Talk:Gaelic Athletic Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaelic Athletic Association article.
Article policies
Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the priority scale.
align="center" This article is part of WikiProject Gaelic games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Gaelic games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Peer review Gaelic Athletic Association has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Gaelic Athletic Association was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: February 8, 2008

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

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

Contents

[edit] Gaa In Dublin

I Know Dublin is largest population cantre but considering Kerry have won more football championships and been in more finals then any other county would surely merit a section regarding GAA in that county. Also Kilkenny and Cork have a similar history in hurling which should warrant a mention.

Stick in a section then --Me or a Robin 14:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crest?

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

It is like having links to an artists other albums on a page of any given album by said artist as well as on the artists homepage. Tunney 00:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really, these are completely seperate sporting bodies not music artists.--Play Brian Moore 00:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Because people may well want to find out about other sports organisations in Ireland. Such templates are used to pull together themes, whether sports, religions, politics, etc. The items in the list are joined by two criteria: topic and location. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So shall I add this template to the NI soccer page then?--Play Brian Moore 01:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] Bloodly Sunday

Points of discussion

  • Over use of the word black?
  • Importance? Second section in before aims of the gaa needs to be moved
  • History ? Should be merged into a history section ?

(Gnevin 18:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC))

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

[edit] Planned Major Change

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

  • Major GAA grounds: Removed ,short line about Category:Gaelic Sport Grounds added
  • Presidents of the GAA: removed and spun off into new Presidents of the GAA
  • The GAA across Ireland and the World: Removed and new GAA oversea created to cater for
  1. The GAA in Britain
  2. The GAA in Europe
  3. The GAA outside Europe
  • Possible new Category:Admistrative units of the GAAto cater for the gaa counties and provinces in ireland
  • Important dates of the GAA : Remeoved , History of the GAA created
  • GAA League templated removed

(Gnevin 18:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC))

Its not so much that it's long it more that it's disorganized and needs to be reworked. The size of the article comes from it being overpouplated by lists. Here are my thoughts:
  • Make a new section called History and move Foundation of the GAA, The GAA in the twentieth century, The GAA today, Important dates of the GAA (delisted), and parts of The achievements of the GAA into it.
  • Aims of the GAA, incorperate into the intro, as it is basiclay their already.
  • GAA internationals, keep and expand, possibly as part of a new section for the GAA abrod.
  • The GAA across Ireland and the World, split into an expanded structure section, for the structure of thr leagues and the all=irelands in ireland, and the GAA abrod.
  • Presidents of the GAA, spin out into a new expanded article, with the list and explaning what the position is an entales.
  • Major GAA grounds, drop

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

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

[edit] Neglect of the parish basis of the GAA

I adjusted the opening paragraph which stated that the GAA is largely based on the county structure. I added the parish level, which is the original level. Just in case my adjustment is controversial the parish level was the original unit upon which the GAA built, even though the GAA Clubs championship didn't begin until 1971. Many historians have pointed out that the factionalism which was rife between parishes in nineteenth century rural Ireland was channeled by the GAA into sporting rivalry at the local level. The first All-Ireland in 1888 was in reality between clubs, not between entire county teams. In Hurling, the winning club in Galway (Meelick) faced the winning club in Tipperary (Thurles) on April 1 1888 in Birr. In football, the winning club from Limerick (Commericals) played the winning club from Louth (Dundalk Young Irelands) on April 29 1888 in "the Big Bank" field in Clonskeagh, Dublin. These two matches played in April 1888 were, officially, the 1887 All Irelands just in case you get asked in a quiz. Today the county level naturally has higher attendance figures but the parish remains the pulse of the GAA in every county so I think it's important to mention that at the start. El Gringo 21:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just taken a fresh look at this opening paragraph. It's a bit heavy on detail, I'm not sure if the intro is the best place to get into specifics about the structure. That can all go into the 'structure' section and the structure page. In fact, I think it already is covered, but I think the comments above could all be added into the appropriate places. I recommend we take out the parish business and replace it with a more general intro explaining what the games are in general terms. --Eamonnca1 01:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
The last peer review of this page suggested a page of this length should have 3/4 paragraph intro while i . The current intro about is a little heavy of details but we all need more in the intro (Gnevin 00:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Tactics

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

[edit] Map of Ireland

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

Gaelic Football is way more popular than soccer in Northern Ireland. Many GAA club games attract bigger crowds than the semi-professional Irish League soccer games. Just because an area has a unionist majority doesn't automatically mean that soccer will be widely supported. The map indicates sporting preferences, not political allegiances. --Eamonnca1 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Higher attendences don't necessarily indicate a more popular sport, the Northern Irish league isn't exactly the Premier League or even the Scots Premier League. There are plenty of Rangers / Celtic / Man Utd etc fans in NI that actually travel to Britain to watch the games. If you are gong to talk about which sport is more popular than another, then you need to consider participation numbers, media interest etc. But this is a side issue, the map legend is updated and there's no need to argue about whether soccer is more popular than GAA sports in Antrim.GordyB 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the map accordingly. Theirs more than two games/sports in Ireland. Djegan 19:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually you updated the legend, not the map. Just pointing out cos that confused me ;) jnestorius(talk) 01:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

It's not about all-Irelands won; otherwise Fermanagh is a "dual county" with 0 of each. Also, Dublin's last hurling all-Ireland was 1940. In any case, this really should be discussed at Dual County rather than here. I do think "both sports are equally popular" is too specific a claim; I've replaced it with "both sports have considerable support" (which might be a bit too vague...). jnestorius(talk) 01:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
"Considerable support" is a far better term than what was previously used. I would imagine that following this years championship, Westmeath should be inline for dual status county as well. Westmeath had a large attendance at Hurling matches this year compared to football matches. Niall123 13:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem seems to be to be that this treats counties as if they are uniform. There is very little Hurling played in West Cork, and very little Gaelic Football in East Clare: unless the map is to subdivide counties, there is little option but to describe the counties as dual interest, although that may not tally with the experience in specific localities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foundation of the GAA

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

[edit] Sectarianism

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

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

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

As a general point if a section is marked as been substandard or requiring citation and this is not forthcoming within reasonable time then agree, remove it. Wikipedia: be bold. Djegan 18:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Still no sign of a citation. I've pulled the plug on that. --Eamonnca1 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I've deleted the following:

"This event has called into question the practice of Government funding for GAA grounds being renovated.[1]"

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

[edit] Aidan Lavelle

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

[edit] Please cite and readd

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

[edit] Grounds

1 - "high quality" is POV. 2 - Information on naming grounds after terrorists has been removed, even though the ditor knows the info to be true. I find this bizarre. Traditional unionist 00:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

High quality is not pov as the GAA ground are some of the best in ireland as for the Information on naming grounds after terrorists has been removed, even though the ditor knows the info to be true should be covered in thAccusation of exclusivity section and a proper reference should be supplied (Gnevin 02:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC))

Saying they are the best in Ireland is a value judgement, therefore POV. Unfortunatly the newspaper references have been removed, presumably as the publication is, sadly, no longer with us. The thread on Slugger O'Toole seems to be to be a valid reference though, if for no other reason than the accuracy of the claim in the post are not challanged in the comments, which are extensive.Traditional unionist 02:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No one said they where the best just high quality which they are .As for the theard on Slugger O'Tooles what does that prove? (Gnevin 01:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC))
Blog postings are not valid references on Wikipedia. [1] --Eamonnca1 03:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could quantify high quality and provide definative proof that GAA stadia are of high quality. Most GAA stadia I have come across are certainly not high quality, but that is subjective and I wont be putting that in a wikipedia article.Traditional unionist 18:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd question the number of GAA stadia you've come across but since i can't cite high quality ,wiki favours you so you can remove it (Gnevin 18:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Achievements

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

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

What's that got to do with the price of fish? American football bears little resemblance to the rugby from which it evolved. I'm sure soccer's very different from the medeival pastimes that spawned it. Sounds like someone came into this page trying to pour cold water on the achievements. If I don't hear an opposing argument to deleting this within a day or two I'm going to delete that. --Eamonnca1 07:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

i'd like to keep the caid link how about something like
like many sports hurling and football have evolved from less organised roots. Football evolved from the many caid games played around the country
(Gnevin 12:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC))
It's good info but it belongs in the history section. --Eamonnca1 15:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Challenges facing the GAA

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

[edit] Gaelic games

I suggest making a page called Gaelic games and removing the redirect as the gaa and Gaelic games are not one and the same (Gnevin 14:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC))

Good call. --Eamonnca1 01:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Done (Gnevin 19:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
Are you sure? I'm still getting the redirect... --Eamonnca1 19:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, uppercase G in Games. I've changed the redirect from Gaelic games.

[edit] Criticism

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

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

--Eamonnca1 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok that fine i'll accept the gaa decided to focus on the four Gaelic games (Gnevin 12:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
  • Handball has gone in to steady decline in recent years
Has it? --Eamonnca1 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes the number of players has declined greatly (Gnevin 12:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
Has the GAA been criticised because of this in a notable way? If it's just you criticisin then it's original research. --Eamonnca1 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[2] ,[3] , [4] (Gnevin 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
I see no criticism of the GAA in any of these articles. --Eamonnca1 19:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Find the word decline (use crtl f in firefox) (Gnevin 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
I saw it. I saw no criticism of the GAA. A comment about the decline of handball is not a criticism of the GAA. --Eamonnca1 19:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave it up too you but the decline of handball is a criticism but i just cant find any references(Gnevin 23:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC))
  • Rounders is barely played and from the rounders site 2008 Rounders season is set to be a memorable year in the GAA Calender. All Rounders Units are expected to contribute in several ways to the celebratuion of the Golden Jubilee year, fifty years on from the first officially recorded GAA Rounders match in recent decades. Ideas for commorative events ' 1958 seems very late for the 1st recorded match in decades (Gnevin 02:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
I wouldn't add criticism for criticism's sake. I think the article covers it pretty comprehensively as is. --Eamonnca1 04:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think its a major criticism of an organisation that is founded to promote a game that it goes decades with out organising an official game (Gnevin 12:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
Maybe so but unless you can find any notable criticism elsewhere then it has to count as original research and wouldn't be appropriate here. --Eamonnca1 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[5] (Gnevin 01:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC))
All I'm seeing there is a link to the Rounders website - no criticism. --Eamonnca1 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave it up too you but the decline of rounders is a criticism but i just cant find any references(Gnevin 23:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Rule 42

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

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

Relationships With non-Gaelic games & Rule 42 . would be better imo(Gnevin 22:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] 20th century/Challenges merge

To simplify the layout more, I think the sections 'The GAA in the 20th Century' and 'Modern Challenges' should be merged into a single section titled 'Changing Times' or something. --Eamonnca1 01:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing times would defiantly not be a encyclopaedic title and i think the separate sections are fine . With the 20th century section pointing out important events and should be expanded (Gnevin 02:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Image:Countieshf.GIF

This is a quite nice graphic, which superficially appears correct, I am however concerned about it's tracability, does anyone know where the figures came from which lead to defining the counties ad F/H/D? The Fashion Icon 07:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It was based on counties which compete at league 1 in both hurling and football, dublin are the only team in div 1 in hurling and football not included but football is far stronger in Dublin, for more info ask User_talk:EamonnPKeane (Gnevin 18:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC))
Thanks, that is kinda what I thought, although success and popularity don't always coincide, I'll drop a note on the user talk page and see if that's what it is The Fashion Icon 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Criticisms" section

At present, this section looks as though it presents the criticisms, and counterarguments, of editors here. An encyclopaedic article os not the place to conduct a debate. If there are reliable and trustworthy journals (those that are non partisan would be strongly preferable) that could be cited, there is grounds to include it, but editors presenting their own criticisms and rebuttals is at best OR, and may verge on POV. Kevin McE 17:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'Criticism' section is getting out of hand IMO. Some people are coming in and doing a hatchet job on the old Gah with GAA enthusiasts presenting the counter-arguments. It has grown to the point where the counter arguments take up more space and the title should be changed to 'Responses to criticism.'
Personally, I think the Rule 21 section needs to go, Gnevin disagrees. Where do we go from here? Take a vote on it? I'm proposing that the Rule 21 section be removed, all in favour or against please post your vote below with the reason. --Eamonnca1 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Support Rule 21 is long gone. Criticising the GAA for past transgressions sets a precedent where every single organisation on wiki is in line for a lambasting because of any skeletons it might have in the cupboard. What's it going to be next? Adding a critique to the US Government page because of slavery? --Eamonnca1 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Support removal for treatment elsewhere Rule 21 was a significant issue in the culture and assimilation of the games, and that it existed, and has now been rescinded, should be treated of in the history section (the same would surely be true of Eamonn's example of slavery in the USA): its presentation as a criticism is not encyclopaedic, and invites POV edits. I would suggest that something similar could be said of each of the sections under "Criticisms". Kevin McE 17:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've no problem moving it should be once it's included,criticism seems the most logical section, US slavery has an article,rule 21 doesn't and doesn't need one , removing Rule 21 all together is some what of attempt to whitewash history Gnevin 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gaelic Athletic Association.png

This image has been nominated for deletion (not by me). Its been widely used inappropriately on user pages, and non-core articles. Djegan 23:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up ,i've added a fair use claim Gnevin 01:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

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

[edit] Failed GA

I have failed this article for GA status.

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

(bananabucket) 08:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

Isn't the mentioning of the naming of competitions, grounds and clubs after Irish national heroes as a criticism a bit ridiculous? I'm sure you'll find the exact same thing in pretty much every single country in the world, England included, so why is it considered controversial here? I want to remove this but I'll seek consensus first, because I know you wikipedians can be cunts about such things. Antic-Hay (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a valid criticism in the sense that Unionist feel its a problemGnevin (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That unionists have a problem with something doesn't make it a 'valid criticism.' Remember they once had a problem with catholics having jobs, (and many still do) but I don't think anyone would consider that a valid concern. I mean, on a page about Martin Luther King, do we include a criticism of him because some people had a problem with him being black? You'll find bigots in all walks of life but that doesn't mean that their retarded views should be considered encyclopedic. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Valid in that it can be cited, we cant ignore this Gnevin (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
THis is a valid criticism - there are Protestant people who are uncomfortable playing for their local clubs who are named after IRA volunteers, and thus don't play when otherwise they may have - when I get time I'll try to seek out a source for this.--Macca7174talk 11:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I seem to recall Edwin Poots saying something about the naming a while back Gnevin (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Achievements section

Where is the discussion about deleting the achievements section from this page? A lot of the information in there was factual content with sources cited. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Dubious

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

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

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

[edit] The GAA and TD's/Poltics

Is it worth mentioning the GAA tie's with people like Bertie [6], Jack Lynch and others ?

I don't think so, unless you want to couch it in terms of the association's prominence in Irish life. Do other articles about sports bodies do anything similar? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah was going for in terms of prominence in Irish life, are any other sporting bodies truly similar to the GAA?Gnevin (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)