Talk:Volunteer (Irish republican)

message: Right i've drafted a more sourced suggestion that includes information provided by Hohenloh. More sources can be added to it for verification, however i think it details the term volunteer in regards to Ireland pretty well. Any thoughts or objections or can we accept this and insert it into the article seeing as no-one has objected to the last proposal and this is merely an expansion on it in light of Hohenloh's information. Mabuska (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact i'll make the change per WP:BRD. Mabuska (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Final draft?

message: First of all Domer48 and Mo ainm are wrong for reverting my addition because:
#The addition expands on the history of the term "volunteer" in Ireland making it relevant and informative.
#It fixes the erroneous claim (which i originally added in) that the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century were the original ones to use the term which they as history and sources proves is false. 
#The section is titled "History of the term volunteer in Ireland" making it highly relevant.
#The argument "this article is not about the use of the term but it's use by Irish republicans" is largely irrelevant as the version they have reverted to contains history that is not republican.
#Domer48's argument is likewise irrelevant: "Term volunteer in the context of describing Irish republicans" as their revert returns the article to way it has been since October 2011 which gives details of the term's history that isn't republican! Contradictory arguments. 
If Domer48 and Mo ainm want their arguments taking seriously then we will have to delete almost the entire "History of the term volunteer in Ireland" section as most none of it has anything to do with republicanism until the 20th century Irish Volunteers.
Mabuska (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As an act of good faith i've truncated the addition to remove the examples and added a link to the sub-section of the article where they can be found. Mabuska (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've likewise truncated it partially in the loyalist version of this article, seeing as one example is highly relevant to it. Mabuska (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the term 

message: Why do we need two articles? Each article is very short and much of their content is the "History of the term volunteer in Ireland", which is identical on each. I suggest we merge Volunteer (Irish republican) and Volunteer (Ulster loyalist) into a new article called Volunteer (Ireland). It would hav' the history section, a section on republican volunteers, and a section on loyalist volunteers. ~Asarlaí 12:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried this before with an article called Volunteer (Ireland) but the usual suspects wouldn't allow it. I'd support a merge. — Jon C.ॐ 12:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge the republican and loyalist articles 

message: I am aware that the "History of the term volunteer in Ireland" section was written in particular circumstances, and that it was a response to perceived POV-pushing in the article. I have read the discussions at the Mediation Cabal, at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and on this page at Archive 1 and Archive 2, all of which provides good background. However, those disputes are long over and, in view of the recent RfC on merging the articles, that section needs to be evaluated on its own merits. In my view, it does not stand up as a history, for the following reasons:
#The connection between either the Irish Volunteers or the Ulster Volunteers and the Volunteers of 1778 is already tenuous, so suggesting a link back to earlier 18th-century organisations (or forward to 19th-century ones) is original research (and probably erroneous).
#"Volunteer" of itself is not an unusual description, or unique to Ireland. It applies to anybody who joins a volunteer army, or volunteers to join a conscript army, anywhere in the world. So, for instance, both the character Chris Taylor in Platoon and its director Oliver Stone are referred to as "volunteers" here, here, here and here (as well as in the Wikipedia article). To argue for a "history of the term in Ireland" it would be necessary to show that "volunteer" had a different meaning in the private armies of the 1760s or the Papal Army in the 1860s to what it did in the US Army in the 1960s. I don't think that can be shown. A short list of names in an archaeology journal headed "Ulster Volunteers in 1760" is not evidence that the word has any meaning distinct from "people who joined the militia" in that year.
#Saying the 1913 Irish Volunteers were "in part inspired by the formation of the UVF" has the effect of seeming to link the subsequent use of the term "volunteer" in the organisations that descended from those two without actually saying there was a link. Now, there probably is a link, but I don't know what it is. Any history section should state verifiable (and relevant) facts and not rely on creating impressions. The following paragraph, on the 1914 split in the Irish, is certainly irrelevant to the use of "volunteer" by loyalists: there is no way that their use of the term relates to the split.
For those reasons I am removing that section in both articles. In this article I am replacing it with sourced and relevant content relating to the use of the word to mean member or lower rank from 1916 down to the 1970s. I am unable to find similar content for the loyalist article, but maybe somebody else will be able to.
Additionally, I am removing the section "The role of a volunteer". This again is content that was added during the mediation, to verify the use of "volunteer". It serves no good purpose in the article today, and indeed gives a misleading impression of what IRA volunteers would have been doing in a period of conflict.  Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it makes really clear that this is a military or paramilitary term linked to the move to relocate power etc. And include the roles of women since many were involved if not specifically entitled Volunteer in some of the organisations.   ☕  Antiqueight haver 20:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe that such a short article has such a huge talk page! And even so, no mention of the National Volunteers? The other types of Volunteers were unpaid, but most of the republican volunteers were paid. Therefore the term "volunteer", going back to the 1700s, gave the impression of being a part-time citizen militia, and not a mercenary army.PatrickGuinness (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple question: do you have any evidence that any member of the National Volunteers was referred to as "Volunteer Joe Bloggs"? If not, then they are not relevant to this article, which is about "volunteer" as a rank/title/appellation of individual members of republican organisations.  Scolaire (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst I am glad to see the removal of said stuff above I'm surprised given the amount of opposition to a merge that there has been incredibly little added to the article for I got the impression there was a mountain of stuff to add in regards to republican volunteers. Instead all we get over four months since the discussion is two actual additions that aren't simply rewords and both minor additions. Having given plenty of time for work to be done to the article I think the new RfC merge request I mentioned doing is still needed, though obviously not the same as the last proposal as it had too many problems, maybe a simple merge into Irish Republican Army, and obviosuly a similar one for the loyalist version of this article. Mabuska (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I never consciously tried to give the impression that a revised article would be a large one. The content just isn't out there. The point I made was that the two articles, if properly edited, would not naturally lend themselves to being merged into one. I think if you look at them side by side you'll see that I was right. I'm happy with what's there now. There's nothing to stop you proposing a merge into the IRA article, but I would hazard a guess that some of the same people would oppose that merge.  Scolaire (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: My attempt to remove that was reverted claiming "Rarely used as a term for them by anyone else", which is demonstrably false.
*Inside the IRA by Andrew Sanders (Edinburgh University Press) 
*The IRA, 1968-2000: An Analysis of a Secret Army by J. Bowyer Bell (Routledge) 
*Times of Troubles: Britain's War in Northern Ireland by Andrew Sanders (Edinburgh University Press) 
*Walking Away from Terrorism: Accounts of Disengagement from Radical and Extremist Movements  by John Horgan (Routledge) 
*Ruairí Ó Brádaigh: The Life and Politics of an Irish Revolutionary by Robert White (Indiana University Press) 
*Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Morality of Terrorism by Timothy Shanahan (Edinburgh University Press) 
*The Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Development of Mortars by Gary Ackerman (Journal of Strategic Security) 
*Gunrunners: The Covert Arms Trail to Ireland by Sean Boyne (O'Brien Press) 
*The I.R.A. by Tim Pat Coogan (St. Martin's Griffin) 
*25 Years of Terror: The IRA's war against the British by Martin Dillon (Bantam Books) 
*Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA by Richard English (Pan Books) 
*A Secret History of the IRA by Ed Moloney (Penguin Books) 
*The Irish War: The Military History of a Domestic Conflict by Tony Geraghty (Fire and Water) 
*Playing the 'Green Card' - Financing the Provisional IRA: Part 1 by John Horgan & Max Taylor (Terrorism and Political Violence) 
*Stakeknife: Britain's Secret Agents in Ireland by Greg Harkin & Martin Ingram (O'Brien Press) 
*The Intelligence War against the IRA by Thomas Leahy (Cambridge University Press) 
*Making Sense of the Troubles: A History of the Northern Ireland Conflict by David McKittrick & David McVea (Penguin Books) 
*The Long War: The IRA and Sinn Féin by Brendan O'Brien (O'Brien Press) 
*Special Category: The IRA in English Prisons, Vol. 2: 1978-1985 by Ruán O’Donnell (Irish Academic Press) 
*A Broad Church: The Provisional IRA in the Republic of Ireland, 1969–1980 by  Gearóid Ó Faoleán (Merrion Press) 
*IRA: The Bombs and the Bullets: A History of Deadly Ingenuity by Andy Oppenheimer (Irish Academic Press) 
*Provos The IRA & Sinn Féin by Peter Taylor (Bloomsbury Publishing) 
*Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement by Robert White (Merrion Press) 
I could carry on and on, but my point is already proven beyond any dispute. FDW777 (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone using "volunteer" with a capital V, at least, appears to be using the military rank used by the organisations themselves. Regardless, there are even more sources which will describe IRA members as just that, members. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a reference to members in brackets might be the most appropriate resolution in the case of this dispute. There seems to be more references to the broad generic term of members than there is of volunteers, questionable whether this should be an individual page at all instead of just a short paragraph or sentence within some larger page on the IRA - maybe on List of members of the Irish Republican Army.(UTC) Financefactz (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Or merged with Volunteer (Ulster loyalist), possibly. There doesn't seem to be enough to justify not one, but two, articles for the same term. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You may remember that this was discussed at Talk:Volunteer (Ireland) in 2016. There was opposition to merging the two together (including from Bastun, I found to my surprise), and no support for merging this one into any "parent" republican article. I don't understand why the response to a large number of refs justifying the opening sentence is to propose scrapping altogether an article that's been going for 17 years. Smacks of "I just don't like it".  Scolaire (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I'd completely forgotten that discussion (which isn't linked anywhere else on this talk page). Consensus, can, of course, change. My concern for this article, though, is that I don't believe there is consensus to change the lede.  goes back to at least your own expansion of 2016. And I can absolutely dump a load of links here showing that "IRA member" is used just as extensively, if not moreso, than "IRA volunteer", or "IRA Volunteer" or "Vol.", the latter two of which are almost exclusively from within the organisation or reporting on what the organisation has communicated. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

text: (In fact it appears the lede sentence has been in continuous use since the 12th ever edit to the page, made in 2006, until changed by  and .) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least the discussion is back on topic. FWIW, I would support FDW777's version, since he has produced multiple independent, reliable sources as to its use outside the republican movement. The fact that other sources say "members" is a straw man, and in any event "members" appears in the first sentence.  Scolaire (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not seeing what's "off-topic", above. A couple of things. First, the page is not necessarily about just the IRA/INLA use of the term. Or at least it's not presented as such. Second, if you are just looking at the term in terms of the IRA, then "IRA member" is used almost twice as often as the term "IRA volunteer", in the wild. Seeing as WP is not a dictionary, if the article is only about the general term for members of the IRA or Irish Volunteers, you would have to ask does it merit an article at all? Would it not be better merged to a line or two in Volunteer (disambiguation):  BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the merging stuff is what I consider off-topic. I'm going to withdraw from the conversation now.  Scolaire (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I don't think the length of time an article has been going for is a factor in making it more or less noteable. It seems to just be explaining what the term Military volunteer means in this specific context. Should there be a separate page for volunteers is every army, military and paramilitary group. Financefactz (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, when nearly twice as many sources use "member" as use "volunteer", it is absolutely in no way biased to use "sometimes used" in relation to "volunteer". If this article is only about what various Irish republican organisations call their members, then it only needs to be a line or two in :Military volunteer or a similar article - there is no need for a separate one. I have not engaged in original research, except to see how often the two terms are used relative to each other. That's not a breach of WP:NOR. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Volunteer is simply factual, read the IRA's consitution. Yes, the IRA had one. That's why books universally recognise the existence of the Army Council, Executive, GHQ, Chief of Staff and so on. The IRA haa a written constitution with a recognised structure, with members being volunteers. Kathleen's bike (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in lead