Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:00, 17 September 2011

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Irish republicanism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Northern Ireland This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Clearer name change

This article should have a different name: "Volunteer (Irish republican)" or something similar. It is confusing as it is: Volunteers of the GOP? Volunteers of an anti-monarchist movement(where?)? The general idea of being a volunteer in republics? I would be bold and move it, but this page seems to be linked to by a great lot of other pages. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Michalis, I personally would not have a problem with it, maybe others would like to comment on the change also before you do. But I would support the move if you feel that it will make things clearer. Vintagekits 14:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Michalis Famelis, be bold and move it. Shyam 15:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are thinking to shift Volunteer (republican) at some other place, then fix all the existing links to this page only. Shyam 17:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Are all IRA members Volunteers?

Part of the debate at Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage has been whether "Volunteer" is

1. a rank analogous to "private"; or
2. a description applicable to all IRA members, up to the Chief of Staff

Some points:

• I am only referring to usage of the term "volunteer" by IRA members, other clued-in republicans, and commentators familiar with their terminology; usage by others may be discounted as being potentially ill-informed.

• The fact that someone may be described as "Vol. Seosamh Bloggs" is not evidence for the first explanation; all men are "Mr" but the title is only used for those who are not "Dr", "Father", "Sir", etc.

• However, it may be that the term is ambiguous and can be used in either sense, depending on the speaker or context.
  • (Perhaps upper-case "Volunteer" is sense 1 and lowercase "volunteer" is sense 2? )

• Certainly, for the Irish Volunteers, it must have been used in sense 2, though it might also have been used in sense 1.

Evidence: citations

Evidence offered by User:Jdorney in support of the sense 1:

• The Green Book (IRA training manual) (quoted in Martin Dillon, The Dirty War, Hutchinson, 1990, ISBN 0-09-984520-2, p468).

• • General Order number 1, "The duties of a Volunteer shall be at the discretion of a unit commander ... A Volunteer who for any reason, ceases to be maintain contact with his or her unit for a period of three months shall automatically cease to be a member of the army."

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestive of rank. This quote is taken from the Green Book the manual given to new members of the PIRA, the capital V also denotes the it is a special term also if Volunteer simply meant member then why the need to make a separate reference to the term member?--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• • General Order Number 2:"Volunteers when making the Army Declaration promise; to obey all orders and regulations issued by the Army Authority and any superior officers. Where an order issued by a duly accredited officer has been disobeyed, the Volunteer in question must be suspended immediatly, pending investigation of the case"

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak evidence of rank. Again this quote is taken from the Green Book and therefore aimed at new members - again the capital V.

• Joe Cahill in a press conference in 1971, after the introduction of internment that the British forces had arrested two officers in the IRA, "the rest are volunteers, or as they say in the British Army, privates".

Suggestive of rank. Logoistic 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong evidence of rank. Pain and simple in the words of the Chief of Staff saying the it is a rank! -See youtube video link further down the page. This is all that is needed!--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Other evidence (for both sides) I found on Google books:

God and the Gun: The Church and Irish Terrorism By Martin Dillon ISBN 0415920604:

• page 39: "Everyone in the UDA, IRA or UVF was a volunteer irrespective of rank"

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Obviously suggests it is not a rank. Logoistic 23:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No evidence - however note the small v and not the capital V - therefore a reference to volunteer in its most common use.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ten Men Dead: The Story of the 1981 Irish Hunger Strike By David Beresford ISBN 087113702X:

• page 327: Kieran lies there now, of course, under a low, black headstone stating only his rank-"volunteer"-and name.

Suggestive of rank. Logoistic 23:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good evidence of rank. Again plain and simple it states its a rank.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Politics of the Irish Civil War By Bill Kissane ISBN 0199273553:

• page 138: 's membership was open to those who had fought in the War of Independence...The date upon which any volunteer ceased to take part in the struggle ...did not affect his eligibility for membership.

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No evidence ditto.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical Dictionary of the British Empire By James Stuart Olson, Robert Shadle ISBN 0313293678:

• page 233: Volunteer members of the IRA had procured keys to the residences of the Cairo Gang.

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestive of rank. not the capital V and the further reference to member - if it meant the same as member there would be no need to mention it again.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Psychology of Terrorism By John Horgan ISBN 0714652628:

• page 133: the readiness of a PIRA Volunteer to follow orders

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestive of rank. This shows that a Volunteer is subserviant and takes order from above. Suggestive of a low rank.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Gun in Politics: An Analysis of Irish Political Conflict, 1916-1986 By J. Bowyer Bell ISBN 088738126X:

• page 119: Roughly the average age of the IRA leadership was 34, again roughly more than ten years older than the average volunteer--in effect a man of a different generation.

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. That the word "average" is used suggests that there are non-average V/volunteers. This therefore suggests it is not a rank. Logoistic 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestive of rank. Again shows that the different tiers - leadship above Volunteer - again the capital V to denote an special or significant term.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• page 181: The IRA volunteer is not much different, in fact often quite like his opposite in the British army: a working-class male

Suggestive of rank. Logoistic 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestive of rank. Not very clear.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• page 230: When, at the funeral of a fallen volunteer, the Provos march slowly to the wail of pipes...

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. --Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The secret army: the IRA By J. Bowyer Bell ISBN 1560009012:

• page 125: GHQ and the Army Council felt acutely the need for a "political" initiative of some sort...Few had kind words for the result...particularly the average Volunteer

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. That the word "average" is used suggests that there are non-average V/volunteers. This therefore suggests it is not a rank. Logoistic 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestive of rank. Again showing different tiers in the organisation - average refers to simple, ordinary or rank and file.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• page 146: Five members of the new Executive...resigned, contending that the army Council...had appointed a "dismissed Volunteer" as C/S

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No evidence ambiguous.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• page 255: Only slowly did the average volunteer realize justhow GHQ intended to use the weapon that was being forged...

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. That the word "average" is used suggests that there are non-average V/volunteers. This therefore suggests it is not a rank. Logoistic 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestive of rank. Again showing different tiers in the organisation--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• page 286: As usual for IRA Volunteers in court on less than a capital charge, there was no defence other than a statement.

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No evidence ambiguous.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

'

• page 589: Eight dead IRA volunteers were left scattered along a country road or inside a blue Toyota van

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No evidence ambiguous.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Eoin O'Duffy: A Self-Made Hero By Fearghal McGarry ISBN 0199276552:

• page 70: ...the role of a key guerrilla commander...mediating between competing pressures, whether from above (GHQ), below (Volunteers...), or the enemy...

Strong evidence of rank. Plain and simple again - shows the leadhsip above and the Volunteers as the rank and file.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

IRA man: talking with the rebels By Douglass McFerran ISBN 0275955915:

• page 15: the volunteer -- the actual foot soldier in the IRA's underground legion

Suggestive of rank. Logoistic 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong evidence of rank. the comment says it all - the guy on the ground, an ordinary member, a low rank.

• page 99: the individual in an active service unit -- the volunteer in the strict sense.

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No evidence --Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The I.R.A. at War 1916-1923 By Peter Hart ISBN 0199252580:

• page 198: Dunne was soon elevated to the command of the London I.R.A. ... O'Sullivan remained an ordinary Volunteer.

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. That the word "ordinary" is used suggests that there are non-ordinary V/volunteers. This therefore suggests it is not a rank. Logoistic 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong evidence of rank. This is clear - one guy moving up the ranks and the staying the same at the bottom level, the Volunteer.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Ira, 1968-2000: Analysis of a Secret Army By John Bowyer Bell ISBN 0714650706:

• page 132: By the late 1970s the army was mostly secret - the authorities assumed that they knew the crucial 400 volunteers

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No evidence ambiguous.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• page 210: the IRA volunteer loses all rank in prison where the command structure is created locally.

Evicence against rank here. That "rank" and "Volunteer" are conceived as two seperate things, suggests it is not a rank. Logoistic 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerete evidence of rank This is clear he - when he is not in jail he has a rank - Volunteer - once inside jail that RANK is lost - this is a clear indication of rank.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So, any comments? jnestorius 01:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think use of the term is analagous to the United States Marine Corps's use of "marine". Every member of this corp is a "marine", but only the low ranking members are referred to in this way. The officers are referred to by rank.

That said, it is unusual for the modern IRA to refer to the ranks of its members, aside from "volunteer". A user on the mediation talk page has sugggested that this has been for security reasons since the late 1970s.

Jdorney 11:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Joe Cahill's 1971 press conference, where he likens volunteers to privates can be watched here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1iwueLGHfM.

Strong evidence of rank - this clip ends it all - confirmation from inside the IRA that it is considered a rank and consider as the basic level of rank like a Private. This should end the arguement.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jdorney 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• That youtube clip probably ends the discussion but I thought I would add my 2c.

Here is some more evidence to prove Volunteer (capitalised) is a rank or at least a WP:NPOV title.

Kevin Toolis, Rebel Hearts : Journeys within the IRA's soul (2003) PB: ISBN 0312156324

• page 5: In the countryside of Tyrone and Fermanagh, the IRA's soliders, known as Volunteers, fought a more traditional guerilla style campaign.

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of rank - this show's the soliders are referred to as Volunteer - the guys on the ground fighting as opposed to the leadership.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• page 177: Farrel also returned to the IRA as a Volunteer attached to one of the most secretive departments.

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of rank This shows that he hoined the IRA "as a Volunteer" - i.e. he was given the rank of Volunteer.

• page 242: Finnis was an ordinary IRA Volunteer and never privy to the secrets of the Brigade command

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. That the word "ordinary" is used suggests that there are non-ordinary V/volunteers. This therefore suggests it is not a rank. Logoistic 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of rank Ordinary Volunteer as opposed to the commande - therefore showing the different tiers in the IRA the lowly/ordinary Volunteer (again the capital letter is used) and the commande above those giving the orders.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• page 247: Hogans's operations, attacks of security forces, were successful and he was marked for promotion. In 1990 Hogan, whist still an ordinary IRA Volunteer, was arrested foir suspected involvement in a genade attack on an RUC jeep in the Shantallow are of Derry.

I suppose this could go either way. "ordinary Volunteer" when coupled with "marked for promotion" perhaps is suggestive or rank.

Evidence of rank blatantly showing that this is a low rank - how can you get promoted from being a Volunteer to a higher rank if it is not a rank - the "ordinary" reference only emphasises that it is a low position or rank to hold.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• page 275: but their capture did not deter the IRA Army Council from recruiting more Volunteers

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestive of rank - it again show th tiers in the IRA and therefore a rank system - leaders looking to recruit new Volunteers.

I will add more from other books later.--Vintagekits 15:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • A Secret History of the IRA, Ed Moloney, 2002. 9PB) ISBN 0-393-32502-4 (HB) ISBN 0-71-399665-X

• p.571 (Glossary of terms): "Volunteer - Official name for a rank-and-file IRA member."

Already noted above.

Evidence of rank blatant evidence - this is not noted above. How more clear can it be than this - Volunteer - Official name for a rank-and-file IRA member--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• p.80: "Whereas the first IRA commanders were Southerns, the footsoldiers in the war, the Volunteers, came overwhelmingly from the North"

Evidence of rank. Logoistic 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of rank. No need for a comment - again shows the levels.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• p.104: "At rank and file level in the IRA it was a different story. Adams was begining to acquire a celebrity status that he strengthened by placing a distance between himself and ordinary IRA Volunteers."

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of rank. reference to the Volunteers as being the "rank and file" level.

• p.108: "That was in the days when the Cumann na mBan came under the authority of the IRA; in fact even a Volunteer in the IRA could give orders to a ranking Cumann na mBan woman"

Evidence of rank. Logoistic 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of rank. Second only to the comment by Joe Cahill this is the nail in the coffin - a member of the Cumann na mBan (the womens IRA) referring to a Volunteer as being a low rank but still important enough to boss around the women. Concrete evidence from INSIDE the IRA.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• p.154: "Adams and Bell proposed that the IRA should have it's own "Green Book", which all recruits would be obliged to read and digest before being admitted as full fledged Volunteers."

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestive of rank. the Green Book is given to new entrant and therefore you would have to learn about the book before get to the "full fledged Volunteer" level.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• p.383: "A story told by one IRA vetern illustrates why McGuinness struck a chord with the rank-and-file Volunteer and Adams did not."

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. That the word "rank-and-file" is used suggests that there are non-"rank-and-file" Volunteers. This therefore suggests it is not a rank. Logoistic 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of rank. Again showing that Volunteer is "rank and file level below the leadership.

• p.418: "British withdrawal was nevertheless negotiable and that the IRA might negotiate terms went beyond the lifetime of a British parliment, but on the issue if an IRA cease-fire he was unequivocally hardline, as the IRA Volunteers expected their Northern commander to be."--Vintagekits 01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No evidence for rank here, could be name analgous to 'member' or 'solider'. Logoistic 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of rank. Volunteer mentioned and commander therefore evidence of rank system and the Volunteers looking up to the commander to be hardline.--Vintagekits 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Observation

I've read through. Firstly, a fantastic degree of research taking place on the article talk page and a credit to wikipedia. Very organised and thorough. Very clearly laid out and very easy for an observer to see the points. I think both parties are making an effort here! - though not always quite hitting the nail on the head. Let's take a ship with a captain and the crew, "the hands on deck". Clearly there is a difference in rank. When the ship is lost "with all hands" or "all the crew perished", it doesn't mean the captain survived. He's suddenly lumped in with them. Certain terms have elasticity - even if they're usually used a certain way - and can alter a shade of meaning as the context and intent changes.

We seem to have the same situation here. And don't forget we are talking also over a period of time, as well as different contexts. Undoubtedly there is a usage of "volunteer" (we'll leave capitals till later) as equivalent to "private". Then we have "officer" contrasted to "volunteer". Officers are normally contrasted to non-coms, i.e. private, corporal, sergeant, even slightly higher. This implies (but is not definitely shown I think) that "volunteer" means "the lower ranks" in general. Then we also have the term "volunteer" in other circumstances as an honorific - i.e. if you are in the IRA, you are a "volunteer" (not just in the sense of volunteering but in the specialist sense of particular membership.

What all this means is that we cannot seek a simplistic this is right/that is wrong. We need a more subtle exploration and definition, based on context, time, speaker, intent of usage. This is proper work - if this term really means so much - and cannot be avoided by a simple "mostly". In fact I think my preceding paragraph would be a good basis for a structure of definition. You would never say about a mixed group of officers and rank-and-file in the British army "here come the privates", but in the IRA it seems you might well say, "here come the volunteers".

Another aspect which is relevant is how the term is used outside the IRA, in fiction, in the media etc. There is also the question of v or V. The Green Book article has v, but above it is V. I suspect there is a certain casualness with this, and maybe on some occasions not, but that hasn't been established. Let us not forget that this is an organisation outlawed by the government in power, and therefore a lot of what takes place within it is oral. It is not exactly the same as a regular army where everything can be organised and recorded at leisure.

Tyrenius 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Does Óglach translate as volunteer?

I thought it translates as youth? Anyone have an Irish-English dictionary to hand? The term Óglach is used by both the Army of the UN recognised government of the Republic of Ireland and the Provisional IRA (and other IRAs). I would guess that both Army and provisional Army used the same phrase in an attempt to claim legitimacy. (The IRA's position being that the government of Ireland in Dublin was illegitimate and that its own forces were the legitimate army of Ireland.) Curtains99 09:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Óglach is Volunteer, you might me thinking of Fiann.--Vintagekits 10:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My dictionary (Focloir Gailge-Bearla O Donail 1992) gives the following definition: 1. (lit.) a young man (a) (young) warrior 2. Lit. Attendant, servant or vassal. 3. Mil: Volunteer; Oglaigh na hEireann, the Irish Volunteers.

The original meaning was "youth", which then became "warrior" as in gall oglaigh. When Eoin MacNeill founded the IRish volunteers he needed a word in Irish, so oglach became the Irish for "volunteers".

Btw, my dictionary defines fiann as, "hist.: Lit: Roving band of warrior hunters. Fianna Fhinn; na Fianna, legendary warrior bands of Fionn Mac Cumhaill"

Jdorney 12:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking that up for me. Is 'volunteer' or 'Volunteer' used by the Irish Army? Or do they only use óglach? Curtains99 12:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Irish language rank names uses "Saighdiúr Singil" for "Private (Soldier)" The only google hits on military.ie for "Óglach" are in the genitive plural of organization titles: "na mBuan-Óglach", " Óglach na hÉireann", "na nÓglach Cúltaca". "Volunteer" is used only in organization titles, as a generic description; or in reference to pre-indepedence volunteers. jnestorius 16:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So Óglaigh na hÉireann is the Irish name for the Irish Army/Irish Defence Forces but not a rank within that organisation. Does the Irish Army not refer to its members as 'Óglaigh' ? Curtains99 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The facts are in the wrong place

If someone were to come to me and say they wanted to find out about the IRA usage of the term volunteer, and was there a wiki article to help, I would say, "yes, but don't bother with that because you'll find far more useful information on the article talk page and on the mediation cabal page." Why are the facts in the wrong place? Tyrenius 22:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a contentious issue and we haven't worked it all out yet. Feel free to add any neutral facts to this article. Can you give an example of something missing? During the PIRA's l969-1997 campaign, their actions were characterised as criminal by the British government, whereas the PIRA sought to have its operations called a 'war'. Opponents of the PIRA used language to advance their position that the IRA were terrorists while the PIRA prisoners sought POW status, gave their members military titles and so on. Your choice of language indicated your position during the conflict. As the military conflict has now mostly ceased, there has been a softening of language on both sides. Curtains99 10:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The capital "V" or little "v" debate

I thought that the one thing that everyone involved in the debate was that everyone agreed that volunteer should hold the capital V in order to differenciate it from the more usual use of the term volunteer. I personally think it should always have a capital V, can I have you arguement for a small or big V.--Vintagekits 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would again urge getting away from this "either ... or" approach, and adopting a NPOV which is to recogise all significant viewpoints with due weight apportioned. There should be a section in the article which examines this issue and cites sources. This applies to various other aspects of the subject as well. Tyrenius 00:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Vintage. I think what he's talking about Tyrenius is not one particular use of either the capitalised or non-capitalised version in the article "Volunteer", but using the capitalised version in its links from other articles (i.e. X member (Volunteer) of the PIRA). I would prefer this as it does indeed avoid conflation with "volunteer" as considered at volunteer. Both capitalisation and non-capitalisation have been used, so I don't see why this couldn't work. Logoistic 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So this is a centralised discussion to achieve consistency in other articles? The consensus agreed at the moment is lower case "v". If, as seems likely, the IRA usage as a title is more often than not upper case, and seeing as the word in parenthesis is meant to be the group's own description, it makes sense to use V in the first instance. If no one objects to this, then it attains consensus status by default. This doesn't apply later in the article, when for example describing "a group of volunteers". Also per the Principle of least astonishment and use of major sources, it would not be right to refer in the main text of the article to "Volunteer O'Brien" (except in a quote), unless it is shown that major sources do this as a norm. Tyrenius 01:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Are military ranks normally capitalised when not used as honorifics? I know you would say 'Col. Murphy', but would you say 'Murphy was a Colonel' or 'Murphy was a colonel'? . Curtains99 10:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont know, I'll look into it - good point.--Vintagekits 10:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The latter as it's just a generic usage. Tyrenius 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to get this one started again. I thought that the only thing that there was consensus on was the capitalised V. Anyway, I still think that the small v 1. doesnt look right, and 2. the capital V is the most commonly used and the more correct use. Anyone disagree? --Vintagekits 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree to point 1. As I've said, I think the capital V helps us get further away from "volunteer" in the good citizen sense. I'm not sure whether the captialised version is used more often, but both are, so using one over the other shouldn't really matter. Logoistic 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, unless someone has any objection over the next few days I am going to use the capital V instead of the small v.--Vintagekits 18:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit late, but I concur with the positions expressed by Logoistic and VK. I disagree with variable usage since it inevitably leads to time sapping edit wars....Gaimhreadhan • 13:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The key points out of the consensus are:

• First definition is "member".
• This is followed immediately by IRA's own definition of "volunteer".
• However, in the text of the article, we do not refer to the member with a title as "Volunteer O'Brien", in the way we might mention "Private Smith" in a regular army. This is because mainstream sources do not do this, whose precedent we follow under WP:NOR.
• volunteer can be used in the main text of the article to refer to a member when it is required stylistically e.g. "several volunteers stayed at the farm, because "several members stayed at the farm" sounds stilted. An alternative might be "several members of the IRA stayed at the farm." This would depend on the context.
• The consensus was lower case v for the time being.
• It has now been shown that "Volunteer" is applied as a title, so I suggest it is upper case in the first definition as a title, but thereafter not used as a title but only as generic, when it will be lower case.

This article demands some exceptions as it is a specific examination of the term, so this is likely to require Volunteer in places for sense. Where possible it should be volunteer.

Tyrenius 22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Postscript

Please see from preceding section:

OK, unless someone has any objection over the next few days I am going to use the capital V instead of the small v.--Vintagekits 18:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no objection, so on this article only the default is capital V, pending any further discussion and altered consensus. Tyrenius 12:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of the (April) discussion till you posted on my talk page, Tyrenius. Thanks for pointing it out. I don't think there should be a default capital or lowercase 'v' on this article. It really does depend on context. All (I think) instances of the word were capitalised on 11th July, sometimes out of context. E.g., referring to (lowercase) "recruit", "earcach", "cadet", and "dalta" and to (capitalised) "Volunteer" all in the same sentence is just bad English. My changes this morning removed some, but left others, depending on context. I hope this is acceptable and I'm open to correction. Regards, Bastun 12:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (capital letters) has "Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president." The correct formal name of an office is treated as a proper noun. Hence: "Hirohito was Emperor of Japan." Similarly, "Louis XVI was the French king" but "Louis XVI was King of France", King of France being a title in that context." Similarly, we say "This is Colonel Smith" but "Smith was a colonel in the army". A local consensus can never outweigh a MoS consensus in which thousands of users have participated. --John 13:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have started a centralised discussion on this at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Volunteer (IRA). --John 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The result of that discussion was the consensus that the term should be "capitalised before names (and pipelinked the first time it occurs in an article), not when referring generally to volunteers. E.g., "Volunteer Joe Bloggs left, but the other volunteers remained..." (User:Bastun's words). As I said all along. --John 15:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Becoming a Volunteer

Some good tight referencing taking place. However, in this section the reference needs to be added after each of the two quotes, rather than the intro to them. They might end up getting separated through editing from the intro. Also they are not direct quotes from the Green Book, but quotes made in another book, so it is even more important to have a ref next to them saying that. Tyrenius 20:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Loyalists

I notice the loyalists also refer to their members as "volunteers" http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/viggiani/east_memorial.html. Should we have a seperate article or a section in this one? Jdorney 13:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to see where loyalists are called volunteers. It seems to be a part of OR, so I do not think the need of mentioning it. Shyam 14:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at this Ulster Defence Association memorial http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/viggiani/images/MEMORIALS/Belfast/Loyalists/UDA%20-%20Kenbaan%20Street,%202006/P1010011.JPG their dead are given the title "Vol.", short for "Volunteer" before their names. Jdorney 14:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this evidence is not self-sufficient to presume loyalists as volunteers as NPOV. I am still not convinced using volunteer for a loyalist. Shyam 20:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, POV has nothing to do with it either way. The question is only whether loyalists also use this terminology. Jdorney 16:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Although a lot of the current usage stems from a reaction to unionist/loyalist usage including Ulster Volunteers, Ulster Volunteer Force etc I dont think that use the term to the same degree.--Vintagekits 19:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, but looking at the loyalist memorials on CAIN (see above), they clearly do use the term. Gusty Spence, for instance, in a letter of sympathy to Official IRA man Joe McCann's widow in 1972 said that McCann was "Soldier of the Republic" and himself a "volunteer of Ulster". Jdorney 19:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Gusty's quote doesnt claim that he had a rank or title of Volunteer only that he volunteered his services for Ulster - not a specific group.--Vintagekits 18:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on current version

On Feb 5, this article was subtantially expanded and was nominated for WP:DYK. As there has been a lot of discussion on the content of the article, including mediation, I raise this question to those who have been involved in editing this page: Is there consensus on this current version (content) of the article? — ERcheck (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the DYK nomination, but I have written most of the text in the article so far. There seems to be consensus on what is here so far, but I wouldn't say its the finished article (so to speak) yet.

Jdorney 19:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done some tidying, mostly on the Irish-language bits and the references. The Youtube link will have to go, it's a clear WP:COPYVIO. But is there any available-to-buy DVD, or book, which quotes Joe Cahill's crucial sentence? I think the youtube is from "The Troubles" from 1981, which isn't available AFAIK. jnestorius 00:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it ever came out on DVD but I could be wrong!--Vintagekits 18:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on use of "volunteer" outside of this article

Some editors feel that the mediation ruling describing use of "volunteer" (Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage). Specifically, they state that a new consensus has been established where "member" is not required to be used in the first instance because articles where this change was made was not reverted, even though no discussion of these alterations, or the resoning behind them, was made. This is an area for comment about this. Logoistic 20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

My own comment. I disagree with this new 'consensus' on the following grounds:

1. The crux of the mediation discussion, and the core of my and other's (e.g. Jnestorius' and Stubbaca's) arguments in that discussion was that the term "volunteer" was honorific and posed positive connotations in the same way that (to use Jnestorius' example) "martydom operation" does in describing suicide bombings. And just as we would not include "martydom operation" in an article just 'cause it's been there untouched for months, we should not here. We have established that positive connotation is there - so how on earth can we then start to accept it because some editors like OneNight want to keep it? In short, there is positive connotation there.

2. On "consensus" - this is clearly very important. However, we have arrived at this new apparant "consensus" without even discussing the issue over whether to use "member" first. Rather than putting forward arguments about why volunteer does not have positive connotation, no discussion has taken place. How is this forming a consensus? Are the involved parties expected to patrol these pages foreover checking that the mediation cable is upheld? What if they leave (ala Weggie and Curtains), or are away for months (ala me and Jnestorius)? In short, the current "consensus" was established without even discussing the matter, and missing vital parties who were involved in the orignal discussion. Logoistic 20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Echoing Logoistic's sentiments. The mediation cabal outcome was an agreed consensus. There was a halfhearted attempt by some editors a couple of months back to say that the agreement had reached the end of its life (due to some wording in the cabal decision, I think), but it was never agreed, then or now, to overturn the mediation cabal decision, which still stands. Bastun 21:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This debate has been irrevocably compromised from the start. The message left on various editor's talk pages was not a neutral invitation to a new debate, it was a biased message. There's also this where the input of an editor not involved in the original debate and known to be biased is solicited. It should not even be taking place right now, as it is well known many other editor's time is tied up with the ongoing ArbCom case, and a mediation case regarding flags.

As for the above, you people seriously might want to have a read of WP:CONSENSUS. A small group of editors cannot impose a permanently result across a large number of articles, it's that simple. Consensus can change, and it has changed. Let's see who's not got a problem with the current consensus shall we? Tyrenius does not object, John does not object since he made all the changes in the first place. So it wasn't even a "republican" editor that made the changes, it was a neutral administrator. Two neutral administrators do not object!

We don't need to discuss this change with anyone involved in the original mediation cabal, you don't own these articles. Are the involved parties expected to patrol these pages foreover checking that the mediation cable is upheld? No, because you cannot uphold that. Per policy the mediation cabal cannot impose a permanent result. The changes were made two months ago across a wide variety of articles and not one single person objected. What if they leave (ala Weggie and Curtains), or are away for months (ala me and Jnestorius)? Is that actually a serious question? You honestly think you own the articles that much that nobody can edit them without your permission? ...it was never agreed, then or now, to overturn the mediation cabal decision, which still stands. Policy disagrees. The articles were changed by John (a neutral administrator!) and nobody objected, the mediation cabal cannot impose a permanent result per policy. In short, the current "consensus" was established without even discussing the matter, and missing vital parties who were involved in the orignal discussion. Misplaced Pages does not stop to accomodate your whims. If John had been reverted then I assume a further discussion would taken place. He wasn't reverted on any article that I can see, therefore the parties who were still active clearly did not object to the change. So in short, nobody objected when the articles were changed, and two neutral administrators don't object now. Opening this up again now is pointless, as I can assure you the "republican" editors are unlikely to agree to what was agreed before under the circumstances. All it's going to do is waste a whole lot of everyone's time that could be spent far more constructively, so please don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I strongly disagree that that message was biased, and I think you are seriously lacking in good faith for assuming it is not.

Secondly, you well know that the "editor not involved in the original debate and known to be biased" was the one who set off this conflict of opinion by changing "volunteer" and expressing opposition to its use. I probably wouldn't have realised otherwise. He was involved in the current conflict of opinion, so please do not suggest I am "soliciting" their support - my message to him clearly indicates this. This is bad faith on your part again.

Thirdly, no discussion was instigated over the issue. The mediation highlighted that it was clearly a touchy issue, and therefore surely it was logical that it should have been discussed before it was changed. No matter how many people want it left as it is, they have not adressed the arguments made in that case against the use of "volunteer" as a stand alone term without the first use of "member". In the same way that we cannot simply accept the recent straw poll over the Ulster Ban that showed conclusive support to use it as the de facto flag of NI (because we cannot accept this unless the argument that there is a significant number of the population who would reject that flag is properly overcome), it is surely wrong to simply force something through on force of numbers without adressing the arguments - which is exactly what you are proposing.

Fourthly, yes that was a "serious question" (that was a personal attack against me btw) because in contentious cases such as these where there has been a mediation cable, changing without adressing the arguments and then using the fact that it hasn't been reverted as evidence of a new "consensus" is, again, avoiding talking about the arguments. My point is that you cannot rely on editors being there to highlight their previous arguments. The editors may have left but their arguments have not.

Fifthly, I am not disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point - read it, it says "Discussion is the preferred means for demonstrating the problem". Yet this is precisely what has been avoided, and what you are now trying to avoid. Your suggestion that I am disrupting Misplaced Pages rather than trying to improve it is again a lack of good faith.

Sixthly, please do not try and bully me by saying this will "waste a whole lot of everyone's time" - you are in no privelged position to judge whether this is an important point or not. Logoistic 17:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has as much substance as smoke in a bottle. The term Volunteer has been used in Ireland from 1778 at least, some historians but the year as early as 1774, that is according to A.T. Q. Stewart in his book A Deeper Silence. If you want a detailed list of Volunteer Company’s one would only have read Thomas Mac Nevin’s, The Volunteers of 1782, which is quoted by Stewart. Another useful little book is, The Volunteer: Uniforms, Weapons and History of the Irish Republican Army 1913-1997. If you like your military history, you would be familiar with Osprey Publishing, who have a bit of a reputation for this type of book. Their Irish Volunteer Soldier 1913-1923, by Gerry White, Brendan O’Shea and Illustrated by Bill Younghusband, is your only man. Apart from them and not to mention every book written on the subject of the IRA using the term Volunteer, some editors say they have a problem! I for one will not pander to contrived arguments based on the spurious sensibilities of editors who wish to push a narrow minded agenda. The term used is Volunteer! I have yet to see any fact based argument against its use, other than opinion and micky mouse nonsense. Lets move on shall we. --Domer48 12:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Óglaigh na hÉireann.jpg

Image:Óglaigh na hÉireann.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

History

Despite being the original expander of the information on the Irish Volunteers last year, i removed the 18th century information per WP:TOPIC as the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century aren't republicans and thus aren't entirely relevant to the topic. Its the same justification given by Hohenloh for the removal of the loyalist use of the term - because they aren't republicans and neither where the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century. If any mention is needed of them, a simply link to "See also" could be provided. There is also scant proof that they called themselves "Volunteers" as a title or rank - this article is on about the "rank", and no proof whatsoever that Irish republicans adopted the term from them - rather the article makes it clear they can be traced to the republican Irish Volunteers of the 20th century. So are the relevant? As relevant as the loyalist use of the term in an article about Irish republican use of it.

I also find one of Domer48's edits tinged with POV. Firstly they show they never read the quote added to the citation, and secondly changing a statement to make it sound as if its only according to one historian - who never made the statement - one historian who provided a documented quote from the Irish Volunteers themselves who made the statement as made clear by the added quote to the cite tag - only further reinforces my belief that Domer48 is trying his hand at historical revisionism and trying to imply that its a fringe view - despite the fact the organisation itself made the statement! No surprise really. Mabuska 11:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I posted on Hohenloh's talk page this morning, will repeat it here for discussion:

Hi Hohenloh. I appreciate that the section about loyalism probably now isn't relevant as there's a whole article about it, but don't you think the "see also" is appropriate? There should be a way for readers to find out about both terms from both articles as they are relevant to each other and both stem from the same source. For example, on the Volunteer (Ulster loyalist) article, there's a sentence stating "Irish nationalist and republican use of the term originates with a second Irish Volunteers formed in 1913 in response to Carson and Craig's UVF" and a "see also" link to the republican article.

I agree with your removal of the section on the original Irish Volunteers, Mabuska. If people are going to enforce that this article is only about republican use of the term, it's not relevant. JonC 11:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Volunteers were Republican and to suggest otherwise will require sources.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Irish Volunteers – the original lot – were republican? I think you could do with reading their article. Some former members joining the United Irishmen (and plenty not) doesn't make the Volunteers republicans. JonC 14:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Domer is intentionally confusing the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century with the unrelated Irish Volunteers of the 20th century. Rather Domer needs proof to state that the 18th century ones were/became republicans despite the fact they proclaimed their loyalty to the crown an no sources i've seen ever called them repiblicans. Mabuska 18:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources please.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Domer48 my source is in the article, a statement made by the Volunteers themselves at a convention they held in Dungannon, on February 1782. Where is your source that they are republicans? Or that they even became republicans? Wanting legislative independence meets many points of nationalism, for it to be republicanism they'd also need to advocate independence from the British monarch and the creation of a republic. If you are so sure then please provide your sources. Shall we take this to one of the several dispute resolution arenas Misplaced Pages has? You'd definately have to produce your evidence then.

Your sourced additions also make no difference to the question at hand. None of them prove republicanism in any form, but rather nationalism and both are not mutally exclusive. They can want a legislatively (key word there, legislatively) independant Ireland under the crown - but that doesn't make them republicans for anything in the world. Can a republic have a monarch? Does Irish republicanism allow for the British crown to continue as monarch of Ireland? I don't think so.

Can you even vindicate their relevance to the article at all Domer48? Where is the republicanism in the 18th century Irish Volunteers? Where is it at? The fact some members, mostly Presbyterians, became inspired by the French revolution and with the idea of a republic, doesn't mean that the Volunteers became republicans. Rather such people joined the United Irishmen - an organisation that became republican - an organisation that staged its rebellion five years after the Volunteers were effectively killed off (so to speak) by the Gunpowder Act, Convention Act, and creation of the Yeomanry (which replaced the need for them).

So after all of that, please Domer48, provide your sources that the Volunteers of the 18th century were republicans and that they used "Vol." or 'Volunteer" as a rank, or stop being disruptive by preventing the removal of absolutely irrelevant information from the article. Mabuska 16:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Dubious opening statement of 18 century Irish Volunteers

Whilst the above on the actual relevance of the entire history section concerning the 18th century Volunteers goes on awaiting Domer48 to finally provide evidence. The opening statements of the section aren't exactly clear:

"The origins of Irish Republicanism lay with the both the American and French revolutions. The original use of the term 'Volunteer' in this context dates back to the 18th centry Irish Volunteers, an almost exclusively Protestant militia corps raised in 1778 to augment the army and to defend Ireland from foreign invasion"

In what context was the term first used? Republicanism or revolutionism? If republicanism there is no evidence at all whatsoever to substantiate that claim. If revolutionism, the Volunteers weren't created as a revolutionary organisation, but as an augmentation to the British army made up of volunteers - not revolutionaries.

I originally added the source () for the "an almost exclusively Protestant" part when i expanded the Volunteers section last year. However prior to that addition of mine, i've noticed the start of the sentence along with the first sentence kind of implies that the Volunteers were republicans, when there is no evidence or sources to substantiate that. Hence i've added a tag.

Also what is the point in the first sentence? We are on about the term volunteer in a republican context, not what Irish republicanism was inspired by - and in that Irish republicanism is traced back to the United Irishmen (inspired by those revolutions) - not the Volunteers.

If they were republicans, and the use of the term "volunteer" in that context (republican) was used by them and dated back to them then i'm sure they'll be plenty of sources that the Volunteers were republicans. If it can't be substantiated it should be removed.

If it is actually referring to its use in a revolutionary context then the statements prior to my addition last year should be reworded to be more concise, correct, and clear so misinterpretation isn't likely. And whilst they were revolutionary is certain ways - it'd also need properly and clearly sourced. I would just be bold and do it, however i have a feeling one editor may take exception to it, so if they object please explain why before i decide to be bold. Mabuska 18:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class Irish republicanism articles
• Low-importance Irish republicanism articles
• WikiProject Irish republicanism articles
• Start-Class Ireland articles
• Low-importance Ireland articles
• Start-Class Ireland articles of Low-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• Start-Class Northern Ireland-related articles
• Unknown-importance Northern Ireland-related articles
• All WikiProject Northern Ireland pages