Talk:Gaelic Athletic Association

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 [1] 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 [2] - 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" [3]. 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)

Original research in "Foundation and aims" section

James Bracken was not a founder of the GAA. It was Joseph Kevin Bracken, the father of Brendan Bracken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.145.246 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is full of original research and needs to be removed or cite correctly the source used. Below is the paragraph in question, and the source.

The GAA had its genesis with Michael Cusack of County Clare. At the Civil Service Academy in Dublin, he established one of the first hurling clubs. Cusack, a native Irish speaker, was troubled by declining participation in traditional Irish sports. To remedy this situation and to re-establish hurling as the national pastime, Cusack met with several other enthusiasts with similar concerns, most notably Maurice Davin. Source used

1. . No mention of the GAA having its genesis with Cusack in the source cited.
2. . No mention of the club established in the Civil Service Academy being one of the "first" hurling clubs.
3. . No mention of Cusack being "troubled by declining participation in traditional Irish sports."
4. . No mention of Cusack attempting to "remedy this situation" or the "similar concerns" of others and no mention of the concerns "most notably" of Maurice Davin.

--Domer48_'fenian' 21:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading this stuff elsewhere. I'll find a better source, lemme look ... --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Eamonnca1, I'd like to offer some conflicting information to the paragraph above, but to do so it would help to have this information correctly cited, or removed. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

What have you got? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources which show that the IRB initiated the establishment of the GAA, as opposed to the infiltration of it. So if you could cite a source, or correctly cite the source used it would be a great help. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Are they WP:RS sources? I had some wingnut call me up a few years ago giving out about the GAA's change of logo and the removal of the harp. He was on about how the IRB was responsible for everything and wanted to take credit on their behalf for everything from the invention of science and mathematics to the establishment of the GAA. He was a complete wacko. He's the only person I've ever heard express the view that it was the IRB's idea, all reliable sources I've ever read point to Michael Cusack, Maurice Davin et al as the initial founders and the IRB infiltration happened later.

Sources:

[4]

[5]

[6]

I'll go ahead and add those sources.

--Eamonnca1 (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that Eamonncal1, I'll put the sources together which challenges this text, and yes that are all RS sources. I hope you won't consider me a wacko, if I present sources which support the view of the wingnut re: the role of the IRB.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"The first public meeting in Miss Hayes' billiard room marked the end of many years' secret planning and preparation. The success of their project was as good as assured before ever those seven men met, for the Irish Republican Brotherhood, who had willed the G.A.A. into existence,..." "...on a spring morning in 1879, we find Mr. Michael Cusack closeted with Mr. P. W. Nally from Balla, Co. Mayo, a gentleman strongly in favour of founding a national organisation and anxious to enlist Mr. Cusack's aid in launching such a project...The meeting was a success." "At a meeting of the Supreme Council, held in 1883, it was definitely decided to initiate an athletic movement which would attract the young manhood of Ireland. Later in the same year, a group, consisting of P. N. Fitzgerald, Pat Hoctor of Birr, John Menton and Jim Boland (father of the present Minister for Justice) of Dublin, met at a house in Blackrock as a sub-committee appointed to expedite the Supreme Council's decision." Patrick Purcell, The Secret Origin of the G.A.A., The Bell, June, 1946, Vol. XII No.3, pp. 217-29. See also, Owen McGee, The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from the Land League to Sinn Féin, Four Courts Press (2005), ISBN 978 1 84682 064 9, pp. 112-113, David Fitzpatrick, Harry Boland's Irish Revolution, Cork University Press (2003), ISBN 1 85918 386 7, pg. 19, and for a critical view see, Paul Rouse's, Gunfire in Hayes's Hotel: The IRB and the Founding of the GAA, in Fearghal McGarry & James McConnell, The Black Hand of Republicanism: Fenianism in Modern Ireland, Irish Academic Press (2009), ISBN 978 0 7165 3000 8, pp.72-85.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. However these accounts are contradicted by the Claire Courier source among others, and the 'GAA as an IRB conspiracy' theory is very much a WP:FRINGE view in my experience. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

One could say that these academic sources contradict the Claire Courier, and that the suggestion that the IRB were not involved in the establishment of the GAA is a WP:FRINGE view. Anyhow, this information is based on RS sources and needs to be included. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Theres evidence that in its first few years that it was infiltrated by the IRB and at one stage they held control of its Central Executive, but i haven't seen much stating that they were involved in its actual establishment. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Now we have four academic sources which say they did. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be made clear in the article that there is conflicting evidence on their role in its foundation. [7] is also a reliable academic source by a PhD in Irish History so shouldn't be so easily batted away. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

All views based on RS sources should be included, that goes without saying. As to your source cited, dose it actually conflict with the view that the IRB were involved? That the information is omitted from a source, dose not in itself lead to the conclusion that it is not correct.--Domer48_'fenian' 12:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't conflict that they were involved, but it does conflict with the statement that they helped establish the organisation. That source doesn't state that they did help establish it - but that they infiltrated it - you can't infiltrate something that hasn't been established yet. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing the conflict, it mentions that they "began to infiltrate the association" that does not constitute a conflict. For example the source does not mention that the IRB were already on the Executive, that they were present when it was founded, that the supreme council discussed its establishment in 1883 etc etc. That this information is not in the source cited, dose not mean that it is not correct. I could cite a vast amount on information from a number of books, that is not in the source you cited, so please find a source that conflicts with the sources I have cited.--Domer48_'fenian' 11:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm only pointing out that one academic source didn't expliticly mention that the IRB founded the GAA. DO whatever you want with it, no real big tickle to me. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea that the GAA was set up at the behest of IRB is revisionist nonsense and poor scholarship which is contradicted by that Clare Courier source as well as any other source which refers to the GAA being infiltrated by the IRB after it was established. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Clare Courier has been contradicted by four academic sources who are not noted for poor scholarship. Now if you could provide "other source which refers to the GAA being infiltrated by the IRB after it was established" we can then present the conflicting information in a more informed and balanced manner. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added text which is well referenced using reliable sources and satisfy our criteria Re:the Burden of evidence. Sources which challenge of dispute this text must follow the same criteria. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and referenced the two remaining sections, adding additional details. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

Broadly content with most of the rework by Eamonn and Mabuska, although I have made some edits to improve it and restore some notable information that has been lost. The main concern, however, was the loss of the logic that linked the "notable rules" with the GAA's nationalism, so I have restructured to the status quo ante. For ease of reference, these are the sources that say the rules in question were motivated by nationalism:

• "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)
• "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) 15:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The rewrite as far as i was aware stated that some rules aided the alienation or exclusion of Protestants/unionists. We don't have to go into exact detail on the rules in that section when we can detail them in their own section. We could state which rules aided it in the section and leave the full detailing of them in their own section? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, although what's wrong with the status quo ante? Mooretwin (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Aesthetically its terrible. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Better now? Mooretwin (talk) 22:15, 19 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)

Minor championships and leagues

It seems strange, when the All-Ireland Minor Finals are held every year on All-Ireland Final day, watched by tens of thousands and televised live, that the Minor championsips don't get a single mention in this article, or in the the List of Gaelic Athletic Association Competitions either. Especially considering that All-Ireland Minor championships, provincial Minor championships and some county Minor championships have their own articles, and that Minor championships feature on the GAA in Ireland template. I don't have the knowledge to add the content (that's why I looked it up here), but I do think it's a gap that ought to be filled. Scolaire (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Stranger still, searching for "league" finds two references to the Australian Football League and one each to the League of Ireland and the Land League, and not a single mention of the National Football League or National Hurling League! Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't it be good if an article about a sporting association told the reader about the important competitions that the association runs? Scolaire (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Modern Challenges again

This section could use a bit of an update. The article says that the association outside of Ireland has been affected by a decline in emigration from Ireland, and this was true during the Celtic Tiger years, but it has reverted back to the old pattern since the financial crisis. This is worth updating as long as it's sourced and kept in the historical context of the association's history of expanding and contracting along with trends in Irish emigration. --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 18:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This section seems to suffer from WP:RECENTISM. Quoting an article which appear to be written based on anecdotal selected quotes from members of clubs scattered throughout the USA is really no basis for making any point in this article - none of these are delivering quoted in an official capacity for the GAA organization. Likewise, the Tyrone chairman is delivering his opinion, not the official view of the organization. In my opinion, this section should be scrapped unless there are references dealing directly with the issue of "Modern Challenges" rather than editors selecting quotes to make a point. --HighKing (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the section is about modern challenges and is called "Modern challenges" so it's probably inevitable that it's going to be talking about more recent events. If anything it should go into the history section where it'll appear in its historic context. As for the reliability of the articles, do they violate WP:RS? --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 21:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

For me, the assertions made in the article are unsupported by the references provided. Both articles report an opinion, nothing more. What to others think? --HighKing (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with HighKing. Although there are ten or so inline citations in the section, virtually all of them relate to specific facts or quotations. The topic itself - "modern challenges" - is almost entirely original research and/or commentary. The whole thing could safely be deleted, with important and verifiable facts being moved to more appropriate sections, such as History. Scolaire (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well as long as sourced material is retained somewhere else then I don't have a problem with deleting the section --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 20:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Lynch and alienation

In the section entitled "Protestant and unionist alienation in Northern Ireland", it used to specify that Kevin Lynch (in honour of whom a GAA club is named) was a convicted member of the INLA who died on hunger strike. This information was removed. I restored it twice but it has been removed again twice with the curious explanation "inconsistent". Surely it is important to note Lynch's involvement in nationalist terrorism, as this is the reason why his honouring by the GAA is alienating to unionists and Protestants? Mooretwin (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The labelling is inconsistent with the rest of the sentence. Mo ainm~Talk 11:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So what? Kevin Lynch is a different class of nationalist to the others, and all the more alienating for it. Mooretwin (talk) 12:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Says who? Mo ainm~Talk 17:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Unionists. Mooretwin (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

seems common sense to include this. No point hiding facts.Wp aide (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth noting in the section on naming clubs that Wolfe Tone, Maguire and Mitchel were Protestant and Presbyterian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.152.2 (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Steven Moore

Either this complaint is a serious matter, in which case the other opinions of the man are entirely irrelevant to the article, or it is trivial, in which case it needs not appear in the article at all.

I can understand entirely why people would like to paint the guy in a poor light, but under neither of the above circumstances should we try to direct the reader to make conclusions about Moore's political credibility. The requirement on Wikipedia to maintain a neutral POV applies not only to the main subject of an article, but also to "other encyclopedic content...This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

I would favour the removal of the note of the letter of complaint. If the complaint is upheld by the Equality Commission it will probably be worth recording. Kevin McE (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The complaint is indeed a serious matter. The GAA, which has a public commitment to promoting equality and respect, has been publicly accused by the chief Northern Ireland spokesman of a political party of breaching the Fair Employment and Treatment Order, the key piece of anti-discrimination legislation in that part of Ireland. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is under a statutory obligation to consider this complaint. It is important to record the fact of the complaint, and important also to put it in context by providing sourced reference to the past utterances of the spokesman on matters related to equality. If and when the ECNI takes a position on the complaint that should also be recorded. Brocach (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If that is the consensus, then it is not for Wikipedia to undermine said "chief Northern Ireland spokesman of a political party" by a blatantly selective approach to quoting his comments on other issues, no matter how repugnant we might find them. No neutral reader could consider the current text to be an even handed treatment of Moore. However, I wonder what proportion of complaints to the Equality Commission get mentioned in the relevant wiki article at the stage when it is only a complaint. The EC will indeed consider it, but if they do not consider it worthy of action, why should we consider it worthy of mention? Kevin McE (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for all of the mini Steven Moore Bio in the GAA pages. Move all of this to the Steven Moore page. Should probably just delete and remove the complaint from Steven Moore unless it is upheld then can add again to GAA pages. Otherwise this ramble is not noteworthy at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.32.31.1 (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gaelic Athletic Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713060212/http://www.irishnews.com/appnews/597/5776/2008/11/11/602592_363117117465UlsterCou.html to http://www.irishnews.com/appnews/597/5776/2008/11/11/602592_363117117465UlsterCou.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110713060205/http://www.irishnews.com/searchlog.asp?reason=denied_empty&script_name=/pageacc.asp&path_info=/pageacc.asp&tser1=ser&sid=600703 to http://www.irishnews.com/searchlog.asp?reason=denied_empty&script_name=/pageacc.asp&path_info=/pageacc.asp&tser1=ser&sid=600703

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Gaelic Athletic Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151017151754/http://www.gaa.ie/clubzone/club-info/membership/ to http://www.gaa.ie/clubzone/club-info/membership/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081028204341/http://www.esri.ie/pdf/BKMNINT180_Main%20Text_Social%20and%20Economic%20Value%20of%20Sport.pdf to http://www.esri.ie/pdf/BKMNINT180_Main%20Text_Social%20and%20Economic%20Value%20of%20Sport.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070916003202/http://www.esri.ie:80/news_events/press_releases_archive/2005/social_and_economic_value/index.xml to http://www.esri.ie/news_events/press_releases_archive/2005/social_and_economic_value/index.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713055644/http://www.irishdigest.com/?p=5072 to http://www.irishdigest.com/?p=5072
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718212215/http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/print/index/publications/ministers_speeches/dsd-ministers-speech-ulster-gaa.htm to http://www.dsdni.gov.uk/print/index/publications/ministers_speeches/dsd-ministers-speech-ulster-gaa.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721124611/http://www.ifa.ie/News/tabid/640/ctl/Detail/mid/2250/xmid/4314/xmfid/23/Default.aspx to http://www.ifa.ie/News/tabid/640/ctl/Detail/mid/2250/xmid/4314/xmfid/23/Default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213081843/http://www.joe.ie:80/gaa/gaa-features/the-winter-training-ban-player-expenses-and-burn-out-007552-1 to http://www.joe.ie/gaa/gaa-features/the-winter-training-ban-player-expenses-and-burn-out-007552-1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006093336/http://www.gaa.ie/content/documents/publications/official_guides/Official_Guide_2012_Part1.pdf to http://www.gaa.ie/content/documents/publications/official_guides/Official_Guide_2012_Part1.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)