alan Bairner (2001) Sport, Nationalism and Globalization (p.78). Albany: State University of New York Press.)

Mooretwin (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough add it so Gnevin (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Have restored the original logical sequence, and added in text (referenced with the above) that supports the logic. Mooretwin (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I also moved "parish rule" away from the "exclusivist rules" as it relates more to the Association's Catholic identity, which I have added to the title. Otherwise, there is the possibility that the text relating to Catholic identity falls under the heading "claims of sectarianism". This section is really about three things - the GAA's nationalism, Catholic identity, and the Protestant community's perception of it as sectarian - so let's make that clear in the title. Mooretwin (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not so fast. The parish rule has only become a topic of debate insofar as how it affects clubs because of unexpected consequences of enforcing it. It does not relate to a "catholic identity" of the association. It has not been agreed on this talk page that the parish rule gives the association a "catholic identity." See WP:DEADHORSE. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that says that using RC parishes reinforces the Catholic identity of the organisation. Mooretwin (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is contradicted by the primary source which does not specify catholic parishes, so it's hardly reliable. The only source of controversy that relates to the parish rule is the effects that it can have on local catchment areas, and that was explained in the text. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not contradicted by the primary source. The primary source doesn't say that the parishes aren't RC. (It seems you don't understand what is meant by the term reliable source on Wikipedia - a source doesn't stop being considered reliable because you don't agree with it.) By the way, Here's another source (which you have used yourself) that says that "The Catholic parish has long been established as the locus of organisation in rural Ireland, with the Parish Priest at its epicentre" and also that "the parish is also the basic unit of the GAA".Mooretwin (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicky Brennan also agrees that "clubs are defined on a Catholic parish boundary". Mooretwin (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Random break

We've still no evidence the examples listed have alienated people Gnevin (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We've evidence that nationalist names alienate Protestants. These are just examples of nationalist names. Mooretwin (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem is Mooretwin, we have evidence that nationalist/republican names alienate Protestants, however i don't know if that means we could just state examples of clubs named after nationalists/republicans in the same sentence or context as that statement. It would be synthesis unless there is evidence of specific names that have alienated. It could be worded so that examples of clubs are given that are named after nationalists/republicans, however elsewere in a following sentence or paragraph add in the evidence that clubs named after such people have led to Protestant alienation. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. We have evidence that the use of nationalist names alienates Protestants. What's wrong with listing examples? It surely helps illustrate the point. It's not synthesis because giving examples doesn't alter the meaning of the point. Mooretwin (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Performing WP:SYNTHESIS and then claiming "it isn't synthesis" is not good enough. You have to give a specific example or examples of GAA club names that have actually alienated Protestants. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not synthesis. As mentioned already, synthesis is "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". And, even if it were, it wasn't me who "performed" it. Gnevin moved the sentence about Protestant alienation into this section. Mooretwin (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It is WP:SYNTHESIS. Source A says "nationalist names alienate Protestants." Source B says "here is a list of nationalist names." Article says "Nationalist names alienate protestants, for example ..... (list of nationalist names)." The reason you are giving a list of example names is to reinforce your point about alienation. This statement is a conclusion drawn from multiple unconnected sources. The connection cannot be made here, it has to be made in a source. I'm tempted to use WP:BRD and take out the list of names. It's too long and too detailed anyway under WP:WEIGHT. And I don't really care who made the edit. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, but in the interests of concluding this discussion we'll put the Protestant alienation sentence back where it was originally.Mooretwin (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No we won't , it was totally random where it was and moving it doesn't mean the WP:SYNTHESIS discussion disappears Gnevin (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally random? HOw was it totally random to have a sentence about nationalist names causing Protestant alienation in a paragraph about GAA practices and rules reinforcing a perception among unionists that GAA is nationalist or sectarian? Are you being serious? Mooretwin (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Falsely sourced information removed

It was claimed in this edit that a book sources the sentence "Due to a policy of having at least one club in every Roman Catholic parish, clubs are fairly evenly distributed throughout the country in both urban and rural areas and the organisation's reach is therefore considerable". This is not the case. The page reads "The choice of the Catholic parish as the basic unit of administration reinforced the religious identity of the association . . . ". This does not state there was a policy or anything similar, and to combine it with any other source is synthesis. O Fenian (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of a full quote? If its not in the source then it shouldn't be used to back up the "at least one club in every ROman Catholic parish" statement. So far all i can see is that it backs up that the GAA use RC parishes as the basic unit of administration. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the sentence is "as, to some extent, did the reliance upon Sunday play", I did not include it for reasons which should now be obvious. There is nothing else on the page that is relevant, nor anything else on pages near it. O Fenian (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you read the edit history, you'll see that Eamonnca queried the specification of the parishes as being Roman Catholic. The source backs up the specification, not the statement that there is a policy of having at least one club in every parish. Presumably the other source backs up the latter statement. In response to your concerns, we can move the first citation directly beside where it specifies that the parishes are RC. Mooretwin (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That would make it synthesis, as originally stated. Where is the GAA policy of "having at least one club in every Roman Catholic parish"? You are attempting to manufacture one. O Fenian (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea. Ask Eamonnca. There's a citation at the end of the sentence, presumably that supports the statement. I've already explained the source that I added is merely to back up the specification that the parishes are RC parishes. Would you mind reverting? Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would mind. Why should I ask Eamonnca about your assertion that "There's a citation at the end of the sentence, presumably that supports the statement"? You added the claim, then it was removed (with a summary of "Source does not specify catholic parishes"), then you added it back with a fake reference. O Fenian (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would you mind? I didn't add the claim! The very diff that you've pasted shows that I merely added the qualification that the parishes were RC! The reference isn't fake - it backs up the qualification that the parishes are RC ones! I thought Eamonnca added in the original statement, that's why I suggested you ask him. Mooretwin (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No it does not. It sources that the basic unit of administration for the GAA is a Catholic parish. There is no evidence that the parish referred to in "Due to a policy of having at least one club in every parish" directly equates to said basic unit of administration, and it is synthesis to claim so. For all you know, the policy may refer to a parish of any denomination. O Fenian (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the basic unit of administration is the Catholic parish, then simple logic tells us that the parishes, every one of which has a club, must be Catholic! It couldn't refer to the parish of any denomination, because the basic unit of administration is the RC parish. Mooretwin (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to use Wikipedia policy, such as Wikipedia:No original research specifically the section on "synthesis". O Fenian (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The policy doesn't apply here! The point of the sentence is sourced (two citations). The third citation is merely to back up the qualification of parish. Personally, I don't think we need the third citation as the fact that the parishes are Roman Catholic is sourced elsewhere - I was merely responding to Eamonnca. Mooretwin (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You were responding to him before he posted? Explain how you managed that.. O Fenian (talk)

I wasn't responding to him before he posted: it was after he posted. He reverted the qualification of parishes and so I responded by adding a source. Understand now? Mooretwin (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

At 01:25 you said "I was merely responding to Eamonnca". "I was" refers to a previous comment, by definition. Eamonnca1's post was made at 01:20, you replied to that post in your post at 01:25 linked to above. The only post after the 01:20 post and before the 01:25 post was your post at 01:21 which is a reply to me. So where is the reply to Eamonnca1 you claim you had made prior to 01:25? O Fenian (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"I was" doesn't refer, by definition, to a previous comment! In this case, it refers my edit of the article, which was in response to Eamonnca's edit! Mooretwin (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we recycling the old discussion about parishes? We long ago buried the myth that the parish (of whatever denomination) is the basic unit of administration. The club is the basic unit. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

O Fenian is quoting a source that says otherwise. But that's not the point of the discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

At least I quote it accurately, unlike some.. O Fenian (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Eamonnca1 - O Fenian provided a source that states the RC parish is the basic unit of administration, so unless you can provide contradictory evidence then your assertion is wrong.

Contradictory evidence has been added more times than enough which proves that the basic unit of administration is the club. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No it hasn't. There was a long discussion about it and a compromise text eventually added, which you have no arbitratily removed. Mooretwin (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. The structure of the GAA is covered above and there are 4 references to the club being the basic unit of administration. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

@ O Fenian - Reading this topic, its clear you never read what exactly what Mooretwin said the source he used was for. You keep going on about "synthesis" in regards to "one club per RC parish" however Mooretwin says the source is only used to back up the fact its Roman Catholic parishes NOT that there is one club per parish. Such a source is needed to define the parish seeing as Ireland has three different kinds of parish; Church of Ireland, Civil, and Roman Catholic - and as CoI and civil parishes share the same name and roughly the same boundaries whereas RC one's don't it needs stated and sourced what kind of parish is used.

Finally at O Fenian "At least I quote it accurately, unlike some." - hardly good faith when you didn't bother to read exactly what Mooretwin stated the source was for. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You assume quite incorrectly I did not read it, or do people like you not assume good faith despite moaning about other people? Put your own house in order before saying anything to me. O Fenian (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Might i make the same statement back at yourself. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You just did it again, before removing it. I did read it, and rejected it completely as he fails to understand the policy. If you doubt that, I recommend reading the discussion in the section above. O Fenian (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I originally misread what you said and so removed my comment as it was based on a false assumption. I then posted a new comment based on the correct reading of your comment so big tickle O Fenian.

As i stated above - you complained about Mooretwins edit accusing him of synthesis when he wasn't doing anything of the sort - which is clear if you read his first response in this topic - your response to that message shows you either didn't read it correctly or you just ignored it and wanted to start argueing with him.

How adding a source to back up what kind of parish is used constitutes synthesis in regards to "one club per parish" i don't know especially when it wasn;t being used to back up that statement. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway away from your issues with Mooretwin, i tried a sort of clarification in that sentence with what Mooretwin and you provided. Does its still consist of synthesis? If so then remove it. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah well it appears it still passes for synthesis so i'll depart this topic as i don't really have a clue how to make the distinction without crossing the synthesis line. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no synthesis. Synthesis is "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Clarifying that the parishes are RC doesn't reach or imply a different conclusion (i.e. that there is a club in every parish). Mooretwin (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Classic Mooretwin. Describes his process which perfectly fits the description of synthesis, and then simply declares "it is not synthesis." I can think of a better description though, it's a pure out-and-out lie. The word 'catholic' doesn't even appear anywhere in the Official Guide. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't describe "my" process, whatever that is. There is no synthesis involved in clarifying that GAA uses RC parishes. Mooretwin (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is. RC parishes are not specified in the Official Guide. You have looked elsewhere for sources which incorrectly claim that RC parishes are specified in the Official Guide and backed up your claims with such meaningless assertions as "it is obvious". This is pure synthesis. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The basic unit of the organisation is the club ,however these can have their catchment defined using RC parishes . I've made a change to reflect this Gnevin (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The term RC or even 'Catholic' does not appear anywhere in the Official Guide. If the OG is vague enough to simply refer to 'parishes' without specifying if they are catholic, CoI or civil parishes, then there is no reason for this article to be any more specific. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Civil parishes don't have parish priests, CoI parishes have vicars and are not that wide spread in Donegal . Gnevin (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Priests or vicars could come under the description of 'administrators.' --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I said May in my edit which allows for both options. We know that on the ground the parish is often the same as the RC parish Gnevin (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Can be the same but doesn't have to be in rule. "What we know on the ground" does not meet WP:VERIFY. Let's not allow certain editors to push a spin on this that implies that the rules of the GAA are part of a papist plot. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

By the same token lets not pretend the GAA is whiter than white. I think my edit has struck a balance between the two Gnevin (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well now it doesn't make a whole lick of sense. You've got a statement about catchment areas in a criticism section titled "Nationalism and claims of sectarianism." Where is the "claim of sectarianism" in a statement about a seldom-enforced rule about catchment areas? Nowhere. In fact one of the sources is actually in praise of the parish/local community identity. I propose that we take a new section under 'notable rules,' call it "The 'Parish' Rule", and explain how the rule works. We don't have to specify catholic (or 'RC' as people like Mooretwin prefer to say) since that is not specified in the actual rule as written. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The parishes are obviously Roman Catholic, hence references to parish priests and parish administrators, and we also have Garnham as a reliable source to confirm it. It is also important to note this as it is certainly notable to have a sporting organisation that organises itself along the boundaries of a religious organisation - especially in a religiously-divided society such as Ireland. This was discussed at length previously and agreed. Mooretwin (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No it was not agreed. The sources are claiming that the words "Roman Catholic" appear in the parish rule. The other source which quotes the Official Guide itself do not contain the words "Roman Catholic." So now we have contradictory sources. The primary source has to take precedence over the secondary source irrespective of the POV that Mooretwin is trying to push. The words "Roman Catholic" DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE OFFICIAL GUIDE. Want me to repeat that? The words "Roman Catholic" DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE OFFICIAL GUIDE. To claim that RC parishes are specified in the rules of the association is incorrect and it has no place in this article. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly came down Eamonnca1, no need for the caps lock. Secondly when basing your opinion on whether to use the primary source above the secondary source you should make sure you follow Wikipedia:Primary_sources#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources in regards to so. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of WP:PRIMARY which states that synthetic or novel interpretations of primary sources is to be avoided. Claiming that the Official Guide is referring to RC parishes is purely speculative. I have no problem with mentioning parishes in the article, but they can't be labelled as RC if they are not explicitly specified as such in the Official Guide. The OG is vague about this and you're free to write to your GAA county board and request that they put a motion before Congress next year clarifying the matter, but in the meantime this article has to deal with what the rules of the association actually say as written.--Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as its not me who is pushing for its inclusion i don't need to write to the congress. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD, I won't be reporting people. I think more can be done by editing than talking about it. Gnevin (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

To Eamonn - there was a dispute - the text originally, as per the source, said that the RC parish was the basic unit of administration; you objected, although you had no source, saying that the club was the basic unit of administration; in the spirit of compromise the text was changed so that it no longer said that the RC parish was the basic unit of administration; instead it said that clubs, which are the basic unit of administration, could be based on RC parishes. This text was stable until the last few weeks. Tell us what was wrong with that text? (By the way, no source is claiming that the words "Roman Catholic" appear in the parish rule, the source says that the parish rule relates to RC parishes. The GAA Official Guide refers to parishes without specifically stating Roman Catholic, although it refers to parish priests and parish administrators, which are RC offices. There is no conflict between sources because the GAA Guide is silent in terms of explicitly stating "Roman Catholic" - we have a secondary source, however, that confirms that the parishes are RC parishes. Mooretwin (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I provided sources to prove that the club was the basic unit of administration and posted them on the article. I posted them again elsewhere on this talk page. Priests are not exclusive to the catholic church, Anglicans have them too. And, according to wiki, "In some Lutheran churches, ordained clergy are called priests." The term "administrator" is certainly not an exclusively catholic one. Any source claiming that the Official Guide specifically references catholic parishes is incorrect and contradicts the Official Guide which is cited here as an additional source. WP:PRIMARY does not prohibit primary sources, rather "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully." Claiming that the Official Guide refers to catholic parishes when it specifies no such thing is very much a 'novel' interpretation. What's wrong with saying that the OG refers to catholic parishes? The fact that it is complete speculation and POV, that's what's wrong with it. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The article already says that the club is the basic unit of administration. Your opinion that a reliable source is wrong is, I'm afraid, not relevant. We go with reliable sources here, not editors' opinions. The reliable source says the parishes are Roman Catholic. Mooretwin (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source (which you have used yourself) that says that "The Catholic parish has long been established as the locus of organisation in rural Ireland, with the Parish Priest at its epicentre" and "the parish is also the basic unit of the GAA". Mooretwin (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicky Brennan agrees that "clubs are defined on a Catholic parish boundary". Mooretwin (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you accept that the club is the basic unit, any mention of the parish boundaries (whatever denomination) is irrelevant in the context of a discussion about sectarianism and claims thereof. The only relevance of parish boundaries is the effects that they have on catchment areas in the few counties where the parish rule is actually enforced. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The context is nationalism, RC identity and claims of sectarianism. A reliable source says that the use of RC parishes reinforces the RC identity - therefore it is obviously relevant. Mooretwin (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nationalism and claims of sectarianism

Are there any claims of sectarianism being made? I can't see them Gnevin (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

First sentence of the third paragraph states: "Certain GAA practices and rules may reinforce a perception within Northern Ireland unionist circles that the GAA is a nationalist or sectarian organisation". Looks like a claim of sectarianism. I also think an example case of sectarianism within the GAA should be provided in this section, primarily the case of Darren Graham who faced severe sectarian abuse from within the GAA. A couple of news sources for this include: [2] [3]. In fact such an incident should be included to show this article has a stronger degree of neutrality and impartiality. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok didn't see that Gnevin (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That example was in the text but Eamonnca removed it. Mooretwin (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What was his reasons? It is very notable of modern sectarianism within the GAA and shows that it still exists. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he said it was recentism. Here's what the article used to say before Eamonn's edit:

• In 2007 Fermanagh player Darren Graham, who represented the county at both Gaelic football and hurling, temporarily left the sport. Graham had received sectarian abuse from some fans, due to bein

g a Protestant from a Unionist background. However he received support from his Lisnaskea team mates and the GAA board, who stated "Abuse of any players, officials or referees is not acceptable and all official reports of it will be dealt with seriously."

Mooretwin (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think its fair to re-add this Gnevin (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. That was the only incident of its type in the entire 126 year history of the association, hence not part of a pattern of sectarianism as would be implied by adding it. It would only be worth adding if such incidents were as regular an event as sectarian hooliganism at Irish League soccer matches. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you any evidence to support your claims Eamonnca1? I'd suggest we don't go about trying to cover up incidents to protect the GAA"s image. I'd expect the same treatment over at Irish League articles.

Adding a couple of other sources to it Mooretwin, such as the two i provided would be good, especially as the GAA Board and Irish Independant's motives can't be questioned by doubters as easily as the BBC's.Mabuska ^(talk) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think that there were other incidents of sectarian harassment of protestant players and that it was part of an overall pattern then the burden of proof is on you to provide that evidence. I think you'll find there is none. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your the only editor who is objecting to including sourced information on actual sectarian abuse within the GAA. WHo says its part of a pattern? No-one. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Putting it in the article would imply that it is part of a pattern. Recentism is "writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention." This single incident of harrassment by individuals was condemned by the player's club, the county board and all the GAA authorities all the way up to the top. It is not representative of the GAA. It was a two-week wonder. This article is about the GAA and the entire 126-year history of the association worldwide, not a single atypical, unrepresentative, isolated incident in Fermanagh. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't imply its a part of a pattern unless you explicitly make it sound like it is part of one Eamonnca1. Surely you can do better than that. Do you have evidence that supports your claims that it was a "two-week wonder"? Do you have evidence to support that its "a single atypical, unrepresentative, isolated incident"? Just because its not always reported doesn't always mean it never happens. You haven't really given any proper reason as to why your removal of it in the first place and your continual insistence that it is kept out is merited. Do you not like it?

It's also hardly recentism seeing as claims of sectarianism are long establiahsed in regards to the GAA whether they have basis or not. Stating a blatant incidence of such sectarianism can hardly be called short-termed recentism. Even if it was isolated it is still a highly notable event.Mabuska ^(talk) 23:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You're having difficulty with this "burden of proof" business, aren't you? Have a look at WP:BURDEN. If you want to state that there is a pattern of protestants being hassled in the GAA, the burden of proof is on you to provide that it happens, not on me to prove that it does not.

Taking the only incident of its type in the 126 year history of the association and citing that as evidence of institutional sectarianism (ignoring for a minute the fact that the actual association bent over backwards to condemn the incident, put things to rights and get the fella playing again) is very much recentism whether it's notable or not. And I have given my reason for its removal. Many times. In fact I just did once again a few seconds ago. Are you having trouble reading what is posted on this page in black and white? You might want to adjust your browser's fonts.

I also think you need to look at the difference between explicit and implicit. A long paragraph denouncing the GAA's "sectarianism" that includes a story about a recent incident of sectarianism would very much imply that such incidents are common. They are not. There was only one of them. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Three agree it should be included. One doesn't. There is no consensus for your undiscussed and questionable removal of it. The "long paragraph" you refer to doesn't imply what you claim it does and focuses more on how its not sectarian and works with the other community and clearly doesn't imply that this incident is part of a wider pattern. Thus your objections on the grounds of "would very much imply" aren't based on anything. Also no-one is claiming anywhere in the article it is part of "institutional sectarianism". Simple enough? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Suddenly context isn't context, hmm? So the position of the Notable Rules section was all important and was enough to imply that they were the result of institutional sectarianism, but now the position of the isolated incident in Fermanagh is not enough to imply that it was the result of institutional sectarianism? Nice consistency there. And let's wait until this discussion has progressed a little more before we start counting votes. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Aye progressed a little more after your blatant and hardly subtle canvassing to editors you feel will back your opinion, i.e. User_talk:Snowded#GAA_2 and User_talk:Ardmacha. Talk about bad faith and trying to force through your objections.

And if you read my earlier posts on the notable rules placement - they are based on the fact the rules are influenced by nationalism. I never said they were to do with sectarianism. This section covers both facets but doesn't mean everything in it belongs to both facets. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I may count as a neutral on GAA as a subject. Looking at this I think the issue is WP:WEIGHT. If you have a single example then it may not be enough to make it notable, or may require words like "isolated" if it is going to be included. The issue of organisations designed to establish an indigenous identity which are then seen as sectarian by the "other" is a common one in many places other than Ireland and this seems a variation. So I think to include the material you need to have a reliable third party source which says the GAA is sectarian, rather than using a single report to establish a sectarian incident. --Snowded ^TALK 17:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Using the word "isolated" would need sourced otherwise its synthesis. Though the piece isn't being used to back-up that the GAA is a sectarian organisation - the preceeding paragraphs make it clear that its not and does a fair amount of cross-community building. The piece solely highlights an instance of sectarianism in a section to do with "claims of sectarianism" - it doesn't say the GAA is sectarian. Here is the piece removed by Eamonnca1:

“ In 2007 Fermanagh player Darren Graham, who represented the county at both Gaelic football and hurling, temporarily left the sport. Graham had received sectarian abuse from some fans, due to being a Protestant from a Unionist background. However he received support from his Lisnaskea team mates and the GAA board, who stated "Abuse of any players, officials or referees is not acceptable and all official reports of it will be dealt with seriously." ”

Do you think Snowded this is claiming the GAA is a sectarian organisation? It doesn't state it anywhere, instead stating "some fans" and makes it very clear that the GAA hit out against the abuse. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is whether this is common place or not. If you only have one case, which was not supported by team mates etc. then how is it notable? --Snowded ^TALK 17:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering the widespread press coverage from both sides of the border as well as the fact the GAA itself hit out at it i'd say it is notable enough. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sectarianism is not common within the GAA (or we would have more examples) and the instant above is not notable. I do not support it's exclusion. Bjmullan (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So you support its inclusion then? Good to know ;-) Though no-one is saying it is common within the GAA. It highlights an incidence of sectarian behaviour in a section that deals with claims of sectarianism. Its clear that Eamonnca1 has got their wish and unduly influenced this discussion with their canvassing. Oh well there are other places to take this debate where canvassing isn't as easy to achieve.

In fact might i point Bjmullan and Snowded to Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_not_notable - please elaborate on your reasons for the continued exclusion (same as deletion) of this paragraph rather than just a vague "not notable" reason. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

So now we have to answer your questions but you get to dictate what answers we are or are not allowed to give? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Only following policy Eamonnca1 as i linked above. Stop trying to nit-pick, especially when i didn't ask you anything. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A single incident might be notable if it involved a famous person, was used in a journal article to illustrate a wider point or was representative of a wider issue. On its own it fails [[[WP:WEIGHT]] --Snowded ^TALK 04:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Where does it state that notability for a single incident must involve a famous person or from a journal article? There are various journalist sources from across the political spectrum that reported on it so it has notability and weight. Its hardly some obscure news story that from a loyalist mouth-piece paper. In response to your statement on being neutral on the GAA - seeing as you were fit to label me as suppossedly editing from a "loyalist" pov elsewhere, i can safely state you have a "republican/nationalist" pov from your editing history so you are hardly neutral on a subject about the GAA in regards to nationalism and sectarianism. That is why i suggested Eamonnca1 take this to the neutral pov board where we can hopefully get a chance for actual neutral opinions rather than continue this discussion here that he unduly influenced by canvassing. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Put those goalposts back where you got them. We're talking about weight in the context of the wider point being made and not the notability of the incident on its own. A single incident held up as if it were a typical example of wider sectarianism fails WP:WEIGHT since it is not a representative incident. Blowing it out of proportion to its actual importance is WP:RECENTISM. In fact this entire criticism section is so out of proportion to the rest of the article that it also fails WP:WEIGHT. I would even question the need for this 'unionist perception of sectarianism' to be included at all since it is a view that, while notable, is a minority view in the grand scheme of things. The vast majority of GAA commentary in print deals with the day-to-day issues surrounding hurling, Gaelic football, and the community work that the GAA does. The amount of anti-GAA print is tiny by comparison. Your little unionist hit job has gone too far. Now. Where's that NPOV forum you were telling me about... --Eamonnca1 (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Your the only person to think the whole section maybe isn't needed Eamonnca1. We know you'd like to completely unbalance and white-wash the article to make the GAA look like the model organisation of perfection, however thankfully you and your opinion does not equal universal consensus.Mabuska ^(talk) 12:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And I'm sure that Mabuska can provide RS to backup his POV... Bjmullan (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you can answer the question above as to why its not notable as you claim? I'm the one suggesting taking it to the Neutral POV Board to see what outside opinions are so all of our POV's on the issue can be ignored - especially as Eamoncca1 canvassed for support to stiffle the discussion which he was successful in. Anyways the RS needed are for what exactly Bjmullan? No-one is trying to claim that there is a pattern of institutionalised sectarianism in the GAA - the piece that Eamoncca1 removed without discussion didn't make that claim. It declared an instance of sectarianism in a very objective and balanced manner. So there is no need for RS on it as we aren't implying that. Instead of trying to change the arguements to bury the issue try to focus on the exact issue and be more elaborating in your responses - all you and Snowded have provided so far is claims of not-notable without declaring how exactly according to the notability guidelines that its not. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me correct your statement. Nobody is trying to claim that there is a pattern of institutionalised sectarianism in the GAA except for Mabuska and Mooretwin who are devoting their entire wikipedia editing efforts to this cause. The context of the incident in a criticism section very much makes it part of the argument that you and your friend are trying to make about institutionalised sectarianism. The actual source itself might not say that, but its inclusion in this article does. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Claims of sectarianism and one reported incident do not equal evidence of, or declare, institutionalised sectarianism. You are the only editor to assume it does. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact Bjumullan explain exactly without dancing around it how exactly this matches Eamonnca1's claims that it implies there is institutionalised sectarianism in the GAA:

"In 2007 Fermanagh player Darren Graham, who represented the county at both Gaelic football and hurling, temporarily left the sport. Graham had received sectarian abuse from some fans, due to being a Protestant from a Unionist background. However he received support from his Lisnaskea team mates and the GAA board, who stated "Abuse of any players, officials or referees is not acceptable and all official reports of it will be dealt with seriously.""

There are more sources that can be added to it that aren't as easily doubted on the issue as the BBC. As it doesn't imply there is in the slightest any institutionalised sectarianism, and can't be called recentism as its not implying there is a pattern, then the only excuse that can be fashioned is the notability one. So how exactly is it not notable according to the guidelines in contrast to the flimsy guidelines Snowded invented up above? Due to the fact it recieved wide press coverage from across the political spectrum and even got the GAA Board to respond to it can you safely say its not notable? Whilst we're at it can you say its biased, unbalanced and not objective? Whoever wrote it did a good job in ensuring it is balanaced and objective.

Maybe some real excuses for its continued exclusion would be better rather than trying to deflect the issue. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What part of WP:WEIGHT do you not understand? That was an isolated incident and therefore fails WP:WEIGHT. And your attempt to take the quote out of context was creative, but in the context of this bloated criticism section it could be interpreted as nothing other than an example of the institutional sectarianism that you and your esteemed colleague are desperately trying to insert into this article out of all proportion. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Eamonnca1 the question quite obviously isn't directed at you. Though in response you - the paragraph was already in the article before you deleted it on dodgy undiscussed reasons - you are the one who canvassed because me, Gnevin and Mooretwin agreed it should be put back in. Also do you even read any of the policies you state or just copy other editors responses without proper understanding of what those policies are?

If you read WP:WEIGHT: "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.", then also this line "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

Well we have an incident that is prevalent in reliable sources including the GAA Board. We also aren't dealing with a viewpoint. We are dealing with an instance, a highly notable instance, that is put into a balanced context that focuses more on the GAA's good side in its condemnation. I'd have thought you'd prefer something that puts the GAA into a good light be included? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact i just realised the paragraph paints a very good picture of the GAA. If you have actually read the entire paragraph you deleted you will notice it says "Graham had received sectarian abuse from some fans" and ends with them being comdemned by Lisnaskea GAA and the GAA Board. Does this not paint the GAA in a high moral anti-sectarian light? Why do you object to this? It was some fans that were sectarian not the GAA. The GAA hit out at them. Whats your problem? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

My problem is that the incident is still not worthy of inclusion because even in reliable sources it is still did not cause a big enough stir to be noteworthy enough to be included in the article irrespective of whether it portrays the GAA in a positive or negative light. I would also appreciate it if you would stop repeating this complaint about canvassing in every single comment, I heard you the first time. Also, who your comment was directed at is irrelevant; I am quite entitled to respond to any comment posted on this talk page. Please try to adhere to WP:CIVIL. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Never said you weren't entitled to respond, though i bring up your canvassing to keep this topic in perspective for anyone reading that you've unduly influenced it. None-the-less, it did cause a big enough stir. What exactly do you classify as a "big enough stir"? Obviously you feel it didn't, whilst i feel it did. Mooretwin and Gnevin didn't object. Even after canvassing you've only evened up those who want it kept out to those who said for it to be reinstated. In all events, as you removed it without discussion and there is no clear consensus for its continued removal - it should be reinstated on those grounds alone until this debate has ended. WP:BRD i believe. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be a "big enough stir" is this were a common occurrence to justify inclusion in this article under WP:WEIGHT. It isn't. It did not make a big enough impact in RSes to justify inclusion in this article. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this but this was such a small incident in the 126 year history of the association that any mention of it on this article would be way out of proportion to its notability in the context of this article. There's no clear consensus for its removal, you say, but there's no clear consensus for its reinstatment either. How about the Micaela McAreavey tragedy? That was another one-off incident that got even more coverage. Will we include that? And I say again, please stop your repetitive complaints about canvassing. I also find it interesting that unilateral edits by you two can always be justified by WP:BRD but similar edits by me are lambasted here as having been made without discussion. If you're going to complain about a lack of discussion before edits are made then you can't wave the BRD magic wand as a smokescreen for your own edit warring. You can't have it both ways. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop labelling me and Mooretwin together. There are various places in this article talk page where i haven't agreed to his take. I haven't made any controversial edits (in fact hardly more than a few edits) to this article Eamonnca1 to use WP:BRD to my defense. I discuss controversial things first. Mooretwin uses WP:BRD, i don't. I haven't edit-warred on this article either so stop making false claims about editors that are based on nothing. At most the only possibly controversial thing i did was reword something so that it mightn't sound like synthesis - i discussed it first and even said if it still did look like synthesis it should be reverted which it was. Thats called discussing and being flexible. Hardly edit-warring. If so where is my 3RR warnings at for this article? Nowhere as i haven't edit-warred.

Though to refute your response on "big enough stir" - if it was a frequent occurance it wouldn't cause a big enough stir as everybody would be used to it. The fact it hardly happens means it caused a big enough stir. What relevance has Micaela McAreavey to do with this article? Bad choice of comparison. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What? So if it were a regular occurrence then it would not be worth mentioning, but if it were a rare occurrence then that makes it more noteworthy?! If that's the case then the GAA is riddled with clubs with controversial names, therefore it's not worth mentioning them because everyone's used to it so. Right? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow you really do know how to twist things. Don't purposely confuse a comment on how much a stir something would cause in the real world to whether something is worthy of inclusion in an article. Never did i say something that is frequent or not not worthy for inclusion. Very bad faith Eamonnca1 twisting things like that. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I give up. I just give up. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if you argued the finer points of the policies you quote and show how they are applicable rather than copying other peoples arguements and answer the questions put forward to you when queried about them instead of hitting out with twist after twist, you might get somewhere. You quote policies, but fail to show how exactly they apply. You quote bits of policies without understanding the entire policy. You are asked questions as to how it meets those policies and you provide no response but focus on something else. Rather you have twisting arguements and at times put more criticism on the editors you disagree with than the actual content of their statements. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any chance of you actually debating the article or is it just all about me? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever *rolls eyes*. I see you decided to entirely gloss over the questions you should answer to show how exactly this paragraph allegedly fails all those policies you claim. Stop deflecting the issue away from the topic. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be very much against it for several reasons:

1. Whereas the GAA was indeed founded with a nationalist agenda it has always resisted being hijacked by sectarian organisations and has always been open to anyone as long as they were not the RUC or anyone actively supporting the occupation of Ireland. Even that is lifted now and the PSNI play the London Met, the Gardai and NYPD each year.

2. I have never met anyone who thought the GAA was or is a sectarian or republican organisation and I have met some very loyalist people. Only the most unforgiving and hardline people in the Loyalist community would believe this. 3. The IFA is thousand times more sectarian yet we have no article dealing with that. 4. If one starts looking for isolated cases I'm sure we can come up with a hypothesis that cricket is a republican game as Catholic cricket players might have faced sectarian abuse. If you really want to open the can of worms it should be done for every sport in Ireland but I believe it has nothing to with sports in Ireland. 5. Sean Og and Jason Sherlock have mentioned they encountered some racial abuse in their careers. So the GAA is racist too? Let's start an article on that too. 6. There are riots each year between Glentoran, Linfield and Crusaders supporters, all protestant clubs. So we should conclude that protestants soccer supporters are not only sectarian but also very territorial? 7. If you want you can twist any statistic to suit your own agenda. The fact almost all rugby players in the IRFU are white surely means it is a racist organisation. The fact that most soccer players come from a working class background surely means that doctors or teachers are not allowed to play the game. The fact that most Leitrim GAA players come from a farming background means the game is racist in Leitrim against those without an agricultural background? Please let it be and try to find a story where there is none. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be put in the section at the bottom of this article Jorgen as it appears more relevant there. This section is now more to do with a paragraph that highlights the GAA condemning an incident of sectarianism by fans which paints the GAA in a good light. Though i agree that the incdients of riting at those football matches should be highlighted in their repsective articles as they do get a notable amount of coverage each year. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Modern Challenges

Should we mention emigration [4] or is that a case of WP:RECENTISM? Gnevin (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Emigration and population movement because of urbanisation is not new and it seems a fair subject of comment. Ardmacha (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd mention it as long as the full historical effect of emigration is mentioned and not just the current wave. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert by Gnevin

Gnevin removed the following text: "... although under its rules, Roman Catholic parishes may be used as the basis for clubs, which are the basic unit of administration, thus reinforcing the organisation’s Catholic identity," with the explanation "incorrect the club is the basic unit of the association and is coverd by the parish rule". The explanation is invalid because the text says that the club is the basic unit of administration (even though the source says that it is the parish). This form of words was agreed as a compromise. It is important to mention the use of RC parishes by the GAA in this section as it relates to the nationalist and Catholic identity of the organisation which is the subject of the section. Mooretwin (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

4 other sources say the club is the basic unit and the parishes is not the basis of the club its just used as means to define its catchments Gnevin (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In the 19th century, the GAA used the RC parish as a convenient way of defining club boundaries. This doesn't say anything about the GAA in the 21st century, it is completely irrelevant other than in a section relating to the early days of the GAA. The town of St Albans may have been named after a saint, but it doesn't mean that it is not welcoming to non Christians. Ardmacha (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what point you are making. The parishes still are RC parishes as the reference in the rules to parish priests and parish administrators makes clear, as well as Garnham, who says using them reinforced the organisation's Catholic identity. Mooretwin (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The GAA is also based on counties, as defined by 19th century local government acts. This says nothing in particular either. They have a set of convenient boundaries to provide a distribution of clubs, this says nothing about sectarianism or anything else. Ardmacha (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed also based on counties - I think the article already reflects this. The point being made here is that the GAA uses the parishes of the Roman Catholic church as part of its organisational basis, which is relevant to the general section about nationalism and Catholic identity. Mooretwin (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The GAA may use parishes both religious and civil Gnevin (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We only have a source to say it uses RC parishes, I'm afraid. Mooretwin (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No we've an source which it wrong and a direct quotation of the rule as the GAA outline in it's official rule book Gnevin (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source says the parishes are RC; your belief that the source is wrong is not relevant; and the GAA rules themselves refer to parish priests and parish administrators, which are roles exclusive to the Roman Catholic Church. There is no source to say that "civil" parishes (which AFAIK no longer exist) are used. Mooretwin (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a fact the source is wrong , thesource says the parish is the basic unit of the organisation this is simply untrue and we've 4 other reference which show this not to be the case . Civil_parishes_in_Ireland still exist and may have administrators. Gnevin (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Civil parishes were never formally abolished in Ireland. Furthermore, as stated above, the GAA also uses a system of county boundaries which were devised by the British. And despite reforms to local government boundaries since partition, the GAA still sticks to the original British county system. Using Mooretwin's logic, maybe we should add a paragraph claiming that the GAA therefore has a British identity because of its use of British-derived boundaries. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that the source may not be reliable and thus not fit for use Mooretwin in regards to basic unit of organisation. If it is contradicted by several other sources (if they are reliable ones) then we should go with weight of reliable sources above all else. It is a good point that the GAA makes use of the British devised county system and even the British devised provincial borders (the provinces are originally Irish yes but their boundaries as they have been for last few centuries are British devised). Unfortunately nothing else other than that one source clarifies which of the three kinds of parish that exist on this island is the one used by the GAA even though we can speculate. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is a reliable one. But the proposed text doesn't say that the RC parish is the basic unit of administration: it says that the club is the basic unit of administration, but can be based on RC parishes, which is true. So the discussion about whether or not the parish is the basic unit of administration is irrelevant. Mooretwin (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm basically content with the recent changes to the "parish rule" section - I've added in the key point, though, that it reinforces the Association's Catholic identity. Mooretwin (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, the roles of "Parish priest" and "administrator" are not exclusive to the catholic church. Your assertion that they are is WP:OR. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to believe that the parish boundaries used by the GAA are Church of Ireland boundaries, you are free so to do. We have three sources, however, including one quoting the GAA president, that say they are RC boundaries. Mooretwin (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert by Gnevin II

Gnevin removed the following text:

• During the Troubles, the GAA’s promotion of the broad republicanism and nationalism secured its support amongst the Catholic and nationalist community in Northern Ireland, but encouraged opposition within the unionist community; it also persistently failed to recruit Protestants into its ranks.

with the explanation "not in the source". Everything that the sentence says, however, is in the source. This looks like a case of WP:IDL. Text had previously been added that more faithfully replicated the words used in the source, but this was reverted by O Fenian because he said it was a breach of copyright - hence the above text paraphrases what the source says. For the record, the source says:

• In the North during the troubles the GAA has been a central focus for the Catholic and nationalist community under its cover as a sporting association. the broad republican and nationalist cause and in doing so has cemented its support amongst the Catholic and nationalist community whilst bringing about the wrath of Unionists politicians, Loyalists Paramilitaries, the RUC and the British Army. Institutionally and socially the GAA has backed the creation of a thirty-two county Ireland in direct contradiction to the wishes of Ulster’s other tradition and resolutely fails to recruit Protestants to its ranks.

Mooretwin (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I ran a search for the and couldn't find anything like what was said , we are allowed to quote text ,it's not copyvio I suggest re-adding that edit, it would also help if you used the right page numbers. Gnevin (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. Didn't realise the page numbers were wrong. O Fenian wouldn't allow quoting the text as he said it was copyright violation. Mooretwin (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You're a bit fussy about the page numbering, but I've changed it from p33 to pp33-34. Mooretwin (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is, I went to look at the source and I couldn't see what was being referenced as the numbering was wrong. Gnevin (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

He certainly is a bag full of tricks ain't he Mooretwin? O Fenian's reasoning has no grounds if the rules of Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted_material_and_fair_use are followed. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Due to a context problem, just to point out and clarify for Eammonca1 - He certainly is a bag full of tricks ain't he Mooretwin? is meant in a light-hearted way. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the "I was just kidding" defence. Given the history of editing here, asking for page numbers for the purpose of verifying sources is entirely reasonable. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Believe whatever you want, its your right. Anyways who said i was on about page numbers? I was pointing Mooretwin to the policy on quoting sources which if you read what Mooretwin said at the start was an issue for O Fenian - not just wrong page numbers. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

*snore*

(Just kidding, Honest, guv!) --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you say so. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Grounds

This section needs a bit of work. I have three problems with it:

1. There's not a citation to be seen.
2. That picture of that club in Donegal is bleak. Can we not get something better?
3. Notable grounds - who's to say what's notable? Capacity? Quality? I'd rather remove that list; arbitrary lists like that can just result in pointless arguments over what should be included. It's a bit like a 'notable players' section on a team's page. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. I doubt any changes would get reverted or be controversial. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is divided up into 12 section headings, why? GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand the question. Talk pages are always divided into different section headings if different parts of the article are being discussed. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sections seem to be part of the same discussion. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Use a sandbox

Editing and reverting shortly after is not allowed please use a sandbox Gnevin (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OK --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Undue Weight & Bloated - Nationalism, Roman catholic identity and claims of sectarianism

From WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth belief."

Looking at the word count of the various sections in this article at the minute, here are how big the sections are in relation to each other:

Order	Section title	Word count
1	Lead	165
2	History	565
3	Competitions	285
4	Modern challenges	389
5	Structure	366
6	Cultural impact	216
7	Grounds	435
8	Community outreach	360
9	Nationalism, Roman catholic identity and claims of sectarianism	1469
10	Winter training ban	88
11	Average section size	433

Criticism of the GAA's nationalist tendencies is very much a minority occupation. The idea that it is a sectarian organisation or is unduly influenced by Irish nationalism is a minority view in Ireland, is certainly a minority view in the worldwide context in which the GAA operates, and is a topic for discussion in a tiny minority of RSes that actually mention the GAA. Yet that viewpoint is grossly over-represented in the article. The section Nationalism, Roman catholic identity and claims of sectarianism is over 3 times the average size of a section on this page. It is nearly three times the size of the nearest sized section. Is it notable? Yes, but it is way out of proportion to its due weight.

Furthermore, a perfectly reasonable format that had Notable Rules in a section of their own was undone by User:Mooretwin who insisted on putting most of them into the criticism section. For example, the biggest controversy surrounding the Parish rule is the effect it has on the catchment areas of local clubs, but Mooretwin insists on moving it into the criticism section where it looks as if the biggest controversy surrounding the rule is that it hurts protestant feelings. One of the notable rules is now hanging on its own in its own section.

The POV-pushing on this article has gotten out of hand. This section is a textbook example of a failure of WP:WEIGHT. It must be cut back and its excessive detail removed. State below whether you support or oppose this change. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The section could be spun out as a new article. The section in this article could then be reduced in size to be more in keeping with its relative importance vis-a-vis the rest of the article. It is however a notable aspect of the subject. --RA (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with spinning this out as a new article. Undue weight is undue weight irrespective of whether it is in an article of its own or in a larger article. Spinning this minority POV out on its own would constitute a POV fork, and per WP:WEIGHT "POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia." --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be best to add new comments at the end of the dicussion not in the middle where most people will probably fail to see it. Whilst i could move it due to talk page guidelines on layout, i'll let you do it. Though i will quote the entire thing anyways below. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was customary to indent and add below the one you're replying to. Your copy to below should be fine though, everyone should see it now. Thanks. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just increase the undue? We don't have critism of the IRB,FIFA, IOC, AFL or NFL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin (talk • contribs)

If it's a topic then it's a topic. It can have an article. But if the weight being given to it here is imbalanced in relation to th rest of the article then that is undue weight. A new article resets the scales. A new article could also facilitate space for all perspectives on the nationalist aspect of the GAA (which undoubtedly exists, both historically and today) to be aired and discussed freely freely. The nationalist (including community) aspect of the GAA is an important part of the association. --RA (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Good post Eamonnca1 I support the thrust of your argument, appears to undue weight being added to claims of sectarianism. Mo ainm~Talk 12:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of speculation in the first paragraph after that table without any sources to back them up. Though i do agree that the section as it is now is too big and takes focus away from the fact this is an article about a sporting organisation. I agree with RA that it could be spun-out into its own article and linked to with a link to the article, and a summary of all the key points made in this article. This would help reduce the size of it and help retain focus more on the GAA as a sporting organisation. As long as its not done in a way to push a certain POV that equates whitewashing.

Though i think the title of this discussion is very misleading seeing as sectarianism doesn't form a main part of the entire thing and is only mentioned in one or two sentences. Thus i;ll change it to be more reflective.

And those sporting organisations mentioned didn't have the rules that the GAA had or attitudes the GAA is alleged to have. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Even more than just the (former) rules and (alleged) attitudes, the GAA is a unique institution in Irish life. It was also explicitly founded with a (cultural) nationalist agenda. Indeed, the full original name for the association was "Gaelic Athletic Association for the Preservation and Cultivation of national Pastimes". --RA (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Politics and the GAA? Nationalism and the GAA? Irish nationalism and the GAA? Community and the GAA? Community politics and the GAA? Political identity and the GAA? National identity and the GAA? It's a hard article to name and keep NPOV. --RA (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Its a manner of choosing the most appropriate title for the article's contents. GAA and nationalism might be the best way to describe it in a simple manner and give an accurate idea of what the article will cover, which to be honest would be its nationalist background, and as the notable rules fall into that category and the claims of sectarianism which can be a darker side of any form of nationalism would all fit in. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify for Mo ainm who may not know of this policy, i renamed this topic "Undue Weight & Bloated? - Nationalism, Roman catholic identity and claims of sectarianism". Why? To quote the policy: "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial.".

The section heading has been replaced with one that is far more appropriate seeing as sectarianism only gets one or two sentences in the entire article section. It is also now more descriptive of the content and issue of this discussion, it is also less one-sided as the whole issue raised is to do with the entire section not just one sentence. This is hardly a controversial change so it does not need prior discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As Eamonnca1 stuck a new comment in the middle of the discussion, i'm quoting it here where its more relevant for everyone to actually see it and not scan by it when scanning past the older comments around it.

"I do not agree with spinning this out as a new article. Undue weight is undue weight irrespective of whether it is in an article of its own or in a larger article. Spinning this minority POV out on its own would constitute a POV fork, and per WP:WEIGHT "POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia." --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)"

It is not a minority POV that the GAA is a nationalist organisation. Its very core is essentially nationalist and this is accepted by several editors and sources. There is also no undue weight in claims of sectarianism, as its only mentioned twice with it evenly balanced out with statements of the GAA's attempts to improve religious relations. So in regards to the rest of the section - the tiny sectarianism bit isn't UNDUE or WEIGHT.

There is nothing in the Wiki policies that says the section couldn't have its own article, and RA is right in that it would reset the scales in terms of any UNDUE and WEIGHT as the article will be about the very topic. Though we could simply cut the section in two for this article instead - one that deals with the nationalism and the notable rules that where examples of it. The other section could then focus on religion, which can cover the parish rule and the claims of sectarianism.

I commend RA for his balanced and even-handed contributions to this discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a minority POV that the GAA is a nationalist or sectarian organisation which excludes northern Protestants as is stated in the text. This is a view that is held by some of those northern Protestants who have an opinion one way or another on the association. Since northern Protestants are a minority in Ireland (and certainly an even smaller minority in the world context in which the GAA operates), those who hold this view are a minority within a minority. That's failing WP:WEIGHT right there.

Furthermore, this claim is the central point of this section and every paragraph therein is aimed at reinforcing it. To suggest that sectarianism is only mentioned twice is disingenuous; this entire section is devoted to portraying the GAA as a nationalist/sectarian organisation. Just because the actual statement itself is only explicitly made once or twice does change the fact that the rest of the section is structured to specifically support this claim.

Let's not forget that we recently had rules 21, 27 and 42 sitting alone as sections of their own. User:Mooretwin insisted on bringing them back [5] in under the umbrella of this section. Apparently moving them out into sections of their own undermined the case that he would like to make about sectarianism. So if User:mabuska is suddenly insisting that the point about sectarianism is only a minor point in this section, surely we can spin out the 'Notable rules' section as we had before and revert the section heading.

"There is nothing in the Wiki policies that says the section couldn't have its own article." Yes there is. POV forks are not allowed and RA's comment about 'resetting the scales' is actually incorrect.

And since we're now buttering up the people who agree with us, I commend Mo Ainm for his evenhanded approach to the discussion.

--Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as RA's viewpoint actually has been even-handed and balanced compared to some editors, yes i am guilty of paying compliments where due. I paid compliments to everyone (no matter their view) at United Kingdom after devising a solution to a major long term problem. However he never agreed with my viewpoint - he came in and gave his own which i agree with. Very different. So don't misrepresent other editors. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A minority view that the GAA is nationalist? We've heard it all now! Mooretwin (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As you know, a minority view that it's sectarian or excludes Protestants. Please refrain from misrepresenting other editors' comments. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You said nationalist or sectarian. Please refrain from misrepresenting yourself. (The article doesn't say the GAA is sectarian or excludes Protestants.) Mooretwin (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It just says that some people perceive it as such. Hardly worth mentioning in that case, wouldn't you say? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Still trying to whitewash the article to suit POV? Whilst i agree it needs restructured or split into different sections - i still haven't seen how exactly whats there exactly fails to meet the policies you quote Eamonnca1. You are the only one who has issue with the content even existing on Wikipedia at the moment (not in this article and not in its own). There is no UNDUE or WEIGHT in regards to claims of sectarianism which is made clear to anyone who actually reads the article - it is very short, and evenly balanaced and takes up very little of the section - how this flouts UNDUE or WEIGHT you haven't shown. The majority view which is that held by the GAA on sectarianism (its anti-sectarian views) has far more prominence and WEIGHT than the claims that it is sectarianism - on that basis alone the minority viewpoint isn't given prominence above the majority viewpoint, and it is kept in check. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Still trying to whitewash the article to suit POV?" Please WP:AGF. Do not accuse other editors of pushing POV unless they are actually doing so. Such comments could be considered WP:UNCIVIL.

i still haven't seen how exactly whats there exactly fails to meet the policies you quote Eamonnca1 - It's spelled out in black and white in my opening paragraph. Please go back up and read it again if needed.

You are the only one who has issue with the content even existing on Wikipedia at the moment - Incorrect. Mo Ainm has a problem with it. In any case, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.

There is no UNDUE or WEIGHT in regards to claims of sectarianism which is made clear to anyone who actually reads the article - Please refrain from resorting to flat out denial of what is actually on the page in black and white for everyone to see. If you wish to refute the arguments presented above, do so with a more fact-based counter-argument. "Yes it is / no it isn't" is not a sufficient argument.

it is very short, and evenly balanaced and takes up very little of the section - how this flouts UNDUE or WEIGHT you haven't shown. - Yes I have. As stated above, the entire section is structured as a criticism of the GAA because of claims of sectarianism and nationalism, and the section is ovrsized compared to the other sections, hence over-representing what is essentially a fringe viewpoint.

Thanks. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, POV forking a criticism section into an article of its own is also prohibited per WP:CRIT as well as WP:WEIGHT. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Do not accuse other editors of pushing POV unless they are actually doing so. Such comments could be considered WP:UNCIVIL. - you are pushing a POV - and on civil, did you not clearly justify that its alright to label Mooretwin as a dishonest editor because you say he is? Thats worse in anybody's book.

Where does it state that its criticising the GAA due to its nationalism? Its only pointing out its nationalist background - are you ashamed of its nationalist background? The section is oversized as too many different things have been put into it when they could be set out on their own, for example religious information.

I ask questions of how they meet the policies you quote Eamonnca1 as your explainations above are insufficient and don't show how exactly they fail the whole policy. You point out one bit of a policy whilst ignoring the rest of it. Thats misrepsentation of the policy. That is not how you argue a case.

Do you have evidence that the GAA as a nationalist organisation is "essentially a fringe viewpoint"? Otherwise its original research and sysnthesis. Even one of the editors above who objects to the section said the GAA is a nationalist organisation. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes

To actually move this discussion somewhere. I believe it is possible to cut down the length of the above section by simply seperating it into two sections. I already stated this but Eamonnca1 the initiator of the above neglected to comment upon the idea, so i'll put it here in its own section for all to see.

Eamonnca1 seems to believe the section is criticising the GAA's nationalist background as its mentioning nationalism alongside claims of sectarianism. How exactly they get this idea who knows as the prose makes it clear there is no criticising. I'll edit the article to show what i propose, and then revert it according to BRD. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact before i do, i moved some information that is basically duplicated from the above "Community outreach" section, i.e. the Knock Presbyterian Church information. I've also moved the rest of that paragraph into that section as well as it deals with community outreach rather than nationalism or claims of sectarianisms. On that basis the table up above should now be amended to the following: (not much difference but every little counts)

Order	Section title	Word count
8	Community outreach	455
9	Nationalism, Roman catholic identity and claims of sectarianism	1352

Mabuska ^(talk) 11:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The proposed changes which can be seen [6] - excluding article sub-section title words for the two new sections, don't know if the resrt include them - would leave the article being composed like so:

Order	Section title	Word count
1	Lead	165
2	History	565
3	Competitions	285
4	Modern challenges	389
5	Structure	366
6	Cultural impact	216
7	Grounds	435
8	Community outreach	455
9	Nationalism	1032
10	Religious identity	319
11	Winter training ban	88
12	Average section size	392

An improvement in the section size, though the "new" nationalism section could be further trimmed as it appears to consist of some unneeded wording. The "Religious identity" section could be placed before "Community outreach" so that it the article flows better into a section detailing the GAA's cross-community work. Any other progressive suggestions would be welcome. Though where does it explicitly state that a section can't be bigger than other sections? Many settlement articles have more history or geographic information mentioned in them than anything else. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I was actually considering a similar sort of shake-up myself. I'm thinking more along the lines of merging the "community outreach" section into this section under a more general heading of "community relations". Since Mabuska is adamant that this is not a criticism section but actually puts more emphasis on the GAA's efforts to tackle sectarianism, hopefully he will be okay with such a change. The text would read along the following lines:

"The GAA's foundation was part of a Gaelic revival that was closely aligned with resurgent Irish nationalism in the late 19th century. The early days of the association were marked by a number of rules that were hostile to British sports (sometimes referred to as 'garrison games') or British institutions. Rule 27 forbade GAA members from participating in or attending soccer or rugby matches, and Rule 21 barred members of the British security forces from GAA membership since it was suspected that the RIC was trying to infiltrate the association. Support for Rule 21 remained strong throughout the Troubles when GAA members in Northern Ireland were subject to harassment by the security forces.

While these rules have since been abolished, certain other practices remain which can cause Protestants in Northern Ireland to perceive the GAA as still having political baggage. The Irish national anthem is still played and Irish the Irish tricolour is still flown at all inter-county championship matches including those in Northern Ireland. Certain clubs, trophies and competitions are named after political and military figures who are revered for their role in the cause of Irish nationalism, including people who were members of illegal armed groups during the Troubles. This has contributed to a feeling of hostility towards the association among northern Protestants who are under-represented in the association, and GAA club houses and members became targets of loyalist paramilitaries during the Troubles."

"To address these concerns, the Ulster Council has embarked on community outreach programs in an attempt to increase the number of northern Protestants who play Gaelic games." ... (Existing community outreach text would go here).

The text above is a summary of what I have in mind, it would be a bit more detailed than that but not by much.

The Parish Rule and Rule 42 could go back into a section of its own called 'Other notable rules' along with the winter training ban. The Parish rule is mentioned in a handful of sources as reinforcing the catholic identity of the association, but as stated in other RSs, the rule is not always enforced and the effect on local clubs' catchment areas is a far bigger issue than any Protestant perception of it, if there is any.

--Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Into which section? The content i added into a new section titled "Religious identity"? If so we could remain the section "Religious identity and community relations"? I have to admit that in terms of UNDUE and WEIGHT, the title of current section fails those policies as "claims of sectarianism" is a minor viewpoint within that whole section so the title rather than the content fails UNDUE and WEIGHT. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about merging 'Community Outreach' and the section currently title 'Nationalism,Roman Catholic identity and claims of sectarianism', put them together under a more general heading 'Community relations'. It's a broad enough heading that it should avoid any WP:WEIGHT issues. Or perhaps 'Identity and community relations' would be more concise. Content such as Rule 42 and the Parish rule which is tangentially related to the identity issue could go off into a section of its own along with the winter training ban. Any aspects of those rules which touch on the identity issue could be mentioned briefly in this new 'Community relations' section. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Where you not trying to argue that the "Nationalism, Roman Catholic identity and claims of sectarianism" was too big as it already is (as well as UNDUE and WEIGHT)? Adding "Community outreach" to it will only bloat it even more. I understand why you would suggest it as the issues in both sections are inter-related as they connect the issues of political and religious persuasion which would give rise to potential for them to be merged. Though seperating the religious (sectarian or not) content from the nationalist content i admit is hard as many of the sourced statements cover both and they are interelated. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

True, it would make it bigger at first, but I think there's room for trimming it down. Spinning out the notable rules into a more detailed section of their own would save a bit of weight. There's also a fair bit of detail and direct quoting going on, I think that could be summarised more but the citations could remain without losing any of the points being made. Let me come up with a more specific proposal and I'll drop it into this talk page and we'll see how it looks. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Simplest solution - give it its own article and then problem sorted as each sub-section here in an over-bloated section will form its own section there in an article that is about it. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I just posted my suggested changes and reverted, please take a look at the previous version and see how it reads. It's down to 620 words, which I think is reasonable but could probably be trimmed a little more. It still makes the same points as before, but minus the repetition, without the sources quoted at length, and without exhaustive lists of examples of everything. I've also trimmed some detail out of the community outreach stuff. So now we have three paragraphs pointing out the political baggage and two paragraphs pointing out what the association is doing about it, plus one more that is still on the theme of community relations but unconnected to Northern Ireland politics. The notable rules are spun out into a section of their own, but those aspects of those rules that relate to unionist concerns are still touched upon in the Community Relations section. I've kept most of the citations intact (fixed a bit of formatting while I was at it) and removed duplicates. So a separate article is no longer necessary. I think this is a fair proposal that doesn't whitewash anything but doesn't assign too much weight to criticism either and is hence much more in keeping with WP:WEIGHT. Thoughts? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I will say Eamonnca1 that this is a more progressive and productive way of argueing a case. Though nothing is ever perfect first draft, and there are a few problems with it though:

"For example the Protestant Jack Boothman was president of the organisation from 1993 to 1997, while the Sam Maguire Cup is named after a Church of Ireland member. The flag of the Republic of Ireland is flown and Amhrán na bhFiann, the national anthem of the Republic, is played at matches all over Ireland, not just in the Republic. Some GAA grounds, clubs and competitions are named after significant nationalist personalities. "

The Sam Maguire bit overlooks the fact he was a republican (member of IRB no-less), which is what alienates Protestants/Unionists from it more than the denomination that Sam Maguire was. The United Irishmen where predominatly Protestant but Protestants/Unionists today feel alienated by anything to do with them. The flag of the RoI bit excludes the fact it is Rule 15 that states it should it played even outside of the RoI - it reads as if its c lub's personal preference. The "significant nationalist personalities" complete overlooks "significant republican (terrorist even) personalities" such as Kevin Lynch etc.

Overall not a bad proposal, not a whitewash, but it does have some amount of downplaying in it. Community relations and nationalism could still be seperated as they don't have to go hand in hand with each other in one section. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking that about the Sam Maguire business too, on the one hand he was a CoI man but he was also an IRB man, and that is worth mentioning here. The reason I took out the reference to Rule 15 was that I looked at the Official Guide and couldn't find a Rule 15, but there is a Rule 1.8 that says "1.8 National Flag and Anthem (a) The National Flag should be flown at games in accordance with protocol. (b) Where the National Anthem precedes a game, teams shall stand to attention, facing the Flag, in a respectful manner." This is different from what was stated in the article before, that the flag had to be displayed at all games. It doesn't appear to be true. But the alienation factor of the anthem and flag is still worth mentioning, so I left that in. "Significant nationalist personalities" could be amended to include people involved in more recent political violence. I do think that community relations belongs in this section since they are related - northern Protestants feel alienated for xyz reasons, here is what the association is doing about it. I feel that the community outreach stuff could be trimmed back a bit more. Maybe we could have two subsections in here, one for the relationship with northern Protestants, and another for outreach. Then a third subsection for the outreach to the elderly program. I'll go ahead and make a second draft, then drop that into the article and we can hopefully take it from there. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sub-sections could work, i'll await the sandbox demo. We should use a sandbox as Gnevin suggests, however where is all the other editors who have been involved? Especially as we are at a more productive stage in the arguement i find their silence defeaning. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they're off wiki editing for lent?

Sandbox proposal here.

--Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, my son has been ill and my wife's grandmother has died. Mooretwin (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, man. Take your time. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've added my proposed changes to the article since I get the impression we're close to a consensus on this edit. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No consensus as there are still issues with the downplaying in it/ SOrry i couldn't be around the last few days, was away for my birthday so was kinda busy. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What's being downplayed? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The nationalist aspect of the GAA, especially with the branching out of the "notable rules" section, when those rules are nationalist in origin. Though i've more issue with the sectioning or sub-sectioning. Especially when community outreach and nationalism can and probably should be both in their own sections (not as sub-sections of a greater section). Mabuska ^(talk) 20:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The nationalist aspect is covered pretty clearly in the first paragraph, and the other rules are referred to in terms of: "Other critics point out that the "Parish rule" can appear to align the GAA with the Roman Catholic church and others point to protectionist rules such as Rule 42 which prohibits competing, chiefly British, sports (referred to by some as "garrison games"[22][23][24] or foreign sports) from GAA grounds." The nationalist aspect of those rules is a relatively small point of discussion about them in RSs, most RSs refer to other aspects of the rules that have nothing to do with nationalism. And some of those rules which are completely spun out with no mention above in the nationalism section are defunct rules anyway. Remember WP:RECENTISM. We're trying to ensure a balanced article that assigns due weight to all points of view. The nationalist aspect of the GAA may be foremost in your mind and in the minds of northern unionists, but the balance of views in RSs is what counts per WP:WEIGHT -- the fact is that the GAA has a nationalist ethos is the subject of a minority of less prominent RSs. It is mentioned in my proposal in proportion to its importance. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again with the policies misinterpreted to back up personal opinion. Yes we should make sure the article is balanced, however you still can't go against sources. We are not stating it is a nationalist organisation because it is in the minds of unionists - but because it is a nationalist organisation regardless of them. Even one of its key founders, Michael Cusack, stated that he wished to "nationalise and democratise sport in Ireland" [7]. Even back in the late 1800's clubs where named after nationalists, and was under the sway of the IRB for a period. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Give me a day or two and i'll draw up another proposal. Though in all reality i think we just need to remove a couple of sub-sections and make them proper sections. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Mabuska, do you think that the article doesn't cover that the GAA were a nationalist organisation? Mo ainm~Talk 14:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he missed this part of my proposal:

The speed of the association's early growth was attributed to its role as part of the larger Gaelic cultural revival which was closely associated with Irish nationalism.[1][2][3][4][5] After Ireland was partitioned, the GAA’s nationalist ethos secured support amongst the Catholic and nationalist community in Northern Ireland, but also opposition within the unionist community which led to Protestants being under-represented in Gaelic games in Ulster. Since then, while the GAA's tendency towards overt nationalism has waned, [6] some practices still remain in place which raise concerns in Northern Ireland [7] where the Protestant unionist population still largely considers itself excluded from the games by a political ethos[8][9][10] despite rules that prohibit sectarianism or involvement in party politics.[11]

I don't know what more Mabuska wants. Perhaps he'd like a big flashing banner at the top of the page saying that the GAA is nationalist. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What i want is a little less downplaying, but to be honest i think its not entirely Eamonnca1's fault as the article clearly doesn't make mention of some things that helped define the GAA to be seen and regarded as a nationalist organisation other than some rules and post-partition. Eamonnca1's proposal is good and a start as i already stated, though i think a couple of new paragraphs being added to it and slight cutting in half of one section would solve the issue for me. See here. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't agree that my proposal was downplaying anything, but we'll let that go for now. Mabuska's edit is good, my only problem is that it spends a lot of time on material that probably better belongs in the history section. I'd say move the details (IRB infiltration etc.) to the history section and then only touch on them briefly in this section. I'm not trying to downplay anything, I just want the article as a whole to read properly and not sound disjointed. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh i've already cut down the IRB section, it used to be far far longer in my original draft. But the way it was did suit a history section, though the very trimmed down section in the proposal conveys the point and fact that the association was taken over by the IRB, and that political rivalry between the two strands of nationalism led to the political naming of many clubs. I think the source states its also this internal division that resulted in the rule of no party politics in the GAA - not because of unionism. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That "the proposal conveys the point and fact that the association was taken over by the IRB..." is open to challenge by a number of sources, and should be addressed IMHO. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I was summising, the proposal doesn't actually make it sound like they tookm over the entire association, just that for a year they dominated the central executive. If Eamonnca1 can provide a slimmer version of this bit that still gets out the general point then i'm happy enough. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on this. My guts are still protesting about something I ate! --Eamonnca1 (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate or misinterpreted citations

This source here is being used to reference most of this article section. However, the source in no way reflects the text in the section.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably because someone changed the source that was used, because that is not the source i used for some of those statements. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually i think it may have been my fault. Attributed the name parameter to the wrong source when i first declared the source, i.e. at the bit about saving from extinction. Put it onto the link beside it. Ameding now. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Having sorted out the problem with the source referenced, the following issues need to be addressed:

1. The GAA's nationalist aspect was further enhanced upon its creation with the appointment of Charles Stewart Parnell, leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, and Michael Davitt, head of the Land League, to become patrons of the association.
2. In its early years the association was infiltrated by the Irish Republican Brotherhood, whose members rose to prominent positions such as president and chairman, with them eventually gaining control of the associations central executive in 1887.
3. Divisions between constitutional and revolutionary nationalism came to the fore in the association and the politicisation of the GAA was reflected in the naming of clubs indicating support for either the Irish Parliamentary Party or the Fenians, for example: the Parnells, the Davitts, the Ballina Stephenites, and the Kickhams.
4. However, IRB dominance within the GAA central executive came to an end on 4 January 1888, when they were outnumbered and ousted from the organisation, and saw them going underground.

1. Were in the source does it say that The GAA's nationalist aspect was further enhanced?
2. Should this not be reworded to reflect the fact that the IRB were in fact present at the founding of the GAA, and from the very beginning were present on the ruling council.
3. Were in the source are these two sentences linked: Divisions between constitutional and revoluntionary nationalism came to the fore in the association and the politicisation of the GAA was reflected in the naming of clubs indicating support for either the Irish Parliamentary Party or the Fenians?
4. This section is challenged by both de Búrca, 42-43 and Mandle, 72. The IRB were still present on the council in 1888, and were in complete control in 1889.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

On point 1, I could re-word it and give it a citation that would support the text if that is ok?--Domer48_'fenian' 20:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you asking if its okay? This is Wikipedia, if you can help improve it then please do so. I do however think the "not in citation given" tags aren't needed and are false as the information is in the source even if not worded the exact same, and we do need to paraphrase from the sources as we just can't copy-vio the thing. If you can improve then please do so. On the IRB bit, i tried to keep it as simple as possible - Eamonnca1 thinks its too long as it is somehow. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I only have a limited interest in editing, and would rather offer support on the article than getting into long winded discussions. The tags are there for a reason, to prompt discussion. The information I've tagged is not supported by the source. However, if you want to put direct quotes from the source here, and explain how they support the text, please do so. Even allowing for paraphrasing the text is in my opinion synthesisof the source material. This is the issue with points 1 and 3 above. If the information is plain wrong, as in point 4, it should be removed, and as in the case of point 2 were it lacks basic information it should be addressed. How much weight we give to a source which gives a very basic overview, compared to two detailed histories should not in my opinion need much discussion.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I no longer care. Do whatever you want. Synthesis or not, the stuff is in there paraphrased or whatever you want to call it. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)