Talk:Irish Volunteers

message: I've added a link to the mutiny (see Curragh incident) as it helped enlistment before the Howth gun-running.Red Hurley (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Curragh Mutiny

message: The statement "Unlike the latter, the 16th Division had no trained military Irish officers of its own, and were commanded by British officers, with the exception of Irish General William Hickie" seems highly dubious.  The 16th Division actually had no officers originally, as it was new and so took officers from other regiments or who had retired.  Plenty of these were Irish in any meaningful sense of the word as used in 1914, such as this example. The associated reference is presumably to  and I do not see any justification for the claim in the article.--Rumping (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me the important thing is not the specific ancestry of every officer in the Division, but to contrast how the Ulster Volunteers and the Irish Volunteers were treated by the British Army. I don't have any sources in front of me right now, but I seem to recall that when the Ulster Volunteers enlisted they were allowed to keep much of their established power structure and such whereas the Irish Volunteers were not. -R. fiend (talk) 13:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The politics of the issue is alluded to in Heroic Option pp217- . A factor in treating the 36th and 16th differently seems to have been influenced by Kitchener's view of the nascent 16th "as rebels in sheep's clothing". RashersTierney (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems pretty clear that such issues were the reason for the unequal treatment of the two volunteers organizations when they enlisted, though I've never seen it so blatantly stated. That's much more significant than what may or may not have been the ancestry of various officers. Does someone want to use this or another source to clean up the section in question? -R. fiend (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Irish officers

message: I have reverted this edit by a "new editor" as an unexplained down-play/removal of the Volunteer's role in WWI. I do not believe it to be appropriate. If any justification can be provided, a CON building discussion would be welcomed here on talk. Guliolopez (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rv historical revisionism 

message: Really Scolaire?. From "Oxford Companion to Irish History":
 - page 403. Not a "small fraction" but around a quarter of the organisation!
 - page 282. 2-3,000 is a small fraction.
Mabuska (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A quarter is a small fraction. The sentence I removed said that "over 90% of members joined the National Volunteers and enlisted in the 10th (Irish) Division|10th and 16th (Irish) Division|16th (Irish) Divisions of the British Army." The impression given was that the National Volunteers joined these divisions en bloc, which is totally misleading. My edit summary said "only a small fraction of Redmond's Volunteers [the National Volunteers] enlisted", so the strength of MacNeill's faction relative to Redmond's has no bearing on it. At any rate, the number of National Volunteers that enlisted – large or small – does not belong in the lead of the Irish Volunteers article.  And, for the record, a diff that I replaced the deleted content with factual content. It was not just a blind revert.  Scolaire (talk) 07:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was simply proving a point on numbers. A small fraction heavily implies a very small number, not a quarter. If that was the case then why have Northern Ireland's Catholics always been classed as a large minority and not a small fraction of the country's population? At any rate, I do agree that the en bloc is misleading, the same for the UVF considering a higher percentage of IVF members enlisted compared to UVF members. Mabuska (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Small is not "very small", nor does it "heavily imply" it. Small is small. If you invested £160,000 in 2008 before the financial crisis, and two years later your investment was worth £35,000 to £40,000, I think you'd be saying that it was only a small fraction of your original investment.  Scolaire (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree with Scolaire, that impression is misleading. A common enough one obviously, I believed it myself until two minutes ago. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Small fraction

message: Because this article ended abruptly with the Easter Rising, and the Irish Republican Army (1917–22) article contained a lot of content about the reorganisation of the Volunteers and their relationship with the First Dáil, I have moved it to here as a straight cut-and-paste, replacing it with a summary section in the IRA article. I take no responsibility for the veracity or verifiability of the content. It is practically unsourced, but at least it's better than having only half an article.  Scolaire (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut-and-paste 

message: I have had a research interest in the Irish Volunteers for several years – and not just for Wikipedia – and I have never before seen the organisation referred to as Irish Volunteer Force or Irish Volunteer Army. The phrase "Irish Volunteer Force" appears on the original enrolment form from 25 November 1913. As far as I am aware it never appears thereafter. Similarly, the phrase "Irish Volunteer Army" seems to have been used in connection with Roger Casement's mission to Germany (hence its frequent use in a witness statement by a member of the Irish Brigade), but never in any other context. Neither has ever appeared as a descriptor in a book or article, to the best of my knowledge. The McCaffrey book that is cited says, "In the autumn of 1913, a committee representing Home Rule, Sinn Féin and republicanism formed an Irish Volunteer Army", not "an organisation called "The Irish Volunteer Army". While it may be useful to mention frequently-found aliases of an organisation (and I can think of a couple that are found far more frequently that these), it adds nothing to the article to add in obscure aliases like these, especially in the lead. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Scolaire (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of your past interest in the article, the references were numerous and well-documented and warrant inclusion in the lede. (EDIT) What I fail to understand (and am disturbed by, quite frankly) is why you were perfectly happy to include this information at the bottom of the lede which again, was your idea.Regards,   Aloha27  talk  15:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, but I think it's useful to mention these names, as they were used officially by the organization and by some of its leaders. They weren't used often, but the article doesn't claim or imply that they were. I have come across books and articles which call them "the Irish Volunteer Force" or "the Irish Volunteer Army" as a descriptor; often using those names at the outset and "Irish Volunteers" thereafter. Also, the former is used as a name in several BMH witness statements. I don't see the harm in mentioning them briefly at the end of the lede. Perhaps we could put them in quote marks rather than in bold? ~Asarlaí 16:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What can I say? I disagree, for the reasons I stated above. If they are frequently found as descriptors in books and articles, why aren't those books and articles cited, instead of the rather esoteric refs that are there?  Scolaire (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously Scolaire, you've never before seen usage of "Irish Volunteer Force" or "IVF" in regards to the Irish Volunteers? Must hunt out my books, I've seen it several times, even back in school when we were being taught about the Easter Rising and before it. Mabuska (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sometimes called 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Irish Volunteers. 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/20080229130018/http://www.nli.ie/1916/pdf/3.1.5.pdf to http://www.nli.ie/1916/pdf/3.1.5.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509134501/http://theirishwar.com/2010/05/irish-volunteer-uniforms/ to http://theirishwar.com/2010/05/irish-volunteer-uniforms/
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) 16:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified