Talk:Association football in the Republic of Ireland

message: "most popular participation sport in the Republic of Ireland." This is not what the source says the source says "Football is the biggest participation and most popular team sport in Ireland, according to the ESRI" It does not say "Republic of Ireland" but Ireland. 
This source would seem to list sports in 2004 by popularity and would seem to confirm that soccer is the most popular team sport in Ireland, but again it does not make it clear if it means the on island of Ireland or in the Republic:
:The study found that recreational walking is by far the most popular form of leisure-time physical activity among Irish adults – about 60 per cent had taken a walk in the four weeks prior to being interviewed. Apart from walking, the most popular sports that people take part in are golf, soccer, swimming and GAA games for men, and swimming and aerobics for women.
But a PDF summary of the report quoted in the above does say "This survey collected data from a nationally representative sample of 3,080 individuals aged 18 years and over
using face-to-face interviews." suggests to me a survey in the Republic. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most popular participation sport 

message: No matter what the out come of the RM I'd like to build consensus's that the page isn't subjected to a other RM for at least 9 months. This is the 3rd in 5 months and is becoming pointless. A RM will just lead to rehashing of the same issues on both sides Gnevin (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You simply have no idea what consensus is. You cannot 'set' it for a period of time - even if you think you find a 'consensus' to do so! It is not possible. And what 'consensus' would it be 'set' by anyway, Gnevin? 60%?--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Agreement not to move the page again for period stated above as I agree with the reasons stated by Gnevin. Just get on and sort the content in the articles, keep them encyclopaedic instead of gossip rag like, and stop being so anal about what they are called.--ClubOranjeTalk 08:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Conformity to "Association" no-matter how uncomfortably it sits? How anal is that? That's the shirt tucked into the underpants mate. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement not to move the page again 

message: Why the hell did User:JPG-GR close this at 4.30pm on a UK Saturday afternoon? After only 5 and a half days? The on in Feb that moved to "Association" (on "60% consensus"!) was 11 days long! Jesus Christ - do any of you realise how bad all this looks? Do any of you care?  "Association" was winning out so why cheat? Again?--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is User:JPG-GR an admin? If not - what the hell gives him the right to close it early? Even if he/she is an admin - surely this RM must be 11 days like the last one? What's going on?--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any evidence that User:JPG-GR' is an admin. I've reverted him and brought the RM back to life: nearly 2 hours on a Sat afternoon is lost over this. Play fair, guys, eh? It looks you are winning anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you stop being so melodramatic, Scolaire? It's you who needs to show some respect  to the issue at hand - and you can stop exaggerating my actions too. When 11 days is up if no better consensus is found then the proposal can't be passed - obviously. But if this RM is not done fairly either, well I cannot just sit back and watch that happen: an RM pushed through on 60%, followed by a disagreeing RM cut-short in less than half the time of the first - it's just not on. Let's have some patience and wait until its over - yes? If no-one turns up to support me what then I say? This is going to be done fairly or you won't hear the end of me - so just grin and bear it. And what's it to you? It's only an RM like you said. Why all the drama about "self respect"? I'm only fighting the corner - few others have, and we both know how much "Association" is simply disliked - even amongst some who have opposed "Football (soccer)" above. I'm not going to carry on if the tide is clearly against my proposal after the same length of time the "Association" proposal had - it would be pointless.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on, you are saying that Scolaire is being melodramatic?! What about comments such as "the oppressive irony of such a stuffy and awkward bureaucratic title", comparing the page name to the horrors committed by the Nazis, threatening to take us to arbitration, and trying to use emotional blackmail, blaming our support for changing the page name for MurphiaMan's departure? I would advise you to drop the stick now. The RM has lasted the arbitrary time-limit without reaching consensus. It's fair to say the move will not be happening now. Consensus can change but I don't see any benefit in returning to this for another 3 months at least. Regards, EJF (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exaggerating my use of the Nazim example is a bit over the top itself: it was more reasoned than you suggest (and was entirely structural and nothing at all  to do with the "horrors", thank you). And when did I explicitly "threaten" arbitration too? I have used strong rhetoric I agree - but exaggerating it to prove that I am myself "melodramatic" shows a slight lack of irony, don't you think? I've been forceful because I know Wikipedia well enough to know a closed shop when I see one. I also care about the subject - and am pissed-off that MurphiaMan (and genuine contributors like him) have simply been ignored  over the whole issue - yes. And the move to "Association" was the reason for his departure; I'm entitled to mention it in passing - it's you who mentioned his name, not me. I hope he comes back - Wikipedia needs genuine editors, as opose to the usual goal-hangers who jump in on these votes for their various reasons.  --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Can I just say one more thing?  I've re-read the whole of this page, plus your "straw polls" at England, Wales and Scotland: Deacon of Pndapetzim referred to AF as "an archaic abomination, used in very few contexts"; otherwise nobody has said even that they dislike the term, never mind that it is offensive!  Why do you continue to insist that the whole footballing world believes what you believe, all evidence to the contrary? There have been four votes to change, but only you have carried on the war.  It's time to stop.  Seriously!  Scolaire (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You havent re-read the page at all, clearly:  I was initially upset to find that a decent editor had left Wikipedia because of it (you must have read this surely? I've said it more than once) - then I saw the 60% 'push-through' and the reaction to it. Try reading the page properly instead of scanning for particular words: although "dislike" does occur above, and someone even said they "despise" it (although he voted against "Football (soccer)"!). You are welcome to read my Talk if you want even more of me on this too! Seriously - I think that you yourself should just wait. I've read lots of comments across Wikipedia that say the initial move to "Association Football" was crazy. If you are saying that "Association" isn't unpopular with people, then I'm afraid you are simply wrong. And you can't end a vote because of the way it currently stands - the timing has to be fair. Just wait and see what happens, please. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the hell? 

message: The non-admin has closed again 8 am today (Sunday morning), despite everything said. All of Sunday morning has now been lost. If this happens again I will personally consider this vote void (as both Weekend days have been abused), and try this it again at Association Football. Before anyone cries foul,  this is not a 'threat' - I simply need to see a fair participation. But is this going 'on and on' what people want? DO WE WANT CLOSURE, OR NOT? It is possible we can have it here - prividing this is FAIR. I don't know about anyone else, but Wikipedia is pointless to me unless it is fair. To the non-admin who wishes to close this unfairly: SHOW SOME RESPECT TO THIS SUBJECT  (it deserves if for once!!!!!!!!!!!) AND DO NOT WASTE PEOPLE 'S TIME. Thank you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, calm down. It's only a requested move. About your comment above, you did say "ff people here don't play fair I'll take it to arbitration." About MurphiaMan, you did link to his departure. This RM has lasted over the normal time limit, nothing new has come out, there has been no new bunch of supporters arrive. Dragging out the debate is wasting time, and shouting in block capitals isn't going to get you your own way. EJF (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: As an admin you shouldn't you keep that kind of comment in Talk? It's always me who gets called 'dramatic'! - I've just been fighting a losing battle. That doesn't mean the issue isn't one worth fighting - esp on Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what "you shouldn't you keep that kind of comment in Talk" means.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you do. Thanks for leaving the question mark off the quote. Some admin you are! But it needed one like you, I guess. How about we let this go now, or did you come for a fight? With me, as you have seen, you have one. To reiterate: either take it to my Talk, or leave it. And if you really don't like "civility blocks", then don't provoke people!--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I can't imagine why people didn't get behind your idea with your cheery attitude.  Actually, I don't think your sentence is proper English - that's the only reason I even responded.  Read it slowly - what the hell does "As an admin you shouldn't you keep that kind of comment in Talk" mean?  Is there an extra "you" in there?  Rephrase or something so it makes sense.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I'd struck it (it is now) - the meaning was pretty obvious though imo. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It still isn't obvious given that the name of this page begins with "Talk:"  But now I gather that you meant "User talk:", and the answer to your reconstructed question is "no".  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Pity the admins didn't take the same action last time when there wasn't consensus either. --Albert.white (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: You are being soft, you are crying foul and you have overblown it, for obvious reasons.  You made a proposal and it was rejected - by nineteen votes to three.  Quit whinging, grow up and take it like a man.  Scolaire (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't 19:3 to that degree - there were Neutrals and a number of 'opposers' expressed concern with "Association". Stop provoking me - and how about you let it go? You have been provoking me when you could easily have let things take its course. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL Crispness (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Pampers, Crispness (another anti-British parachuter). it was 15:4 anyway - Scolaire can't count. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Never mind, Matt love, another five days and the soccer Association footy will be back on the telly again.  Scolaire (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: LOL! Touché, Albert Scolaire (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: My mistake! The three was because you were the proposer, so I didn't count your vote, but the nineteen was just miscounting.  Not that my comment would have been any different, anyway.  Such is life!  Bye again. Matt.  Scolaire (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Again?

message: If one might dare consider the content of the page...
Apart from the first paragraph of it, the History section is patently not a history of (this sport) in Ireland, but is a fairly lengthy history of the national team.  This seems inappropriate to this article, and the appropriate article already has an adequate history section: other than the venue of matches, it could be argued that the national team has very little to do with the game in Ireland.  The history of this game in Ireland should deal with the formation of the leagues, the spread of the game beyond the Dublin area, the development of professionalism, relations with the GAA, etc.  Kevin McE (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have considerably edited down the section along these lines (I forgot to leave an edit summary though).  Except for the last two paragraphs, I haven't added any text of my own.  The section could still do with further editing.  Rather than paste the removed material here, I am going to put it on the national team talk page.  Scolaire (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Does it? Gaelic games have nothing to do with football really. There could I suppose be a bit about Rule42 and the limited opening of Croke park for a few matches, and the continued refusal to let football be played on GAA pitches. Perhaps a bit about Gaelic Games in relative decline and football increasing as the recent ESRI report stated? Related to that is the relative imbalance of government capital spending. Historically the defined rules for football  were codified 23 years before gaelic so that's hardly worth even mentioning. The temporary "opening" of Croke Park is mentioned on the national team page, and most of the other points can be discussed in terms of football in Ireland without needing to mention the GAA. What kind of things had you in mind for this article? --Albert.white (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Gaelic games in the early twentieth century, unlike today I must stress, had a strong political element, being associated with advanced nationalism. It was never likely to be played or supported by the same people that played or supported "soccer" or rugby.  At the same time, "soccer" did not have a big following outside what is now Northern Ireland.  This from Football Association of Ireland#History: "The IFA had been founded in 1880 in Belfast as the governing body for football on the island of Ireland... All but two clubs in the Irish League were based in what would become Northern Ireland. While this largely reflected the balance of footballing strength within Ireland, southern clubs felt the IFA was doing little to promote the game outside the professional clubs in its heartland." (emphasis mine) The GAA introduced the "ban", which prohibited members from playing or attending "foreign" games. While this robbed football of a few players who would have been equally good at both sports, it would be wrong to say that it had the effect of "suppressing" football, or starving it of popularity.  I think Albert's suggestions would just about achieve the right balance.  Scolaire (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't forget to WP:Cite WP:RS or it could look like WP:OR Gnevin (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh the GAA very actively try to suppress football. The attempt to annex Tallaght is one example and the trouble that Wexford Youths are having with their ground can be traced back to GAA circles also. The days I was in the court listening to the Tallaght Stadium Judicial Review case really opened my eyes to the views of the GAA... I haven't read The Ball is Round but that suggestion seems to be fairly accurate. The playing ban deserves a mention as does the existing ban on playing football on GAA pitches. But I wouldn't like to see too much space devoted to the GAA. I'll have a reread of some of Who stole our game at the weekend and see if there is much citeable in there. --Albert.white (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Had a skim through Who stole our game and tbh didn't find much justification for inclusion for the GAA in this page. Yea sure they try to stop football at every oppertunity, but as Scolaire mentioned earlier the ban probably had little impact. If we want to discus the decline of Irish football in the 70's on we can probably point the finger closer to the FAI and the clubs. Televised football from the UK, stadiums not being improved, clubs being too interested in themselves and not seeing the big picture, and club owners being only interested in making money, all contributed to the decline fare more than the GAA hope to. Still that just warrants a couple of lines in the article.--Albert.white (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Association football in the Republic of Ireland. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090803172613/http://rsssf.com:80/tableso/ol1924f-det.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tableso/ol1924f-det.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050404051620/http://www.clubi.ie/fpage/history/part2.html to http://www.clubi.ie/fpage/history/part2.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mr1VzkHN to http://www.rsssf.com/tablesu/usa-intres-det69.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Association football in the Republic of Ireland. 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/20090206025038/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/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
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified