Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is closed. The consensus of the discussion was:
Where the initial definition occurs in the lead section, it should firstly be stated that a person is a member of the IRA. The term volunteer should then normally be mentioned. Lower case "v" should be used for the time being. In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article. Please do not modify it. Shyam (T/C) 11:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleWikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)#IRA articles: usage of the word "volunteer"
Statusclosed
Request dateUnknown
Requesting partyLogica
Parties involvedMultiple
Mediator(s)Shyam Bihari
CommentConcensus has been listed above.
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)#IRA articles: usage of the word "volunteer"]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)#IRA articles: usage of the word "volunteer"]]

Mediation Case: 2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.


Request Information

Request made by: Logica 03:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the issue taking place?
...Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)#IRA articles: usage of the word "volunteer" discussion currently at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage
Who's involved?
...User:Logica, User:Vintagekits, User:Weggie, User:jnestorius, User:Stubacca , User:Pauric, User:Curtains99, User:Beaumontproject, User:Derry Boi, User:Demiurge.
What's going on?
...dispute over whether "Volunteer" is a neutral term to describe members of the IRA, implicitly taken to mean the modern IRA, including the ORIA, PIRA, CIRA, and RIRA.
What would you like to change about that?
...That the term "Volunteer" should not be used in place of "member" when describing membership of the ORIA PIRA, CIRA, RIRA, since this is a non-neutral term (it is the language of the IRA). "Member" should be used as it is a neutral term.
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
...not bothered. You can reach me at my talk page - User talk:Logica.

Mediator response

I do not have good knowledge about IRA. I have thoroughly gone through the thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)#IRA articles: usage of the word "volunteer" and in the discussion section. I have a general doubt that does really term Volunteer a POV for Irish Republican Army. Google and other search engines make significant number of counts. IRA was descended from the Irish Volunteers, so I did not understand why it is not a NPOV? Shyam (T/C) 07:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam, thank you for taking this one up. Unfortunately, though, I think you're mistaken on the basis of the dispute. This is not about use of the term Volunteer in relation to the Old IRA but rather it's use by illegal terrorist organisations claiming descent from the Old IRA: namely the Provisional IRA and other splinter groups such as the "Continuity IRA" and the "Real IRA". (See List of IRAs). The Provisional IRA are not descended from the Irish Volunteers - the Irish Defence Forces/Oglaigh na hEireann]] are. Bastun 11:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, you havent a clue what you are talking about! So are you stating that it is OK to call members of the IRA Volunteers but it is not OK to call OIRA, PIRA, RIRA, CIRA etc Volunteers? You do know that the original IRA was also a illegal organisation when it was around and also branded as terrorists by the government of the day then also. That IRA split and became the official Irish Army and the IRA both still claimed to be the rightful decendants of the Irish Volunteers and both claimed the title of Óglaigh na hÉireann which literally translates to "Volunteers of Ireland") I cant wait to hear the reply to this one? Your agruement is farcical, contradictory and totally without foundation. As for the terrorist issue - this has been done before or wiki and the conclusion was that terrorist was POV and that the PIRA was an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation read the Provisional IRA article if you want more info on that. Vintagekits 17:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, if this is the case then I think, Volunteers should not use for terrorist organisations. I suppose it could be used with Irish Republican Army. IMO, The members associated with terrorist organisations connected with IRA are not volunteers according to definition and NPOV. So the term volunteer should be replaced with member or other more suitable one. Shyam (T/C) 12:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis are you making that decision, Its a rank for god sake and is outlined on all IRA headstones. Also stating that they are terrorists is POV, if you are going to call the IRA terrorist I will make sure the all page about the British Army are labelled as terrorists!, remember the Old IRA was an illegal organistation as well, as were George Washington and Nelson Mandela considered terrorists - even if they were terrorist how does that alter it and make it POV - I really cant follow your logic, how can you decision completely change and Bastun makes a comment that is infact 100% totally incorrect - I am really considering your position as a mediator if you act in such a manner. To be consistant and if the rank of Volunteer is POV then I will be deleting all pages and references to any ranks or mention of any structure to the IRA including Provisional Irish Republican Army, IRA Army Council etc obviously that is stupid because it exists and they are not POV - where is the consistancy? - ALL these pages must be deleted if you consider Volunteer to be POV - Volunteer is not POV it is fact, how can you be blind to this - are you able to give a reason that it is POV? I think you need to actually read what is going on here in this discussion instead of flip flopping and getting bullied by anti-Irish or anti-republican wiki users into changing your decision. Its has been proven that it is not POV - it is only the POV of some anti-republicans that consider it to be POV. Like I said how can you have articles which outline the structure and and the titles of the IRA like Army Council, Chief of Staff, Quartermaster General, [1], Divisions, Brigades [2] [3], North and South Command etc within the page about the IRA and its organisation, all of these are taken as legitimate terms and show that there is a recognised structure so it is a nonscence to state that the most basic term for a member is being considered POV - this is going to have massive ramifications on wiki and setting a dangerous and ridiculous precident.Vintagekits 16:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP:POINT. (And mass deletions and other vandalism will no doubt be reverted in minutes and would possibly get you banned). 2. Are you seriously suggesting that the Provisional IRA and their ilk aren't terrorists? Sorry, on this issue at least, I'd rather take the word of the democratically elected government of Ireland. Yes, the (P)IRA are under a ceasefire. Most - not all - of their members have been released under licence. Specifically, the PIRA members who gunned down Garda Síochána Gerry McCabe while robbing a bank in the Republic of Ireland are still in prison. I don't think the C- and RIRA are on ceasefire, either? Whether on ceasefire or not, though, membership of the various IRA organisations and their loyalist counterparts, though, is still illegal in Ireland, the UK, the US and elsewhere. Why? Because they are regarded by those governments as terrorist organisations. Bastun 16:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All this does is show your anti-republican POV, how does that make Volunteer POV? You are try to use immotive language and issues instead of dealing with facts. All you have done is state it is POV which proves nothing at all. This case is not about whether or not you agree with the IRA or not this case is about the term Volunteer which is the rank given to all people who join the IRA - that is fact so how can it be POV? Vintagekits 17:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits, please assume good faith on other users. IMO, according to definition of Volunteer, terrorist group members are not volunteers. A terrorist is a volunteer is really a POV. Other old IRAs were not terrorist groups, so there is nothing to be biased. Shyam (T/C) 05:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Shyam, but that really is ridiculous. All of the IRA's were illegal organisations and were terrorists in someone's eyes. The IRA of 1919-21 was respsonsible for about 2000 deaths, the IRA of 1922-23 for about 1000 more. The debate over the use of the term "volunteer" has nothing to do with this subjective debate over who is a terrorist and who is not. As I've outlined in the discussion, I don't really care one way or another between "volunteer" and "member", however one's opinion of extra-state violence in Ireland should not come into it one way or the other.

Jdorney 19:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the IRA was a legitimate army and lost its legitimacy in the late 1930s. Until then I do not think the problem with the term volunteer but after the army lost its legitimacy and declared as terrorist group, the term volunteer is POV, IMO. Shyam (T/C) 20:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the IRA was never a "legitimate" army in the sense of being the army of a legally constituted, internationally recognised state. It was descended from the Irish Volunteers, a nationalist militia formed to ensure the concession of Home Rule. It was then the guerrilla (or terrorist, if you take that pov) of the revolutionary government of the Irish Republic of 1919-21.

In 1922, the IRA split between those who supported the Anglo-Irish Treaty and those who did not. The Anti-Treaty IRA lost the ensuing Irish Civil War. The pro-treaty IRA formed the nucleus of the Irish Army, which is a "legitimate" army in the normal sense, who won the civil war.

The anti-treaty IRA continued to oppose the existance of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (especially the latter) and in turn split again in 1969 to form the Provisional IRA and the Official IRA. Two small groups, the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA, later split off from the Provisionals. All of these groups as well as the Irish Army, claim descent from the Irish Volunteers and the original IRA. All of these groups have been referred to as terrorist at one time or another. I realise this is a bit confusing.

Jdorney 23:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute arose because of the usage of volunteer for the following groups: PIRA, CIRA and RIRA. All of these groups are regarded far and wide as terrorist and are outlawed as such in the Republic of Ireland and the UK. The CIRA and RIRA are also proscribed in the USA and until 2002 so was the PIRA. The European Court of Human Rights referred to the PIRA and specific memebers as a terrorist organisation. The origins of the these groups are irrelevent - their tactics make them terrorist as is recognised by the international media and by Govts Weggie 02:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, using the term volunteer for IRA is POV as well because of it's guerrilla campaign in 1919-1921. Volunteer should not use any one of the IRA, PIRA, CIRA and RIRA members. Shyam (T/C) 06:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has become hopelessly confused. Should the Irish Volunteers not be called volunteers because they launched the Easter Rising (c. 500 killed)? This debate should not be, "the IRA are bad so therefore cannot be called volunteers". My recomendation is this: the original IRA can be uncontroversialy called volunteers, because this was the name of their organisation (est 1913). This does not imply approval or disapproval, any more than referring to the Nazi SA by their preferred title of stormtroopers does to that organisation.

Re the subsequent IRA's I would suggest that "member" is more neutral because the automatic use of the term "volunteer" implies that these organisations are the legitimate descendants of the first IRA, a claim that is, of course, strongly disputed. However, since "volunteer" is how these groups describe their low-ranking members, I would suggest that the use of volunteer (republican) is acceptable in the context of describing a person's role within these organisations.

Jdorney 15:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, Jdorney ends the debate. Either use the member or volunteer (republican) for the members of other than old IRA. Shyam (T/C) 16:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this means? For me this means I have the choice of which to use, either Volunteer or member for PIRA, CIRA and RIRA. I will therefore be able to change current uses of volunteer for member. To my eyes this solves nothing and will result in an editing war? As suggested Volunteer is seen to be an offensive term to many contributers as it is an honerific for members of a terrorist organisation?? Please clarifyWeggie 17:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That means, it would be better to use member for the members of other than old IRA. Shyam (T/C) 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shyham, I am assuming good faith. But I think you are getting confused, the word volunteer does not just mean a volunteer for some charity group etc but it is a military rank for an army or militia, being terrorists or not has nothing to do with this discussion, The solution proposed by jnestorius as of 00:40, 10 December is the only solution. To consider a rank as honourific is purely POV. Its like stating a rank in the Germany Nazi army is honourific. Again I would state that it is totally out of context to state that the rank Volunteer is POV and then have articles which describe the ranks and military structure of the IRA such as Army Council, Chief of Staff, Quartermaster General, [4], Divisions, Brigades [5] [6], North and South Command etc within the page about the IRA and its organisation, Obviously if the rank of Volunteer is POV then all titles given to IRA members are and should be deleted. Vintagekits 16:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is nice idea stated by Jnestorius. I am not sure about the second statement. Could it be more explanatory? If all agree with those points, I would happy in closing the case. Shyam (T/C) 17:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree if we follow the steps outlined by Jnestorius then we can bring this to an end as that system makes sure that any confusion especially with the disamb page being used. Vintagekits 16:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with all the above - first of all most of the posters will be celebrating New Years in the ROI/UK so please leave this case open for at least 4 more days!!!!!!!!!!! Secondly we have established that Volunteer is not a rank - everyone in the IRA is a classified by them and their sympathisers as a Volunteer. It is merely an honourific designed to dignify their movement with military overtones. Again please do not lose this until later and people are back posting again Weggie 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, we should wait for four more days before closing the case. Shyam (T/C) 19:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Weggie, Weggie if Volunteer is an honourific title then so is Army - therefore should we not be aloud call the IRA the Irish Republican ARMY because they gave themselves that title and therefore its an honourific title - its a poor arguement in my opinion. It also seems strange that you dont want the term used in some articles yet you have added it in others you cant say that Volunteer is just trying toprove military overtones and then in other articles talk about its military structure - your argument is totally contradictoryVintagekits 03:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: WP:POINT. And common sense should apply, too. Bastun 19:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the members of some IRAs from the list where the tem "volunteers" is applicable:

Other than these two IRAs members the term "volunteer" is strictly prohibited. Rewrite Volunteer (republican) and cite all the sources. Use "members" for the following IRAs:

If there are any disapprovals with this proposal, then please list them on the talk page in maximum of 200 words with valid points. Shyam (T/C) 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 10:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see the discussion now. --Ideogram 10:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

  • I strongly disagree with the term member and consider it a lazy or trivial term. My compromise would be to ensure that any reference to an Irish Repbublican/IRA Volunteer is not directed to the volunteer page but is disambed to the Volunteer (republican) and that the Volunteer (republican) page is added to and improved. Vintagekits 12:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This hardly counts as a "compromise". Given the content of the volunteer article, linking to that would be just plain wrong, almost as wrong as linking to Java in an article relating to Java (programming language). Therefore not linking to it should go without saying. jnestorius(talk) 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dont understand what you mean. Vintagekits 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will accept the compromise that User:Stubacca has practiced in the article Thomas McElwee, which is to use "member" in the article, yet link this to "Volunteer (Republican)". This removes my worry that "V/volunteer" would be taken too literally and imbued with connotations of good deads in the article itself, where it may be skimmed over, yet does not prevent others from taking the term in further depth, where it is much less likely to be read with such connotations. Logica 10:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This amounts to an Easter egg, which is against policy (Wikipedia:Piped link#Easter eggs) jnestorius(talk) 23:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree that this type of piped link is an Easter egg. It is substituting one similar term for another, not something completely different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stubacca (talk • contribs) 11:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Stubacca that this does not constitute an Easter egg and I support this compromise proposal. Curtains99 11:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

No reason has been given as to why you consider it non neutral or POV. In my opinion it is simply an accurate and descriptive term that is given to a member of an Irish republican organisation - see Volunteer (republican) and indeed I consider it POV to call them merely "members" - would you just name all members of all armys as "members"?

The term is widely used but does not imply sympathy as it is used by pro republican [1], [2], [3] - anti republican [4], [5], [6], [7], [9] and neutral sources such as [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]

These are links for references to "new" IRA - the term Volunteer has its basis it Irish history through the Ulster Volunteers and Irish Volunteers which became the IRA.

The definition of a volunteer is as follows -

Volunteer:

1. a person who voluntarily offers himself or herself for a service or undertaking. 2. a person who performs a service willingly and without pay. 3. Military. a person who enters the service voluntarily rather than through conscription or draft, esp. for special or temporary service rather than as a member of the regular or permanent army.

Obviously number three applies in this case.

To see the historical background and basis of this term see Óglaigh na hÉireann Vintagekits 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Member" is a neutral term, whilst "Volunteer" is not. Surely "member" would only suffice.(comment left byUser:Logica)
    • You do not explain why you consider it POV - I have explained why it is not, just because you state it is POV does not make it so. The term member would suffice and indeed they are members but it is not the offical or correct term to describe a member and therefore "more correct" Vintagekits 19:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Volunteer" is a loaded term that has positive connotations, and was never used widely outside of the pro-IRA perspective. "Member" is neutral. Logica 22:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Both are neutral, both are correct, however one is more correct than the other and one is the official title which has been used throughout history in Ireland and that is Volunteer Beaumontproject 12:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A shortened version of my recent argument, which can be found at the link above:

Using User:Vintagekits' above references to the use of "V/volunteer" on certain sites, I searched these sites for the terms "IRA volunteer", "volunteer of the IRA", "IRA member", and "member of the IRA". The first two terms I took to represent the use of "volunteer", and the second two to represent use of the term "member". Most sites could be searached, but a couple needed subscription, so could not be. If we were to add up all of the uses for the categories given by User:Vintagekits, we find the following results:

  • "pro republican": 51 hits (79%) for "volunteer", and 14 hits (21%) for "member".
  • "anti republican": 13 hits (23%) for "volunteer", and 44 hits (76%) for "member".
  • "neutral": 21 hits (8%) for "volunteer", and 251 hits (92%) for "member".

User:Vintagekits' argument that "volunteer" is a term also used by anti-republican and neutral sources is not supported by this evidence, even though Vintagekits defined what is "anti republican" and "neutral". This is evidence that the term "volunteer" is a term predominantly used by a "pro republican" perspective, and is used little elsewhere, with the term "member" being preferred. The neutral perspective adopts "member" much more commonly than "volunteer". Wikipedia should be neutral, and should follow this neutral trend by using the term "member" instead of "volunteer". Logica 22:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is possibly the most ridiculous argument I have ever read - you did a couple of searches on a small selected number of websites. What your research doe show is that the term Volunteer IS used by all and therefore NPOV. Just because the term member is used more does not mean Volunteer or Vol. is not the correct term. Vintagekits 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we can see example of the alternative abriviated use of the term Volunteer in the form of Vol. including from the offical Sinn Fein Republican Newspaper [1], [2], [3], [4] Vintagekits 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the search was done for nearly all the sites that you posted above as evidence for the use of "V/volunteer" in, so disregarding the number of sites is disregarding your own argument. Secondly, there were 394 hits - which is a highly significant number, and hardly "a few searches". Thirdly, just because the sites used them at all does not mean to say that they are therefore NPOV. Different authors have different opinions on what to use, and there will usually be several authors on a particular site (esp for newspapers), and the majority used the term "member" over "volunteer". Moreover, many of the references are quoting other people (such as your link to the Mirror newspaper - it was quoting Gerry Adams), or deliberately using the language of the IRA for some reason (such as interveiwing a former IRA member - as in the case of your link to the Camden New Journal). Logica 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another aspect of the debate is that of NPOV. It would be my contention that to impose this term on editors (i.e. 'Volunteer') would be to fundamentally breach the official NPOV poilicy of Wikipedia. As far as I am aware this is a non-negociable policy. The term member is entirely bias free and thus the only choice for editors. Weggie 10:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer (republican) is not POV - to go further I would agree with the argument above that it is actually the term "member" that is the POV terminology and an attempt to trivialise or disrespect. The use of Volunteer is used as the official term for a member of many republican instituations and irregular Irish armies. It has been shown that it is used by all sides pro, anti and neutral therefore it can not be POV (22,000 hit on Google.com for the direct quoted "IRA Volunteer". Can anyone explain exactly how you consider it to be POV as I do not consider it to be and if you cannot prove that it is POV then it should be used as the official title for a member of an instituation that uses that term for its member? The term Volunteer (republican) has been distinguished from the term volunteer so there can be no mix up in what it refers to. The term Volunteer has a long historical basis in Irish military from those in the Irish Volunteers which became the IRA through to the regular Irish Army today, in fact, correct me if I am wrong but the term Volunteer is also used to describe a member of the Irish Army reserve. Beaumontproject 13:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment on this, so here is my view;

The term "Volunteer" comes from the Irish Volunteers, the organisation founded in 1913 and which became the Irish Republican Army in 1919. Most historians use the term "Volunteer" to describe IRA members of 1919-21, as this was simply the name of the organisation which they had joined. With respect to the subsequent IRA's, the picture is a little muddier. The post 1922 IRA claimed to be the legitimate army of the Irish Republic, waiting for its chance to overthrow both the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland and re-establish the republic. Hence it referred to its members by military rank (volunteer being the equivilent of "private"). Since neither the Free State nor NI accepted the IRA's claim to be a legitimate army, but rather outlawed it as a criminal organisation, they preferrred the term "member". It is still a crime in both states in Ireland to be a member of an organisation calling itself the IRA.

To sum up, the problem re pov is that using the term "volunteer' could be seen as an implicit acceptance the IRA is a legitimate army. However, it widely used by neutral writers on the IRA, eg Ed Moloney's Secret History of the IRA. "Member" is more neutral, but to republican ears it no doubt sounds "member of the mafia" - ie a criminal. Perhaps alternative terms could be found? For articles on the the Anti Treaty IRA of the Irish Civil War era, I used the term "fighter" or "guerrilla" or "activist".

Jdorney 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the term volunteer is used, it needs to be made very clear what group is being discussed. Using the term volunteer can be part of the modern day IRAs' attempts to define themselves as the "true" successors of those who won freedom for Ireland. It's also tied up with the issue of the Irish name, "Óglaigh na hÉireann", which is the name for the Irish Defence Forces, but it is illegally used by those who would see themselves as the "true" army of the "Irish Republic". zoney ♣ talk 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think volunteer is a neutral term since that is exactly what they are,volunteers.I do see how it can be offensive to unionists but they are volunteers so i don't see what's wrong with it.It's not POV.How about saying something like Provisional IRA volunteer linking to volunteer (republican) in an article where it could fit to avoid any confusion with historical terms historical terms?Also any expanision in the article could explain the different termsDermo69 22:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


FAO Zoney - the Irish Defence Forces have no right to use Óglaigh na hÉireann as their name, they aren't volunteers in the sense the original Irish Volunteers were, they are a paid standing army.

Anyway, I think the term volunteer is neutral, 'member' sounds very basic. I actually find it hard to believe there is a discussion on this. 'Members' of the modern IRA were volunteers, in obituraries and on headstones vol. is used. Why people feel the need to have something different for wikipedia is beyond me. The use of volunteer matches the three points at the top of this page so that is reason enough for me for the use of volunteer to stay. Tiocfaídh Ár Lá! 23:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Defence Forces have the right to use Óglaigh na hÉireann as their name in Irish because that is the name given to them under legislation, enacted by the democratically elected government of Ireland. They are volunteers, as there is no conscription in Ireland. On the contrary, it is the illegal terrorist organisations like the PIRA, CIRA and RIRA who have no right to use that name. Bastun 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DownDaRoad - see the postings of "Irish History") is an example of canvassing? The above users commenting on the 7 December have all received this message from User:DownDaRoad. Logica 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand the same could possibly said for this [7] Vintagekits 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The user in question had just reverted the insertion of "Volunteer" into the article that User:Vintagekits) had performed (despite User:Vintagekits knowing the case was in mediation). The user seemed unaware tht the term was under mediation and discussion, so the user was informed. This is not canvassing. Messaging tens of users of a particular viewpoint, however, is. 88.107.30.112 01:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


There are alot of 'non-neutral' terms on Wiki especially in History articles but nobody ever said Wiki had 'Fair' 'Equal' views. Culnacréann Republic of Ireland 00:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dont really understand why this has become an either or issue surely something along the lines or memebers of the IRA often called volunteers would allow both equally valid names to be applied . Their isnt a drive to change the would member to volunteers in GAA. If and only if Vol can be proven as an IRA rank would i support it on its own (Gnevin 12:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Volunteer seems NPOV of view to me. ESpecially when you see definition 3 above, ie "3. Military. a person who enters the service voluntarily rather than through conscription or draft, esp. for special or temporary service rather than as a member of the regular or permanent army". It seems a fair term. Derry Boi 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Gnevin, why make it either/or ? Derry Boi can use volunteer, Zoney can use member, and others can use terrorist, or freedom-fighter, or murderer, as the mood takes them. Then everyone's happy. I particularly enjoyed Logica's statistical analysis, seeing as how it complete ignores strictures against "undue weight". What's An Phoblacht's circulation ? 15,000/week it seems. Irish Times, 117,797/day, Irish Independent 162,582/day. So much for NPOV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I wonder if it is helpful or necessary for this mediation case to be phrased in such broad terms as "Is Volunteer POV?" This is a rather involved question best left to the Volunteer (republican) article and its Talk: page. If we can formulate a policy that does not rely on a definitive answer but which satisfies all parties, then let's do that. My own view is that it is acceptable to use "Volunteer" in articles in the following circumstances:

  1. the article is intimately connected with the IRA. At a minimum, it is categorized under Category:Irish Republican Army. It would be jarring to see a passing reference to "Volunteer" in The Crying Game, for example. Currently, all pages using "Volunteer" seem to be biographies of IRA members, which seems okay to me; though I would not change the category name of Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army members etc.
  2. "Volunteer" is capitalised to signal it is a specific technical word, not a general description
  3. "Volunteer" is wikilinked to Volunteer (republican) when first used

In all other articles, use "member" jnestorius(talk) 00:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • On balance, I think volunteer is POV. It is a term used primarily by one side of the argument but not accepted generally by both. It is also used by one side as a legitimising term to imply legitimacy, and not used by the other for that same reason. Member is problematic because it is hard to characterise how does one become a member? Who rules that someone is a member? Do they sign up?? Is there a membership card? Rules of membership? Finally, where is the distinction between the political and the military? Who draws that distinction? In reality those in paramilitary organisations and attached movements are either active or inactive, so simply writing activist is relatively NPOV. It doesn't apply legitimacy or illegitimacy, formally joining or informally joining, or get into the nuances of actions. Activist carries no inherent ruling on one's status, legitimacy or otherwise. So I think it the least POV option. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a number of basic flaws in your argument.
1. The title is used by all sides and therefore POV is discounted and even if it was used by one side if the title is given by the organisation then the title is fact, even if you disagree with the organisation and its aims they give that title and that is fact and therefore cannot be POV. This is not an argument whether or not you agree with the IRA it is about the use of the term Volunteer – whether you like it or not it exists and is used widely. The POV issue is a red herring used by those with an anti Republican agenda. The term has its own disamb page so there can be no confusion as to its meaning.
2. Republicans use the term more often because they will be more diligent in giving the correct title to those within there organisation, just like pretty much all organisation. There are plenty of terms that I consider POV such as Lord, Sir, Knight, Duke etc - does the use of these in those articles constitute POV?
3. Just because the IRA is not a legal organisation does not mean that the term Volunteer is not a legitimate term, there are plenty of references on Wiki to IRA Army Council, Chief of Staff, Quartermaster General, [8], Divisions, Brigades [9] [10], North and South Command etc within the page about the IRA and its organisation, all of these are taken as legitimate terms and show that there is a recognised structure to these republican movements so why are you disputing that official term for the member of the organisation? That to me smacks of your POV and an attempt to disrespect. Vintagekits 21:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is this thing you have with 'disrespecting' the (P)(C)(R)IRA and their members. They are illegal terrorist organisations and they and their members are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, not to mention gangsterism and drug smuggling to fund their operations. In my own opinion - no, they're clearly not worthy of respect. However, as Wikipedia

articles must conform to NPOV, then using either 'member', or 'activist' as user:Jtdirl suggested, is far more appropriate than the legitimising Vol. (And FWIW I'd argue the same for their counterpart loyalist terrorist organisations, the UVF/Red Hand Commandos, etc.) Bastun 13:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bastun, this is because Wiki is an online encyclopedia and therefore reports facts not what other peoples POV. I do not understand how some users can state that Volunteer is POV, are we just going to ignore the term because we don’t agree with it? Some state it is a loaded term but that is again purely not [NPOV]. I do not agree with the point put forward that it may have some "implicit acceptance" or in some way "legitimise the IRA" - to my mind this arguement is missing the point totally. It doesn't legitimise the IRA, wikipedia users are not stupid, if they are interested in the subject or wonder what the exact expression means then all users have to do is click on the wikilink and then they will know exactly any reference stated means, where the term comes from and why it is used in that context. I do agree with user:Jnestorius when he states that the expression needs to be used in its correct context on wiki and its use needs wikilinked to the Volunteer (republican) page and should carry a capital V to distinguish itself from other types of volunteering. Volunteer is a long acknowledged military term and as shown above has been used many times in Ireland and throughout the word. As stated in my earlier section its is shown that wiki acknowledges the internal military structures and names for the IRA so it would be inconsistent to not use their official name for a member of the IRA. We have to take a purely objective view on this subject, the expression is given to all members of the IRA that is fact, what connotation for that expression you take be it positive or negative is purely POV. We should keep this site factual and the factual expression used here is Volunteer or Vol. for short. I would say that there needs to be a reference to a site claiming that they are/were a Volunteer before they can be designated as such Vintagekits 16:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised at JtdIrl's objections to "member".
  • "Member is problematic because it is hard to characterise how does one become a member? Who rules that someone is a member? Do they sign up?? Is there a membership card? Rules of membership?" In the Republic of Ireland, Section 21.—(1) of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939 says simply "It shall not be lawful for any person to be a member of an unlawful organisation.". It's up to case law to tease out the implications. It also gives the word "member" some legal astanding no other word has.
  • "Where is the distinction between the political and the military?" I assume you don't mean what's the distinction between Sinn Fein and the IRA? An important distinction is that one is legal and the other isn't. If you're talking about political and military elements within the IRA, I don't see what the rhetorical answer you have in mind is, or how "activist" any more than "member" highlights animportant distinction / suppresses a fictitious distinction (delete as applicable). jnestorius(talk) 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Activist" to my mind is inappropriate in that activism usually connotes public manifesting of support and activity; not very appropriate for, say, a sleeper cell in Sheffield. jnestorius(talk) 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • jnestorius I am not startin with you and I respect a lot of your work however on this I think your point is redundant. No one is saying that it is a legal term, what we are saying is that it is the official term given by the organisation. The organisation is also illegal - do you think that that page should be deleted and ignored also? Just because it is illegal doesnt mean it doesnt exist or is not correct Vintagekits 00:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My last post was disagreeing with FearÉIREANN's preference for "activist" over "member". As for "volunteer", I add nothing beyond my previous comments. jnestorius(talk) 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the fact that a term is officially used by an organisation ought always to be mentioned as such, it is not ipso facto the NPOV term. Compare Martyrdom operation with Suicide attack. jnestorius(talk) 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont see what that has to do with this subject? If you recognise that the IRA has the following - an Army Council, Chief of Staff, Quartermaster General, Divisions, Brigades then you are being totally inconsistant by not recognising Volunteer. Vintagekits 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it seems that volunteer was not a grade in the IRA, rather a term used by Republicans to describe members of the IRA. The term is confusing for people without some knowledge of the IRA. Stating that someone was an 'IRA Volunteer' will be interpreted using the first meaning of volunteer in the dictionary. An article that explained the meaning of the term Volunteer and then went on to describe someone as an IRA volunteer would not be confusing. You ask how the term is loaded: well in two ways- first it indicates approval 'Jimmy volunteered for the IRA in service of his country' and secondly it sides with one party in a well known debate about whether the IRA was an army at war or a criminal gang engaged in terrorism. You ask how Wikipedia can refer to the higher grades of the IRA if using IRA grades is POV: well again it seems that volunteer is not a grade and also these terms have been used by all sides in the conflict such as McDowell's accusation that Adams and McGuinness were on the 'Army Council'. Finally, do you have an objection to 'member'? You have been arguing in favour of Volunteer but not said much about what's wrong with member. Curtains99 00:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Volunteer or Óglach is the rank or grade given to all members of the IRA, INLA etc, this widely used, this has already been already shown so I am not going over that again, go and read the Óglaigh na hÉireann page if you are still unsure about it.

As for it being a confusing term - Volunteer is a widely recognised military term and not just in Ireland so that confusion should be minimal to begin with, any residual confusion is the reason we have the Volunteer (republican) disambed page so that clears up the confusion issue. As for the argument that "whether the IRA was an army at war or a criminal gang" - firstly I am not going to even go into that as it is a ridicules thing to say and it is not an issue here, whether or not it a legitimate army, paramilitary guerrilla force, terrorist gang etc if there is a recognised structure then the term must be recognised to recognise the terms Chief of Staff, Quarter Master etc and state that these do not convey POV but then state the a more simple and arguably less contentious term such as Volunteer does convey POV is simply incorrect and inconsistent and shows a POV on your behalf. I fail to see how “Volunteer” conveys acceptance of the IRA just because you recognise that it has a structure! Does calling a British Army member a Private convey a POV or acceptance?? Finally, as to the member term, I have stated plenty about that term, it could be used but it is not as correct as Volunteer. If there is a recognised term for the member of the group or groups then that is what should be used. Again, would you put forward the argument that Corporals and Privates in the British Army should not be referred to by those terms because "member" would be good enough? Vintagekits 01:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Vintagekits: what it has to do with this subject is that your principal argument in favour of "Volunteer" is that it's the "official" term. [quoting you above: "The use of Volunteer is used as the official term for a member of many republican instituations and irregular Irish armies."] My analogy is that "Martyrdom operation" is the "official" term used by Hamas and others, but Wikipedia doesn't use it outside very limited contexts. A term can be "official" without being NPOV. I do indeed "recognise" Volunteer as official, but I do not recognise it as NPOV. Therefore should also be used only in very limited contexts, such as I suggested above. jnestorius(talk) 01:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What POV does it convey then? Does Chief of Staff, Quarter Master etc convey POV? Do you consider it POV for all IRA's or just PIRA? What about Volunteers from the Tan War? Finally, what proof have you that it is POV? Vintagekits 01:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Proof" that it's PoV? What a strange question. How can you prove something that's subjective? Maybe you could start by asking the widow of Gerry McCabe whether she thinks the terrorists who killed her husband should be recognised as 'Volunteers'? Or any of the other thousands of widows/widowers/orphans they created. Bastun 11:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" Member is problematic because it is hard to characterise how does one become a member? Who rules that someone is a member? Do they sign up?? Is there a membership card? Rules of membership? Finally, where is the distinction between the political and the military? Who draws that distinction?"

Just on this point. Yes JDTirl, there is a process for becoming an IRA member. One must first put oneself forward (volunteer I suppose). One's application can be accepted or rejected. The prospective IRA member must then go through a process of lectures, indoctrination etc on republicanism, its origins and goals. If one passes through this, one must then take an oath to uphold the IRA's constitution and the Irish Republic (1919 version). So to answer your questions, yes, one signs up. Yes there are rules of membership. People can be expelled from the organisation (or worse) for breaking these rules. Anyone who joins the IRA is by definition a military actor and subject to, as the IRA sees it, military discipline. They may well also be Sinn Fein members, but have not necessarily all been. In any case, IRA members were usually discouraged from political activities for fear of attracting attention to themselves. See also The Green Book (IRA training manual) Hope that answers your points.

Jdorney 21:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate why this might not be a good idea see the changes I made to John Gregg (UDA). Does he deserve a rank? I don't think so as he was a terrorist but this proposed new policy will be giving him one Weggie 01:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DISRUPT. I know it's tempting to try this kind of thing on but it would get very messy if everyone did it. Curtains99 11:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And so perhaps there's the answer. (P)(R)(C)IRA activists do not get called 'Volunteers', and nor do UDA, UVF, Red Hand Commando activists - nor members of any other illegal terrorist organisation. Bastun 11:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT violation

Well, it seems that Vintagekits (talk · contribs) has taken it on himself to remove all information about the IRA's internal structure from multiple different articles, in protest at the settlement proposed on the talk page. Hardly an indication of good faith... Demiurge 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its seems that anti-republicans on wiki want to pick and choose when they want to see a structure within the republican movement - all I want ot see is a little consistancy. Vintagekits 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits, please revert all the changes you have made to the articles according to proposed policy. It has not been implemented yet. I would request all who are involved here, not to make edits in related pages till the discussions are going on. Shyam (T/C) 03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All done, I was just showing the mass choas that will be caused if you set a precident that ignore fact in favour of POV. Hundreds if not thousands of pages with have content wiped out incorrectly if this goes ahead. Vintagekits 03:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents

I've just stumbled upon this after one of the pages on my watchlist had some frantic editing and reverting done to it.

Whether the PIRA is an illegal organisation or not, the fact remains that it is an organisation with a formal structure. If you change "volunteer" to "member", do you also change every other rank within the organisation, such as members of the Army Council, Chief of Staff, Quartermaster General etc etc? You can't reduce every single member of the PIRA to simply "member", as it doesn't allow anyone reading to have an understanding of their significance and role within the organisation. One Night In Hackney 03:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is that "Volunteer" isn't a rank at all, it's an honorific/description. Despite the repeated assertions that it is a rank, we still have zero reliable sources to show this. Demiurge 10:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The major flaw in your arguement is that if you accept the rank of Volunteer as an honourific this then ALL terms and names the describe the internal structure of the IRA such as Army Council, Chief of Staff, Quartermaster General, [11], Divisions, Brigades [12] [13], North and South Command etc within the pages about the IRA and its organisation becomehonorific descriptions, Obviously if the rank of Volunteer is POV then all titles given to IRA members are and should be deleted if we are to be consistant. Vintagekits 14:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with your reasoning. The other ranks mentioned are accepted by all sides as existing, whereas volunteer is merely a title of honour used by Republicans to refer to all members of the IRA regardless of rank Curtains99 15:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is ridiculous - how can you accept one rank and not others - that is hypocritical Vintagekits 15:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Demiurge's argument is that all IRA members are Volunteers, whether they are Chief of Staff, Quartermaster General, or a rank-and-file raw recruit. If this is true, then "Volunteer" is not a rank analogous to "Private" but rather a label analogous to "MP" (which may be used for the British Prime Minister or an opposition backbencher). I am not necessarily endorsing Demiurge's argument, but at least let's not argue at cross purposes. jnestorius(talk) 19:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what you are saying >(User:Jnestorius - you can hold two ranks or titles at once, i.e. whilst always being a Volunteer you could additionally be Quartermaster General at the same time. DownDaRoad 19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that DownDaRoad is confirmed as a sockpuppet of Vintagekits and is now banned. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vintagekits Logoistic 21:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that in any army you can only hold one military rank at a time? If so, then let's either prove that "Volunteer" is a rank in this sense, or else find a different word to describe the word "Volunteer" (title, honorific, label, description, etc.) jnestorius(talk) 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintagekits changing articles whilst under mediation

Vintagekits has changed "PIRA bomber" to "PIRA Volunteer" in the Gerry Kelly article. This can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gerry_Kelly&diff=99693400&oldid=97830427). This is the second time I have caught him doing this (he has already been warned by me) whilst the case was under mediation. Surely some kind of action has to be taken, as Vintage has canvassed, insulted, disrupted to make a point, and ignored mediation claims throughout this mediation process, without anything happening. The rules are not beeing enforced, and I'm getting disillusioned with how such users can get away with this. Logoistic 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise what you sound like? Firstly, this mediation is about determining between "Volunteer" and "member" - NOT bomber- secondly, the edit was part of a total rewrite of the article - you are again acting in bad faith and trying to cause trouble which is not aprriciated.--Vintagekits 20:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add illegitimate sockpuppetry, too. This is ridiculous. Something must be done. Logoistic 21:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And with all due respect, breaking these Wikipedia policies in the way you have done, I am not "causing trouble" but trying to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. Logoistic 21:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing relevant articles while this is still under mediation is questionable (disclosure: I had done it myself when I thought the mediation was finished, and subsequently reverted). Those of us involved in and/or aware of the mediation should probably desist from editing related articles while it's still ongoing. But in relation to this particular edit, I do think it is largely an honest NPOV rewrite (with the exception of using Volunteer while mediation is still on). The expanded article does highlight the bombings, deaths and resulting convictions. Bastun 10:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - also I would like to point out that I didnt replace member with Volunteer - describing him as IRA Bomber in the first paragragh was ridiculous and didnt describe his role in the IRA - also the original article was copy edit vio from here - finally I did discuss the issue with Weggie (albeit after I rewrote the article.--Vintagekits 11:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the use of 'Volunteer' is disputed, even changing "bomber" or "terrorist" is still switching from one apparant POV to another. Moreover, if the user had concerns about this, then it should have been discussed here before the article was changed. Logoistic 13:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After all your talk you then do this! without discussion, reason or being part of a major overhaul--Vintagekits 18:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The debate is over "Volunteer" usage. Nobody has expressed a problem with changing "activist" to "member". Logoistic 18:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No edit wars please. Rather use this energy to resolve the dispute by re-writing Volunteer (Irish republican) after citing all NPOV sources. Shyam (T/C) 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what everything you said above about?--Vintagekits 19:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Shyam (T/C) 11:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage&oldid=1085955985"