Talk:Volunteer (Irish republican)

More specific RfC avoiding the issue of alleged republicanism

 * Rfc closed: Consensus seems to have been reached. Rich Farmbrough, 22:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC).

As i have resolved Issue 2 myself in the above now closed RfC, i want to condense the issue into as little as possible and make the RfC more specific.

The section relevance in question is this, and the article topic is: Volunteer, often abbreviated Vol., is a term used by a number of Irish republican paramilitary organisations to describe their members.


 * 1) What evidence is there that the Volunteers of the 18th century used "Volunteer" or "Vol." as a term to describe their members?
 * 2) What evidence is there that they are an Irish republican paramilitary organisation?
 * 3) What relevance has this section to the article as it also details very briefly in a crash course the history of Irish republicanism which has its own fuller section in an article where it is relevant.

On the issue of sources in regards to the Volunteers alleged republicanism. For now in the interests of this dispute, they should be set to the side here and dealt with at the Original Research Notification board as a mediator at the DRN on this issue suggested as that issue alone is highly debatable and open to wide disagreement between me and Domer48 and would detract from the above very valid questions that also need answered.

Compromise: - However to end this dispute i am however willing to compromise and willing to let the 18th century Volunteers mention remain in the article as long as Domer48's alleged claims of their republicanism are dropped and the rest of the irrelevant information goes. This would result in the article looking like this. Thus the article is kept more relevant per WP:TOPIC and doesn't make dodgy claims of alleged republicanism however keeps the 18th century Volunteers in the article.

Mabuska (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The proposed compromise looks like a good path forward. It is encyclopedic, and seems consistent with what I've seen in the sources.  It also includes a decent mention of the use of the term in the 18th c, so there is some history there.   If there are any editors that still want to emphasize that the 18th c Volunteer organizations were republican in nature, I'd recommend putting that issue to rest for a couple of months, doing more research on it (looking for sources that make that association in an explicit manner) then coming back in a couple of months with new information.  --Noleander (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the compromise is well written but completely loses the historical information that provides a contextual link to answer the question as to "why" they are called volunteers. I also don't understand why the Madden reference is regarded as not good enough and should be set aside.  --HighKing (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment @Mabuska, if I understand the "big issue" you have with the article - you are claiming there is no link between the modern republican "volunteers" and the "Volunteers". Therefore, there is no relevance to including info on the "Volunteers" within this article, which deals solely with the republican rank.  Is that correct?  --HighKing (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I can jump in: Yes, that is the primary issue.  The article is about the title/role of "volunteer" within modern Republican organizations.  We have not yet seen any sources which make an explicit connection between this modern title/role and the  200 year-old organization that was titled "The Volunteers".   That connection may well be valid: maybe the modern title/role did derived from those older organizations.  But until a source is found, it would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for this article to make that connection.   The compromise Mab is proposing is to mention the Volunteers organization in a background-ish sort of way, but leave it at that, until sources are found that go farther.  --Noleander (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ... also, there is the related issue that the mere mention of the Irish Volunteers (18th century) in this article would signify to readers that that group was "republican" in nature. But there are no sources that make that connection, so even mentioning the Irish Volunteers (18th century) in this article has a whiff of WP:Synth. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The 18th century volunteers, might've been monarchists - prefering a independant Kingdom of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely ... it is that sort of uncertainty that gave rise to these RfCs.  The question is whether mentioning  Irish Volunteers (18th century) in this article will mislead readers. --Noleander (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They certainly should be mentioned. The term "Volunteer", which is the topic of this article, is derived from the 20th century Irish Volunteers. These were named after the 18th century Irish Volunteers. That fact should be mentioned. How they should be mentioned depends on how they are treated in the standard histories of the IRA, the (1913) Volunteers and republicanism generally. The bad news is, Google Books is not helpful here. Scolaire (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Irish Volunteers article states that they were modelled on the Ulster Volunteers formed just before them. So maybe they are not, or maybe they are but not directly, but sources would be needed for that statement.

I agree with Noleander on all the points he made. On the possibility of a whiff of WP:Synth by mentioning the 18th century Volunteers at all, that's why i worded it in my compromise to just say the first use of the term in an Irish context to avoid the issue. Unfortunately stating "first use" or "original use" (as the article originally put it) is purely WP:OR as we have no sources that state when the term was actually first used in such a formal context in Ireland. So the start might need reworded to remove the synth problem.

Mabuska (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @ HighKing - Thank you for saying it is well written, however pre-20th century, there is no history (as far as i've been shown) of the term other than being the name of the 18th century Volunteers. The compromise also contains section links to Irish Republicanism and Óglaigh na hÉireann, which are the relevant places for the information not relevant. Also there is no evidence at present that provides a direct link of the usage of the term "volunteer" between the 18th century Volunteers and the 20th century Irish Volunteers, or even between them and the Ulster Volunteers - so how can you input into the article why the 20th century lot were called Volunteers without WP:Synth or WP:OR? The Madden reference is also not good enough as it states "of this institution of the Volunteers" - it reads like it isn't talking about the whole organisation but a part and Domer48 even provided a source that states the organisation contained republicans and reformers, so it wasn't a republican organisation, it just contained people of republican thought in it alongside people of other thoughts - it could maybe be considered the Alliance Party of its time. Also the fact it was written in 1842 means that it's statements could be very easily be out of date and superceded by newer understandings and research.


 * On republicanism... Republicanism in the 17th and 18th centuries isn't the same as modern Republicanism. Pre-modern republicanism allowed for a constitutional monarchy. Wolfe Tone (co-founder of the United Irishmen, and no proof so far that states he was a Volunteer) is accredited with founding modern Irish republicanism which seeks to remove the monarchy altogether. So even if you could prove that the 18th century Volunteers were republicans, how you define what republicanism without explicit sources? Pre-modern constitutional monarchy or modern anti-monachy? That's why clear, concise sources are needed for an organisation that existed prior to modern Irish republicanism. Stating republicanism alone considering the modern connotations of Irish republicanism would be insufficient. Mabuska (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I accept your point that the broad "concept" of Republicanism has evolved over time. Equally, it can be argued that the usage of "volunteer" has evolved over time.  While it might now be regarded as an official term for members of a republican paramilitary organization, in the past it was simply used to describe members of Irish military organizations fighting for independence and self-governance.  From there, the organizations evolved from being loyal to the crown to what we have today, but the members are still referred to as volunteers.  What I believe has been lost from your rewrite, and the point the current version of the article is trying to make, is that the term "volunteer" didn't just spring into existence.  Nor is it a random choice.  From an Irish history standpoint, there is a history related to the term "volunteer" and Irish independence, etc.  I believe that the current version is simply trying to show that link - the etymology if you will - that the choice of "volunteer" is directly descended from usage within older military organizations fighting for Irish independence and self-governance.  This point, I believe, is a valid point and shouldn't be lost, not does it appear to be WP:SYNTH to make this point.  We can see from older documents that a member of the 18th century Irish Volunteers were referred to a being a "volunteer".  Sure, it mightn't have been an official rank or title, but it was still used.  This chapter from a book written by a member, uses it all the time.  --HighKing (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately HighKing without sources to back up your comment, it is all WP:Synth and WP:OR at this time. And if it is true, as i've been told many times, Wikipedia works with verifiable facts, not truth. I also haven't seen evidence where the United Irishmen, Young Irelanders, Irish Republican Brotherhood made use of the term volunteer to refer to members, and the way they are mentioned could constitute a post hoc ergo propter hoc arguement. Also the present article is not what it was when this dispute started. The recent additions of republican groups prior to the 20th century was Domer48's additions during the dispute, which Hohenloh said should also be removed.


 * Anyways i've only seen one source that makes any mention to the possible origins of the 20th century Irish Volunteers name - the opening paragraph of this. I'd say that clearly implies the 20th century Irish Volunteers are an imitation of the Ulster Volunteers, who were founded first. So you'd have to wonder where did the Ulster Volunteers get it from? I could easily synthesise that because the 18th century Volunteers where strongest in Ulster (especially after their initial decline) and where a Protestant force (as Catholics couldn't bear arms then), that the Ulster Volunteers based in Ulster and also a Protestant force, could well have got it from them. I could easily argue that point, however i would need sources to prove it. Rolls of honour like this also would help argue that if it was a term associated with republicanism by the 20th century, then why was it used by unionists and loyalists? Sources are definately needed for anything put into the article that tries to make a link.


 * On this, it is an interesting read, however it only uses volunteer once to refer to a singular person and not to the organisation. It's the same as calling a singular member of the contemporary Defenders a defender.


 * If you would like HighKing, you can provide a proposal. Mine can be regarded as a draft as nothing is ever perfect first time, and everything always needs worked on. Mabuska (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm not sure I'm quite ready to make a proposal yet - but getting closer.  I still think that possibly (and perhaps not) we're arguing different points.  See what you think.  I'm less inclined to argue that the term "volunteer" was some kind of denotation of rank.  But I would argue that the usage of "volunteer" - whether it be the various societies or militia we've discussed above - is linked to fighting for self-government and independence.  I also not inclined to argue that all of these societies that used the term "volunteer" were "republican".  But I would argue that the term "nationalistic", in whatever form, is more appropriate.  Finally, I'm not inclined to argue that *all* organizations used the term - some did, some didn't - but that there are links between them.  I'd be happy if the article traced a history of the term to provide context for 'why it is used (and what concepts it is trying to encapsulate) in modern parlance.
 * So looking at the current text - the term "Volunteer" can be traced to the 18th century Irish Volunteers. There's a very good introduction and description of the times in this book by David A. Wilson.  It describes the setting up of "Volunteer Companies" as a line of defense against foreign attack, and how subsequently the Volunteers transformed themselves into the armed expression of Protestant colonial nationalism.  It describes the formation in 1783 of the "Volunteers Journal", the most radical newspaper in the country and the editor Carey argued that All the evils that Ireland experienced came "FROM OUR BLASTING CONNECTION WITH BRITAIN!".  Strong stuff (and not my caps either).  But it sets the scene and summarizes well how the volunteers went from being mainly protestant militia protecting against Catholic France, to radical Catholic self-determination militia.  The book also describes various companies in America (page 84), described as radical Irish organized Volunteer Companies of "Irishmen and the descendants of Irishmen".  And in relation to the United Irishmen, on page 121 it describes Volunteer Sinclair Kelburn, who had just been released from Kilmainham jail after a year's imprisonment for his United Irish activities.  In that case, it seems that use of "Volunteer" may be a title or a rank - but also linked to the United Irishmen.  This proclamation from the Society of United Irishmen is to the Volunteers of Ireland - calling all citizens to arms.  And this book links the United Irishmen to the Volunteers - it states The United Irishmen constituted the radical wing of the Volunteers, and used their influence to revive these old companies and create new ones.  'The patriotic spirit of volunteering daily increases'.
 * Let me know what you think of this line of reasoning, especially regarding providing the history and context of the term. --HighKing (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not argueing whether it is a denotation of rank, i'm argueing is it the topic of the article "a term used by a number of Irish republican paramilitary organisations to describe their members". On what you argue what the usage of the term is, i think it is more likely that the term volunteer is linked to volunteering rather than an actual cause such as self-government or independence (how do you explain the Ulster Volunteers use of it?) - as volunteering sounds more romantic and to be quite frank was what its members did - volunteered.

You would still need explicit sources that make the connection clear. I understand your view on trying to provide an evolution of the term, but what sources provide it for us clearly without us having to connect the dots together ourselves?

Also i don't see why your providing sources to do with Volunteers and nationalism as no-one is denying that the 18th century Volunteers were radical nationalists and sought legislative independence for Ireland. Nationalism however is not the same as republicanism, even though they share many traits, and to imply the two in the Volunteers context as being the same would be inaccurate and misleading.

On United Irishmen which you link too. Firstly "Volunteers of Ireland" could be referring to the Volunteers of Ireland, an entirely different organisation. Secondly the United Irishmen at the start advocated constitutional monarchy republicanism, not modern Irish republicanism. Your other source states the radical wing of the Volunteers joined them, however there is no statement that they led to the United Irishmen becoming a modern Irish republican force or that they joined when it was already one. That is purely original research. Wolfe Tone is accredited with doing that, and he wasn't a member of the Volunteers as far as can be ascertained. "The patriotic spirit of volunteering daily increases" - how else did you join an organisation if you weren't press-ganged? You volunteered.

Regardless of the early use of the term - how does it directly link to modern Irish republican groups? I went to the library and looked through several books on Irish history and republicanism, and none could i find that says that the Irish Volunteers (20th century) get their name from, or are linked to, the 18th century lot. They do however make it clear that Irish Volunteers are based and modelled on the Ulster Volunteers. I was quite pressed for time so couldn't get too many quotes:

Oddly enough i came across enough references to the Irish Volunteers as also being known as the "Irish Volunteer Force" or "IVF", which further implies that they get their name from the Ulster Volunteers (Ulster Volunteer Force, UVF). Whilst none of those quotes proves that they are indeed named after the Ulster Volunteers, it does give strong credence to the assertion that they are - and if it is true - then how can you claim its from a republican tradition stretching back to the 18th century? Mabuska (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Proposal (if no definitive sources found) - It looks like good progress is being made here: more and more sources are being uncovered steadily. If, eventually, no source is found which definitively traces the origin of the term, it may be acceptable to just enumerate the possibilities to the reader, so the reader can (if interested) go to the footnotes and pursue their own line of inquiry. Something like: "The origin of the term volunteer in this context (role/title for republican organizations) is uncertain. In the early twentieth century, the term was used by the UVF and IV.[footnote on that]   Even earlier, in the 18th century, the word was used by the Irish Volunteers.[footnote for those sources]."   (this sample phrasing is very crude, just to illustrate the proposal). --Noleander (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can back the idea of what your proposing. It would give a brief history of the term's overall usage in Ireland before detailing the modern history of its association with republican paramiltiary groups. That way there is a form of historical scope provided without the synthesis/original research currently in the article (or the version prior to this dispute starting). Mabuska (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be a good approach that avoids OR and SYNTH minefields. Although statements like "The origin of the term is uncertain ..." may appear unencyclopedic at first blush, when discussing historical events of 200 years ago, it is not uncommon in articles.  Honesty is encyclopedic.  --Noleander (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys, really busy in RL and haven't had a chance to spend time on this. But I like the suggestion above by Noleander and I'd be happy to go with that.  It preserves a lot of what I believe without OR or SYNTH and still allow readers "pursue their own lines of enquiry".  Thanks for the patience!  --HighKing (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * HighKing, i don't know how Noleander's suggestion is any different from mine, especially seeing as mine was based on the evidence available to us with no OR or Synth (other than the "original use" bit), and by following Noleander's suggestion it would still be the same. What exactly you feel will be preserved that is backed up by sources that my suggestion lost i don't know, however here is a more expanded suggestion which includes extra information on the 20th century Irish Volunteers as we're dealing with the term itself (the National Volunteers bit). I'll add the sources to it later. Mabuska (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think either of these suggestions would be an improvement. BTW, from perusing the Letters pages of the Irish Times, I see that the 1859 volunteer group that went on to form the London Irish Rifles were called Irish Volunteers, as were the Royal Irish Rifle Volunteers a few years letter. The Irish who went to fight for the Pope around the same time were called Irish Volunteers, as were some of those who fought for the French against the Germans in 1871. I'm pretty sure there was at least one group of this or a similar name in the Boer War (according to my grandfather's recollections). Hohenloh + 15:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * From the extra information you've provided Hohenloh, it wouldn't be crazy to suggest that the Ulster Volunteer Force who inspired the 20th century Irish Volunteers, take their name from the Volunteer Force movement rather than from the 18th century volunteers, and the fact that movement is closer to the UVF's formation than the 18th century Volunteers, would of still been in the minds of the older generation. Pity there seems to be no sources to draw a definate conclusion.
 * That new information would have to put in if we're detailing the history of the term volunteer as afterall they use it. Though all it really helps show us is that the term volunteer in Ireland is being used more than likely because its made up of volunteers as oppossed to press-ganged or conscripted people. If you've any sources to add in with that it'd be great. Mabuska (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Still really busy in RL and probably will be for a good while yet - I appreciate the patience shown. I'm conscious of the fact that I originally reverted the edition by Mabuska and it doesn't seem fair to hold up discussions or edits (if that's what has been happening) so go ahead with the suggestions to date. My main objection to the original proposal was the loss of historical context.  But from the discussions above, I believe it is possible to show how the term "volunteer" has been used by different organizations throughout Irish history, with whatever leanings those organizations had, right up to the present day usage.  There's a thread of nationalistic commonality, from the original protestant and anti-catholic-French, through republican usage and loyalist usage.  I'd be happy to pick this up at a later date.  --HighKing (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think to a degree the history section isn't of direct relevance to the article's topic itself, but if its a suitable comrpomise to have it in i'll go along with it as long as it steers clear from synthesis and original research. Another idea might be to create an article detailing the history of the term and its usage by Irish groups on its own and link it into the history section in this article, whilst keeping the directly relevant information such as the Irish Defence Forces and 20th century Irish Volunteers in the article? Just an idea to keep the article to the most relevant information. That way the information would never be lost as it would still be on Wikipedia and linked too. Or we could provide a simpler overview of each group in this article and leave the detailed information in a new article so this article isn't distracted from its topic. Mabuska (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (... rather late in the day ..) It's simple, you had the Redmondite home rule volunteers of 1913, who split in 1916 into home rulers and republicans. The lede doesn't need to go any further back than that. Grattan's volunteers were monarchist home rulers, of whom a tiny minority became radicals in the 1790s, like Napper Tandy. Many Volunteer-(Irish republican)s had died long before the NI Troubles of 1970-98, many more never went to Ulster, so the article should not be subject to the Troubles "active arbitration remedies".Red Hurley (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The PIRA and INLA and their splinter/dissident groups where mainly active in Northern Ireland, and the article does make mention to them, so in that regard the article does fall into the Troubles arbitration. Mabuska (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

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

History of the term
First of all Domer48 and Mo ainm are wrong for reverting my addition because:


 * 1) The addition expands on the history of the term "volunteer" in Ireland making it relevant and informative.
 * 2) It fixes the erroneous claim (which i originally added in) that the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century were the original ones to use the term which they as history and sources proves is false.
 * 3) The section is titled "History of the term volunteer in Ireland" making it highly relevant.
 * 4) The argument "this article is not about the use of the term but it's use by Irish republicans" is largely irrelevant as the version they have reverted to contains history that is not republican.
 * 5) Domer48's argument is likewise irrelevant: "Term volunteer in the context of describing Irish republicans" as their revert returns the article to way it has been since October 2011 which gives details of the term's history that isn't republican! Contradictory arguments.

If Domer48 and Mo ainm want their arguments taking seriously then we will have to delete almost the entire "History of the term volunteer in Ireland" section as most none of it has anything to do with republicanism until the 20th century Irish Volunteers.

Mabuska (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As an act of good faith i've truncated the addition to remove the examples and added a link to the sub-section of the article where they can be found. Mabuska (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've likewise truncated it partially in the loyalist version of this article, seeing as one example is highly relevant to it. Mabuska (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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

I have opened a discussion on this matter at Talk:Volunteer_(Ireland). Mabuska (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

History section
I am aware that the "History of the term volunteer in Ireland" section was written in particular circumstances, and that it was a response to perceived POV-pushing in the article. I have read the discussions at the Mediation Cabal, at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and on this page at Archive 1 and Archive 2, all of which provides good background. However, those disputes are long over and, in view of the recent RfC on merging the articles, that section needs to be evaluated on its own merits. In my view, it does not stand up as a history, for the following reasons: For those reasons I am removing that section in both articles. In this article I am replacing it with sourced and relevant content relating to the use of the word to mean member or lower rank from 1916 down to the 1970s. I am unable to find similar content for the loyalist article, but maybe somebody else will be able to. Additionally, I am removing the section "The role of a volunteer". This again is content that was added during the mediation, to verify the use of "volunteer". It serves no good purpose in the article today, and indeed gives a misleading impression of what IRA volunteers would have been doing in a period of conflict. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The connection between either the Irish Volunteers or the Ulster Volunteers and the Volunteers of 1778 is already tenuous, so suggesting a link back to earlier 18th-century organisations (or forward to 19th-century ones) is original research (and probably erroneous).
 * 2) "Volunteer" of itself is not an unusual description, or unique to Ireland. It applies to anybody who joins a volunteer army, or volunteers to join a conscript army, anywhere in the world. So, for instance, both the character Chris Taylor in Platoon and its director Oliver Stone are referred to as "volunteers" here, here, here and here (as well as in the Wikipedia article). To argue for a "history of the term in Ireland" it would be necessary to show that "volunteer" had a different meaning in the private armies of the 1760s or the Papal Army in the 1860s to what it did in the US Army in the 1960s. I don't think that can be shown. A short list of names in an archaeology journal headed "Ulster Volunteers in 1760" is not evidence that the word has any meaning distinct from "people who joined the militia" in that year.
 * 3) Saying the 1913 Irish Volunteers were "in part inspired by the formation of the UVF" has the effect of seeming to link the subsequent use of the term "volunteer" in the organisations that descended from those two without actually saying there was a link. Now, there probably is a link, but I don't know what it is. Any history section should state verifiable (and relevant) facts and not rely on creating impressions. The following paragraph, on the 1914 split in the Irish, is certainly irrelevant to the use of "volunteer" by loyalists: there is no way that their use of the term relates to the split.
 * As long as it makes really clear that this is a military or paramilitary term linked to the move to relocate power etc. And include the roles of women since many were involved if not specifically entitled Volunteer in some of the organisations.  &#9749;  Antiqueight  haver 20:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that such a short article has such a huge talk page! And even so, no mention of the National Volunteers? The other types of Volunteers were unpaid, but most of the republican volunteers were paid. Therefore the term "volunteer", going back to the 1700s, gave the impression of being a part-time citizen militia, and not a mercenary army.PatrickGuinness (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Simple question: do you have any evidence that any member of the National Volunteers was referred to as "Volunteer Joe Bloggs"? If not, then they are not relevant to this article, which is about "volunteer" as a rank/title/appellation of individual members of republican organisations. Scolaire (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Whilst I am glad to see the removal of said stuff above I'm surprised given the amount of opposition to a merge that there has been incredibly little added to the article for I got the impression there was a mountain of stuff to add in regards to republican volunteers. Instead all we get over four months since the discussion is two actual additions that aren't simply rewords and both minor additions. Having given plenty of time for work to be done to the article I think the new RfC merge request I mentioned doing is still needed, though obviously not the same as the last proposal as it had too many problems, maybe a simple merge into Irish Republican Army, and obviosuly a similar one for the loyalist version of this article. Mabuska (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I never consciously tried to give the impression that a revised article would be a large one. The content just isn't out there. The point I made was that the two articles, if properly edited, would not naturally lend themselves to being merged into one. I think if you look at them side by side you'll see that I was right. I'm happy with what's there now. There's nothing to stop you proposing a merge into the IRA article, but I would hazard a guess that some of the same people would oppose that merge. Scolaire (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Bias in lead
My attempt to remove that was reverted claiming "Rarely used as a term for them by anyone else", which is demonstrably false.


 * Inside the IRA by Andrew Sanders (Edinburgh University Press) but the revelation that it had been an IRA volunteer who had accidentally shot McIlhone
 * The IRA, 1968-2000: An Analysis of a Secret Army by J. Bowyer Bell (Routledge) The great ritual of Ireland is not in possession of church or state but rather occurs, appropriately, in a graveyard when an IRA volunteer is buried
 * Times of Troubles: Britain's War in Northern Ireland by Andrew Sanders (Edinburgh University Press) O'Hagan's status as an IRA volunteer remains unclear to this day.
 * Walking Away from Terrorism: Accounts of Disengagement from Radical and Extremist Movements  by John Horgan (Routledge) remaining involved and disengaging between one major IRA volunteer's experiences and those of contemporary Al Qaeda foreign fighters
 * Ruairí Ó Brádaigh: The Life and Politics of an Irish Revolutionary by Robert White (Indiana University Press) By the time the first IRA volunteer was killed in action in South Armagh
 * Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Morality of Terrorism by Timothy Shanahan (Edinburgh University Press) As Anthony McIntyre, a former IRA volunteer
 * The Provisional Irish Republican Army and the Development of Mortars by Gary Ackerman (Journal of Strategic Security) The local unit and South Armagh volunteers
 * Gunrunners: The Covert Arms Trail to Ireland by Sean Boyne (O'Brien Press) IRA Volunteers tied him into a car containing a bomb
 * The I.R.A. by Tim Pat Coogan (St. Martin's Griffin) An IRA volunteer, Martin Doherty, tackled the Loyalists and managed to prevent the detonation of the bomb, but was killed in the process
 * 25 Years of Terror: The IRA's war against the British by Martin Dillon (Bantam Books) An IRA volunteer with similar characteristics was Patrick Magee
 * Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA by Richard English (Pan Books) He was again arrested, in October 1976, in Dunmurry, Belfast, after an IRA operation: they had bombed the Balmoral Furnishing Company in a hit involving nine IRA Volunteers
 * A Secret History of the IRA by Ed Moloney (Penguin Books) The Executive chooses the members of the Army Council and selects replacements when vacancies occur; but its more important role is to act as the voice and conscience of ordinary IRA Volunteers
 * The Irish War: The Military History of a Domestic Conflict by Tony Geraghty (Fire and Water) In March 1986, after an IRA volunteer killed himself through reckless handling of a loaded launcher
 * Playing the 'Green Card' - Financing the Provisional IRA: Part 1 by John Horgan & Max Taylor (Terrorism and Political Violence) Its principal activities include volunteer training, funding, and the storage and movement of armaments
 * Stakeknife: Britain's Secret Agents in Ireland by Greg Harkin & Martin Ingram (O'Brien Press) Burns was a willing agent, and began providing valuable information to his handlers, information on every IRA volunteer
 * The Intelligence War against the IRA by Thomas Leahy (Cambridge University Press) Thereafter, the list of vehicles gathered could help potentially catch IRA volunteers travelling in their own or in stolen cars
 * Making Sense of the Troubles: A History of the Northern Ireland Conflict by David McKittrick & David McVea (Penguin Books) So many were being killed that Adams as Sinn Féin president publicly appealed to IRA volunteers in 1989 to avoid such incidents
 * The Long War: The IRA and Sinn Féin by Brendan O'Brien (O'Brien Press) IRA volunteers and Sinn Féin members had put their trust in the leadership
 * Special Category: The IRA in English Prisons, Vol. 2: 1978-1985 by Ruán O’Donnell (Irish Academic Press) In America, where the 'political exception' calused restated by the McMullen judgement in 1979 had barred the transfer of IRA Volunteers
 * A Broad Church: The Provisional IRA in the Republic of Ireland, 1969–1980 by Gearóid Ó Faoleán (Merrion Press) Border IRA volunteers were particularly nonplussed
 * IRA: The Bombs and the Bullets: A History of Deadly Ingenuity by Andy Oppenheimer (Irish Academic Press) Provisional IRA volunteers could walk freely through housing estates and rural areas without hindrance
 * Provos The IRA & Sinn Féin by Peter Taylor (Bloomsbury Publishing) Just over two months later, on 4 September 1970, a Provisional IRA Volunteer, Michael Kane, was killed
 * Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement by Robert White (Merrion Press) Every one of them was killed alongside a male Provisional IRA volunteer

I could carry on and on, but my point is already proven beyond any dispute. FDW777 (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Anyone using "volunteer" with a capital V, at least, appears to be using the military rank used by the organisations themselves. Regardless, there are even more sources which will describe IRA members as just that, members. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a reference to members in brackets might be the most appropriate resolution in the case of this dispute. There seems to be more references to the broad generic term of members than there is of volunteers, questionable whether this should be an individual page at all instead of just a short paragraph or sentence within some larger page on the IRA - maybe on List of members of the Irish Republican Army.(UTC) Financefactz (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Or merged with Volunteer (Ulster loyalist), possibly. There doesn't seem to be enough to justify not one, but two, articles for the same term. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * You may remember that this was discussed at Talk:Volunteer (Ireland) in 2016. There was opposition to merging the two together (including from Bastun, I found to my surprise), and no support for merging this one into any "parent" republican article. I don't understand why the response to a large number of refs justifying the opening sentence is to propose scrapping altogether an article that's been going for 17 years. Smacks of "I just don't like it". Scolaire (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Nope, I'd completely forgotten that discussion (which isn't linked anywhere else on this talk page). Consensus, can, of course, change. My concern for this article, though, is that I don't believe there is consensus to change the lede. goes back to at least your own expansion of 2016. And I can absolutely dump a load of links here showing that "IRA member" is used just as extensively, if not moreso, than "IRA volunteer", or "IRA Volunteer" or "Vol.", the latter two of which are almost exclusively from within the organisation or reporting on what the organisation has communicated. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * (In fact it appears the lede sentence has been in continuous use since the 12th ever edit to the page, made in 2006, until changed by and .) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, at least the discussion is back on topic. FWIW, I would support FDW777's version, since he has produced multiple independent, reliable sources as to its use outside the republican movement. The fact that other sources say "members" is a straw man, and in any event "members" appears in the first sentence. Scolaire (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Not seeing what's "off-topic", above. A couple of things. First, the page is not necessarily about just the IRA/INLA use of the term. Or at least it's not presented as such. Second, if you are just looking at the term in terms of the IRA, then "IRA member" is used almost twice as often as the term "IRA volunteer", in the wild. Seeing as WP is not a dictionary, if the article is only about the general term for members of the IRA or Irish Volunteers, you would have to ask does it merit an article at all? Would it not be better merged to a line or two in Volunteer (disambiguation): Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the merging stuff is what I consider off-topic. I'm going to withdraw from the conversation now. Scolaire (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the length of time an article has been going for is a factor in making it more or less noteable. It seems to just be explaining what the term Military volunteer means in this specific context. Should there be a separate page for volunteers is every army, military and paramilitary group. Financefactz (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding more bias such as "sometimes used" and "especially internally" in violation of WP:NOR and WP:LEAD make the dispute worse. If we used Bastun's "sources" and change it to member is the term used to describe the members of various Irish republican paramilitary organisations. Or, back to reality, what is the actual objection to the phrase is a term used to describe the members of various Irish republican paramilitary organisations? Rarely used as a term for them by anyone else has been shown to be incorrect, and I don't understand the backsliding towards "sources also use member" when it makes absolutely no sense at all to say "member is the term used to describe the members". FDW777 (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, when nearly twice as many sources use "member" as use "volunteer", it is absolutely in no way biased to use "sometimes used" in relation to "volunteer". If this article is only about what various Irish republican organisations call their members, then it only needs to be a line or two in Military volunteer or a similar article - there is no need for a separate one. I have not engaged in original research, except to see how often the two terms are used relative to each other. That's not a breach of WP:NOR. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Volunteer is simply factual, read the IRA's consitution. Yes, the IRA had one. That's why books universally recognise the existence of the Army Council, Executive, GHQ, Chief of Staff and so on. The IRA haa a written constitution with a recognised structure, with members being volunteers. Kathleen&#39;s bike (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)