Talk:Volunteer (Irish republican)/Archive 2

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

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


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


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


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

The Volunteers were Republican and to suggest otherwise will require sources.-- Domer48 'fenian'  14:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Irish Volunteers – the original lot – were republican? I think you could do with reading their article. Some former members joining the United Irishmen (and plenty not) doesn't make the Volunteers republicans. JonC Talk 14:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Domer is intentionally confusing the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century with the unrelated Irish Volunteers of the 20th century. Rather Domer needs proof to state that the 18th century ones were/became republicans despite the fact they proclaimed their loyalty to the crown an no sources i've seen ever called them repiblicans. Mabuska (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources please.-- Domer48 'fenian'  19:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Domer48 my source is in the article, a statement made by the Volunteers themselves at a convention they held in Dungannon, on February 1782. Where is your source that they are republicans? Or that they even became republicans? Wanting legislative independence meets many points of nationalism, for it to be republicanism they'd also need to advocate independence from the British monarch and the creation of a republic. If you are so sure then please provide your sources. Shall we take this to one of the several dispute resolution arenas Wikipedia has? You'd definately have to produce your evidence then.


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


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


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


 * Provide references to support your opinions here, and please read the article text as your comments are all over the place. I will of course ignore any post which contain any personal attacks or inane questions.-- Domer48 'fenian'  08:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not a personal attack if you are being disruptive. I am filing a disruptive editing report for your failure to engage and provide evidence to back up your claims that they are republicans. Mabuska (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I'm mentioned above, I'd just like to add that I think the whole of the second section should be removed, as should the last sentence of the first section (the lede), and energies devoted to improving the remainder of the article. However, right now this discussion is generating more heat than light, and I'd rather not fan the flames. Hohenloh+ 12:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The issue is now being dealt at Dispute resolution noticeboard. Mabuska (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually very little of the history section, 18th century or 20th century would seem to be relevant to this article and its topic - a term to describe members of the IRA etc. It deals mostly with the names of organisations, most notably those that use Óglaigh na hÉireann rather than the term volunteer. Like what relevance is the Fianna Fáil and Irish Defense Forces bits to the article? Nowhere does it imply that they are called volunteers or use it as a term to describe their members.


 * The entire section reads like a history of organisations that use the name Óglaigh na hÉireann than a history of the term volunteer in a way that is used to describe members. Mabuska (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

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


 * "The origins of Irish Republicanism lay with the both the American and French revolutions.[2][3] The original use of the term 'Volunteer' in this context dates back to the 18th centry Irish Volunteers, an almost exclusively Protestant[4] militia corps raised in 1778 to augment the army and to defend Ireland from foreign invasion"

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

I originally added the source ([4]) for the "an almost exclusively Protestant" part when i expanded the Volunteers section last year. However prior to that addition of mine, i've noticed the start of the sentence along with the first sentence kind of implies that the Volunteers were republicans, when there is no evidence or sources to substantiate that. Hence i've added a tag.

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

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

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


 * "The origins of Irish Republicanism lay with the both the American and French revolutions.[2][3] Is a very clear statement of fact, supported by two verifiable and  reliable sources. If you dispute this provide some sources which challenge this.-- Domer48 'fenian'  08:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Claiming that prior to adding your reference you noticed 'the first sentence kind of implies that the Volunteers were republicans' is contradicted by your own edit summary. Not even when you improved your own citations did you express any concern. Most recently when you again improved your reference, did you have a concern. Likewise you did not make any such claim when you removed the whole section, nor did you have an issue when you were clarifying another part of the same paragraph. In fact it has only now become a highly dubious statement now.-- Domer48 'fenian'  17:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Because i've only noticied it now thats why. Also read my comment, there is no issue with the sourcing for "The origins of Irish Republicanism lay with....", its the implications in the following sentence following it. Please address the key points made itself and how best to resolve it rather than trying to nitpick holes with ad hominem responses. Mabuska (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In fact your first edit quotation of mine Domer48 - proves how little you read edits or people's comments. The opening sentence that is in the article now was not in the article when i made my initial edit. Nor is it in the second edit quotation . Now thats a bad case of ad hominem arguing. I will accept that the "in this context" bit is still there and i should have picked up upon it, however it was only the addition of the first sentence that is now that there that has brought the following sentence to my attention. Mabuska (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is inconsistent for you to say you "removed the 18th century information per WP:TOPIC as the Irish Volunteers of the 18th century aren't republicans and thus aren't entirely relevant to the topic" and then say "...there is no issue with the sourcing for "The origins of Irish Republicanism lay with....". Because if you used the full quote it would read "The origins of Irish Republicanism lay with the both the American and French revolutions.[2][3]" The Volunteers were established in response to the American Revolution and are therefore "entirely relevant to the topic." Likewise, to object to the text "The original use of the term 'Volunteer' in this context dates back to the 18th century Irish Volunteers" is unsustainable, having accepted the origins of Republicans to the very same Volunteers. Now as you have continued to use article talk pages to engage in personal attacks, despite me having provided two sources accepted by you above, you continue editing your own comment the weaker their arguments become I can see no point in assuming good faith with you, as your failure to act reasonably is obvious. Likewise the support you have for childish tit for tat editing -- Domer48 'fenian'  20:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Domer48 these ad hominem comments are really getting tiresome and have to stop. If you had evidence to substantiate your claims you'd have provided it by now. Now to disassemble your ad hominem:
 * Where is the inconsistency? The Irish Volunteers being created in response to the American and French revolutions has no relevance to an article about an Irish republican rank. We are not on about a history of republicanism and counter-measures againgst it. Thus not relevant.
 * Where did i ever "having accepted the origins of Republicans to the very same Volunteers."? I don't see anywhere where i have? I accepted that Irish republicanism can be traced to the American and French revolutions, but not via the Volunteers.
 * There is no personal attacks as you were and still are being disruptive according to WP:Disruptive editing, where you are preventing the improving of Wikipedia. The two sources you go on about are only to do with what Irish republicanism can be traced to - the French and American revolutions. What has your two sources got to do with the Volunteers? Nothing. Just because the Volunteers were created in response to that does not make them republicans. That is synthesis at its worst.
 * "failure to act reasonably is obvious"? How? The sources and the statement they are attached to have no relevance to the Volunteers as it doesn't mention them at all. It only backs up the origins of Irish republicanism but not via the Volunteers.
 * Assuming good faith? I don't need to provide sources as i'm not trying to claim that the Volunteers are republicans without providing any evidence at all to substantiate the claims. I'm simply trying to ensure WP:TOPIC is being abided by. The onus is on you.
 * What tit-for-tat editing? Jonchapple's viewpoint is not my own. The section is entirely irrelevant per WP:TOPIC.
 * So what if i edit my comments many times? I edit my comments many times to try to correct spelling/grammer mistakes and cut down on waffle, clarify statements, and to tone-down possibly fiery comments for the sake of civility and readability as best as i can.


 * Now once again stop with the ad hominem comments and provide your evidence that the Volunteers are republicans and relevant to this article. Mabuska (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

·
 * Seeing as the two above discussions are about the same section, may as well merge them here. So Domer48 can you explain how all of your recent expansion to the article provides evidence that the Volunteers were republicans? A lot of hard work it appears has gone into the synthesis your attempting to pull off - however its still irrelevant synthesis. This would have ended long ago Domer48 if you simply provided evidence to backup up your claims. I'm still waiting for actual evidence that states that the Volunteers (of the 18th century) where republicans and that they used "Volunteer" and "Vol." as a rank. Mabuska (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The lede
"The United Irishmen who have come to be regarded as the forerunners of modern physical-force nationalism, in a line that extended to the Young Ireland revolutionaries of 1848, to the Fenians of 1867, and onto the Irish Republican Brotherhood of 1916, up to the Irish Republican Army of today."

Yes it is sourced, and no its not dubious or open to question that the statement could possibly be wrong. However what relevance is this to an article about an Irish republican rank?

Did the United Irishmen, Young Irelanders, and IRB use the term "Volunteer" or "Vol." to refer to their members? If not then it isn't relevant to this article but rather here where it is already detailed. I know it's nice to make an article more fuller, but adding in so much redundant and irrelevant to the topic information only detracts from what its on about - an irish republican rank.

Are we to take this to a Dispute Resolution as well Domer48? Mabuska (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Editor who added the information has since removed it. Mabuska (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of tags
I've reverted this article to the version without the large tag, mainly because in my opinion, the entire section in question does not merit such a tag. While there may be disagreements about some of the text, putting a large section notice into an article, especially while discussions are underway, isn't conducive to reaching agreement and is inexact as to the specific concerns. Use of inline tags like are more exact and preferable when there is a need to challenge specific claims. --HighKing (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry HighKing but that doesn't wash. It also wasn't your reasoning for the removal according to your edit-summary. If that is your reasoning now for it then why did you also remove the inline clarification tag (a specific concern tag) and reinsert the synthesis and original research into the first sentence that is unsupported by the cite provided by Domer48? It doesn't add up. Mabuska (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Page protection
Perhaps protecting the article 'might be' a reasonable action. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, once again like a moth to a flame, you are drawn to a heated discussion, popping in to make maddeningly inane comments, such as:
 * I've little to no knowledge of these terrorists or their past. There must be a way for you both to compromise on what yas want & don't want in this article.
 * If they're linked to the IRA? they're terrorist. But, that's another subject.
 * For your own sake, if you don't know about a topic and especially if it's heated, and if your comments aren't directly related to policies or the discussion at hand, desist from getting involved or making comments. --HighKing (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Protection is no longer needed, both editors have been put on probation. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Relevance of information in the article
Closing: As i have sorted out Issue 2 myself, and want to make this RfC more specific, i'm closing it myself and relisting it setting aside some of the more distracting issues.

After a Dispute Resolution, it was suggested to open up an RfC on this matter for broader input.

Core question being asked - What information in the history information in this article is actually relevant to the article per WP:TOPIC? (as it appears at time of posting this, compared to this if the first one has been reverted)

Article topic - According to its lede: Volunteer, often abbreviated Vol., is a term used by a number of Irish republican paramilitary organisations to describe their members.

Original issue - The original issue was the relevance of the 18th century Volunteers information - most of which has now been removed.

At a Dispute Resolution, the mediators made it clear the sources provided by an editor to back up claims that they were a republican organisation didn't prove they were, with one stating that: "Presuming for the sake of argument only that the origins of Republicanism can be traced back to the 18thCV, how is that relevant to the use of "Volunteer" as a title or rank by the post-1919 IRA without making an post hoc ergo propter hoc assumption?" A "title or rank" should be read as equivalent to "term to describe a member" as used in the articles lede. This question hasn't been answered at all.

Just for the record, a source from 1842, is still in the article that stated an "an institution of the Volunteers" combined republicanism with other things. The sources own wording does not equate to the organisation as a whole and was also dismissed at the Dispute Resolution as failing to prove their relevance to the articles topic amongst other issues such as the sources age etc.

Issue 2 - At the same dispute resolution, one of the mediators raised the point that they find the 20th century Irish Volunteers mention as of borderline relevance - and only because Irish republican paramilitary groups can claim direct descent from them. However looking at the entire history section spanning the 20th century - how much is actually relevant? Most of the 20th century stuff seems to go on about the term Óglaigh na hÉireann, which means "warriors of Ireland", and on about it as the name of organisations not as a term to describe members.

Summary - Despite the somewhat long overview given above, the question is really simple - what exactly is relevant to this article per WP:TOPIC seeing as little of it seems to be actually about the article topic?

Mabuska (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Question - There is nothing wrong with an encyclopedia article giving a little bit of background information, so the reader has context. If the topic of this article is "The term 'volunteer' used to designate members of rep. paramilitary forces" then of course all sources that address both "volunteer" and "Rep paramilitary" can be used.  I take it that the issue here is that some sources are being used that only refer to one or the other ('volunteer' or "Rep paramilitary', but not both).   It would be a bit harsh to exclude such sources out of hand, since they might provide good context to the reader.  I would say this:  if a source is not discussing either "Volunterr" or "Rep paramilitary" then it definitely should not be used for this article.  Question: (1) Do the sources of the debated material mention "volunteers" or 'rep paramilitary"? both? neither?  (2)  Is the objection that the debated material is pushing some point-of-view?   or just that the material is irrelevant and confusing to readers?    --Noleander (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What is this articel called, and what dose the article discuss? All of this information is related to the subject, and this editor has at no time provided any rational reasons for their edits.-- Domer48 'fenian'  07:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the advice given at WP:DRN "Please note that advice given here is not binding, but it can be used to count towards consensus on the issues involved. My preferred method of resolving this would be via an RfC, but as the participants feel that an RfC would take too long, I recommend taking this to the original research noticeboard to get more outside opinions." This is one example, were WP:DRN is not being represented fairly. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  07:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As to the source being disputed, I find this quite strange, when an editor says that they are Ameding statement to be more in line with what your source actually states and then asks that we must clarify their clarification. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  08:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple Domer48 - i reworded the sentence to match what your source states as you had it out of context. The clarification is for the bit i had to quote word for word from your source as you didn't clarify it. Mabuska (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Noleander:


 * 1) ) "Do the sources of the debated material mention "volunteers" or 'rep paramilitary"? both? neither?" - the source only mentions volunteers in regards to the name of the organisation. No mention is made of republican paramilitaries or that it is a term used to describe its members.
 * 2) ) "Is the objection that the debated material is pushing some point-of-view? or just that the material is irrelevant and confusing to readers?" - Both. The material is irrelevant to the article topic, and there is an attempt i believe to push a point-of-view that the 18th century Volunteers were republicans as Domer48 claimed they were without proof that the organisation itself was.

A question in response: what about the rest of the section? Very little of it details the topic of the article or provides a history of the topic. I also noticed that Domer48 performed a revert that re-added more irrelevant information. - he has since reverted his removal per the 1RR in force. Mabuska (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've little to no knowledge of these terrorists or their past. There must be a way for you both to compromise on what yas want & don't want in this article. GoodDay (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Irish Volunteers of the 18th century or the 20th century as far as can be ascertained weren't terrorists. Mabuska (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If they're linked to the IRA? they're terrorist. But, that's another subject. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Mabuska: regarding your question "what about the rest of the section? Very little of it details the topic..." I think my comments below are applicable. Although tangential material is sometimes okay for articles, when the topic is controversial, it is better to err on the side of omitting material and limiting the article to what the reliable sources say on the topic (not just near the topic, but exactly on the topic). Including any material that is only tangentially related (or that requires an editor to make a connection with the article's topic) should be avoided. --Noleander (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove material - Since there is a potential point-of-view issue involved, it is important to use WP:Reliable sources, and to ensure that the article reflects the sources accurately. That means that editors cannot connect the dots to draw conclusions that the sources do not draw.  If the sources used for this material do not explicitly connect the use of the word "volunteer" with members of Republican paramilitary organizations, then the sources cannot be used.  To do otherwise would constitute WP:Synthesis and WP:Original research.  On the other hand, material from sources can be used if the sources explicitly discuss the usage of the word "volunteer" in relation to memebers of Rep. paramilitary organizations.   The burden is on editors wishing to add the material to this article to show that the sources meet these criteria, per WP:BURDEN and WP:CHALLENGE.  The mere fact that a source discusses the word "volunteer" in regard to Ireland is not sufficient:  Republican paramilitary organizations must also be discussed by the source.  --Noleander (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Noleander, these are the sources being rejected by this editor. The term "Volunteer" is both a description applicable to all IRA members, up to the Chief of Staff and a rank analogous to "private." The editor also says that this article is only about the "rank", so could you address this issue because no where in the Lead of this article dose it mention anything about "Rank."

"A paramilitary tradition in Irish politics was launched by the Volunteers of 1782 and that tradition, whether nationalist of unionist, loyalist or republican, has continued to shape and delimit the contours of Irish political activity. The force of argument had been trumped by the argument of force". Ireland: A History, Thomas Bartlett, Cambridge University Press, 2010, 9780521197205, page 190

"After the publication of another philippic against Government, a meeting of the United Irish of Dublin was dismissed by the sheriff, as persons holding seditious and republican views. Thus, in 1794, terminated the legal existence of the last of the Volunteers of 1782; convened, under their new name, two years and a half previously." The Croppy: A Tale of the Irish Rebellion of l798, John Banim, James Duffy, 1865, Page. 5

"If Irish nationalism dates from Strongbow, or even the Danes, Irish republicanism was an offspring of the Volunteers of 1782 and owes much to the external influences of the American and French revolutions." Fenians and Fenianism, Maurice Harmon, Scepter Publishers Limited, 1968, Page 65. Originally appearing in the Winter edition of the University Review, 1967.

"This republican temper of a large portion of the Protestant population of Ireland was the germ, first, of a growing parliamentary opposition to the measures of the English Government, and ultimately of the Volunteer Association and the revolution of 1782". Page 21

"The first Society of United Irishmen grew out of the ashes of the Volunteers and the disappointed hopes of the legislative revolution of 1782; the Volunteers grew out of the parliamentary and popular opposition to British government which had shown itself at intervals almost from the beginning of the century, and had gone on steadily widening and deepening from the accession of George III to the American war".

"The grievances which arose during the eighteenth century between Protestant Ireland and Protestant England, and which gradually created the spirit of Anglo- Irish nationality, effected a legal revolution in 1782, and attempted a military one in 1798". Page 8-9

"The Republicans and Reformers joined under the common name of Volunteers without at first perceiving that their designs and objects were identical. The French Revolution filled the Whigs with alarm; they seceded from the Volunteers, some opposed the projects of reform, and in this way broke up the party. The Republican section in Ulster sought a reconciliation with the Catholics of the South, with the view of obtaining equal rights on equal terms with the Catholics". Page 64

"When the Parisian massacres occurred in 1792, moderate Republicans in Ireland feared to accept freedom accompanied with such terms. The Catholic clergy in a body separated from the Reformers, and denounced the atheism of France from their altars…During this crisis the whole body of the Irish priests were most awkwardly situated. The hatred of French infidelity and atheistic republicanism converted them into zealous Royalists, and yet they had the mortification of hearing themselves denounced as apostles of sedition". Page 65

IRELAND IN '98, J. BOWLES DALY, 1888

"And yet, when on April 23 the Military Council decided on the Rising, the seven men were acting within a tradition and to a large extent as an organization which could trace its antecedents back into the eighteenth century. It was in the eighteenth century that Republicanism had been linked to the long-standing Irish Revolutionary tradition." The Secret Army: The IRA, J. Bowyer Bell, page. 7

"This movement [United Irishmen] meant to build upon the reforms that had been won by Grattan and the Volunteers a decade earlier, but it was critical of the nationalists' reluctance to carry their ideas through to what seemed a logical end." The Longest War: Northern Ireland and the IRA, Kevin Kelly, page. 9

"It was not until three years later, when the guerrilla war against the British forces [War of Independence] was well advanced, that the name Irish Republican Army was used to unite the disparate groups that made up the rebel forces...These men and women saw themselves as part of a tradition that stretched back to the sixteenth century when the first nobles rose against English rule in Ireland. Some parts of rebel history seemed to be more relevant than others. In particular, those who supported the use of physical force saw themselves as descendants of the United Irishmen who rebelled in 1798." The Provisional IRA, Patrick Bishop & Eamonn Mallie, page. 17

"By the Act of Union of 1800, Britain and Ireland were bound together 'forever' under the 'supreme authority' of Westminster. Throughout that period, right back to the Act of Union and even earlier, an Irish republican physical force tradition existed to 'break the connection' with Britain." The Long War: The IRA & Sinn Féin from Armed Struggle to Peace Talks, Brendan O'Brien, page. 10

I hope that helps.-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  16:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Domer48: Thanks for those quotes.  That kind of raw material is essential for resolving RfCs in an effective manner.  The first thing that jumps out at me is the distinction between the uppercase Volunteers and lowercase volunteers.  Several of the sources use uppercase, referring to a specific organization.  That is in contrast to lowercase, which is a title or role.   Those are two distinct encyclopedic concepts.  Is there a WP article on the uppercase "Volunteers of 1782" or other organizations with the name "Volunteers"?  I'd like to see those WP articles.  If  such articles dont exist, perhaps you could use the above sources to create new articles on the organizations.  But this article is about the lower-case "volunteer" title/role.   I don't see any discussion of that title/role in the sources quoted above.  Is there any source that you are aware of that connects the Volunteers organization with the volunteer title/role?  Hypothetically:  "The rank of volunteer traces its name back to the 19th century,  when the Volunteers of 1872 first participated ...".   I'm making up that quote, just to give a suggestion for the kind of material that could go in this article. --Noleander (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Noleander, as I said above, this article is not about "volunteer" ie. "rand" it is about "Volunteers" group/organisation. Even the filing editor has said its not about "Rank". Are you getting as confused as me?-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  16:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article starts with the sentence "Volunteer, often abbreviated Vol., is a term used by a number of Irish republican paramilitary organisations to describe their members". This clearly defines the article as being about the title/role.  If the article is also supposed to be about the organizations themselves, that is okay, but the lead needs to be re-written.  Given that this is a bit of a controversial subject (and there is an RfC), it may be best to have two articles: one on the title/role, and another article on the organizations.  The latter could be specific articles like Volunteers of Ireland, or a generic article like Paramilitary organizations of Ireland.  But mixing them up in one article is causing confusion. --Noleander (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To cut down on having to rehash the responses to Domer48's failed arguements on the alleged republicanism of the Irish Volunteers (18th century) at the DRN, i'll post links to the comments made by the mediators at the DRN:
 * 
 * Domer posted this, which includes the sources he provided above, and here is a mediators response
 * Mediators response to Domer48's claims made in previous edit (also shown in the diff)
 * 


 * I think that shows its not me alone that objects to or questions Domer48's sources or claims.


 * The article is on about the term as you noted, however, even if the article lede was amended to cover the organisations themselves, the article may need to be renamed. Also how would the section in question still be relevant? Most of the information in it isn't about republican groups, i.e. the Volunteers (18th century), the Irish Defense Forces, and Fianna Fail (which is a republican party, but not a group as we'r using here). It would still cover information (warriors of Ireland) that is still irrelevant to an article about volunteers and Irish republican groups that use volunteer in their name or as a term for members.


 * The 18th century Volunteers bit would still need clear, concise proof free from synthesis and original research that they were a republican organisation, avoiding post hoc ergo propter hoc assumptions. The only thing that directly connects the Volunteers (18th century) to Irish republican groups is the fact the former was an organisation called Volunteers and the latter use it as a term for their members. Mabuska (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Where are the diff's to support "Those quotes from Domer48 where explained by the mediators at the DRN as being unsuitable for making the claim that the Volunteers of the 18th century was a republican organisation." As I clearly stated that I never said that the Volunteers were Republican. I said that the origins of Republicanism can be traced to them.
 * What new sources have I add here that were not taken directly from WP:DRN where is the diff's to support this claim?
 * The editor is now claiming that the article is about "Rank" having said that it was not so either the editor provides diff's to support their claims, or I would suggest that they are being disruptive.
 * Noleander, The quote "Volunteer, often abbreviated Vol., is a term used by a number of Irish republican paramilitary organisations to describe their members" is very clearly referring to 'members.' The term again, "Volunteer" is both a description applicable to all IRA 'members', up to the Chief of Staff and a rank analogous to "private." The filing editor has said 'this article is on about the "rank"' and has said now that 'it has nothing to do with is Volunteer a rank/title/term' on a different forum and now comes back again to say it is. Were in this article dose it say that it is about anything other than 'Volunteer' in an Irish Republican context. The article its self is in upper case! Is it your suggestion now that the article be titled 'volunteer'? The whole abbreviation thing is a red herring.-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  18:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Domer48: I think you are misrepresenting what user Mabuska said in  ... they were saying this RfC is not about rank, but instead is about relevance of historical information.  Also, I did not suggest that the article name be changed from Volunteer to volunteer (WP:Title requires upper case) I was simply using upper/lower to distinguish the proper names of specific organizations (upper) from the name of a title/role (lower).  --Noleander (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Domer48 how else do you interpret the mediators comments i linked too above in regards to your sources? One even stated they "think" your sources miss the point. I didn't see a single statement where they said your sources suffice for your assertions.

Also when Domer48 claims "I never said that the Volunteers were Republican. I said that the origins of Republicanism can be traced to them", they are contradicting their original arguement where they said: "The Volunteers were and became Republicans". This change in arguement is i think because their sources weren't accepted as being suitable at the DRN - a change in arguement that resulted in them backing down from their arguement and trying to compromise.

In response to Domer48's sources i've compiled an arguement against each of them here. You can make up your own mind as to whether my retorts are relevant. Mabuska (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Noleander, I'm not misrepresenting anyone, I even provided a diff to support my comment. The filing editor on the other hand, has provided none of the diff's requested. Noleander it is you who have raised the issue of 'Rank' here, and are now being supported by the filing editor. Now I've ask above, were in this article dose it say that this article is about 'volunteer' i.e. 'Rank'. Do you accept as I've pointed out on two occasions, that "The term again, "Volunteer" is both a description applicable to all IRA 'members', up to the Chief of Staff and a rank analogous to "private."? Do you accept in light of the sources provided, that Republican's trace their origins to the Volunteer's of 1782? Thanks, -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  19:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Intresting that Mr. Stradivarius says in WP:DRN that "It seems that the accuracy of the section in general is not under dispute, merely the accuracy of the first sentence'.... TransporterMan commests here are useful but in fairness that was before I added all the sources above, Mr. Stradivarius likewise again before I added the sources TransporterMan. Now I add the sources here, and Mr. Stradivarius did not comment on them, so I added more sources. TransporterMan however did comment, and said "Some of them would be fine to prove an assertion that some later republican organizations carried on an earlier republican position or spirit..." (italics mine), claiming again that the article was only dealing with 'Rank.' Again, they described the sources as claims. I then asked what I thought was a reasonable question in light of these comments. The question was would you agree a number of sources have stated that Irish Republicans trace their origins back to the Volunteers. They responded by saying that they would just as soon not say how I feel about that issue... and clearly indicated that they did not accept the sources.  Mr. Stradivarius then closed the discussion. Now I hope that illustrated the use of diff's before any more claims are made here by the filing editor. Without supporting diff's comments are really unnecessary as you are only responding to claims. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Section break
Again with the bizarre comments its very strange when an editor adds a "clarification" tag, and then says they are Ameding statement to be more in line with what your source actually states, to then go on and re-add the tag and having used the source themselves add text claiming that "readding context" that was not in the source. They also claim that this was me backing down because I said I was "fairly happy with the opening paragraph". How could they have left that out? Like wise when I use this edit summary The Volunteers were and became Republicans" not mentioning the middle bit "were and became". This is the same editor who still dose not know what the word "institution" means in this quote?

"The origin of the Irish Volunteers, which, as an organized national military association, may be dated from 1777, ceased to exist as such in 1793…It is not inconsistent with truth, though it may be with the military glory of this institution of the Volunteers, to say that it combined in one great national phalanx the talent, the intolerance, the chivalry, the extravagance, the prodigality, the embarrassment, the republicanism, and patriotism, for one brief epoch, of all ranks and classes."

However if I was to institute a case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING because of this report, this report, this report here or this notice here, they would know what it means.-- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  21:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Domer48 please stop adding in section breaks before my comments whilst you post several long comments after me before my comment especially when i'm responding to Noleanders comments. I've taken the liberty to return my comment to where it was and matched your indentations to be in sync. Please stop it. I'll add a section break here.


 * You supplied a diff that is of little relevance as i made it clear at the start of this RfC what the issue was. Please read the opening statement again and you'll see your diff is of little relevance. You haven't proved that the 18th century Volunteers used the term Volunteer to describe their individual members. Rank or term to describe memebers, whats the difference for the intents of this discussion? Its purely semantics and is a poor arguement for trying to avoid answering the question. Why don't you answer the question as it is being presented now from the outset of this RfC rather than avoiding it?


 * Also what purpose does Mr. Stradivarius' initial comments at the DRN have here? ""It seems that the accuracy of the section in general is not under dispute, merely the accuracy of the first sentence'...". The accuracy of the information you added to the article (the history of the Volunteers, as oppossed to the alleged republicanism of them) wasn't in question and no-one argued that it wasn't. Its the relevance of it thats the issue. What was also in question was the accuracy of your claims that they were and became republicans. Mabuska (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are repeating the same arguements over and over again despite having them answered already. Why do you continually do this? Also your claim of forum shopping is way off the mark. I reported you at AN/I for failing to discuss the matter and was referred to the DRN who eventually referred it to ORN or a RfC. I am only following the referrals, that is hardly forum shopping. The notification at the Ireland WikiProject is to do with the RfC to get more comments from people involved in Ireland articles. Accuse away. Mabuska (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On context, a mediator at the DRN pointed out that the wording implied we were on about the origins of the word volunteering itself, so i added the context (Irish) to the statement. If you are going to complain that it is not supported by the source, then you will have to accept that the start of the sentence is likewise not supported by the source as afterall it is original research for us to say its the first usage of the term without sources that state it is so. And i accept that whilst that is my wording, the original wording is just as guilty of being unsupported original research. Mabuska (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

3 simple questions and a compromise
Just because i reworded the sentence to better match your quote as you were performing synthesis when you added the source in without rewording the sentence to reflect it, and then adding a clarification tag as you didn't answer in the DRN discussion what institution of the Volunteers doesn't equate to me asking for clarification on my own clarification.

Now for the interests of all involved can you please answer the following questions, questions you've yet to answer here or at the DRN. Questions that you need to answer to prove relevance to the article:


 * 1) What sources clearly and concisely without synthesis or original research states that the Volunteers were and "became" a republican organisation? Some republican minded members joining the United Irishmen doesn't equate to the whole organisation.
 * 2) What evidence is there that the Volunteers of the 18th century used "Volunteer" as a term to describe their individual members?
 * 3) What institution does your source quote go on about? "of this institution of the Volunteers" does not sound like its on about the Volunteers organisation as a whole but a part of them. This needs clarification. If its a part then you can only state in the article with this source that part and that part alone. Anything else is unsupported synthesis and OR. Also note that as the source is dated from 1842 - the 20th century Volunteers didn't exist so the author isn't stating "this institution of the Volunteers" as a disambiguation between them.
 * 4) How is the information to do with Irish Defense Forces and Fianna Fail and the Óglaigh na hÉireann stuff relevant to this articles topic? - due to synthesis in the article, the translation of Óglaigh na hÉireann stated doesn't match the source and the provided source makes most of this stuff relevant.

Here is a collection of Domer48's sources along with a couple of my own and whether they are valid or not for the assertions being made by Domer48.

It really is that simple Domer48 and i'd prefer you to answer them without again having to resort to ad hominem and trying to pick holes in my comments whilst not tackling the questions asked head on. Mabuska (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC) - i want to concentrate this discussion at the moment on the following compromise i'm proposing and whether editors think it is fair - though the questions asked are related to the compromise hence why i've made it small and not striked it. Mabuska (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Noleander made a good point that some relatable information can be added to an article, and as such i think the following suggestion would be a good compromise. It removes the problems of questions 1 and 3. As question 2 isn't implied it wouldn't need answered, and question 4 is reworded to be of more relevance, especially seeing as the Óglaigh na hÉireann "literal meaning" was WP:OR and not backed by the source provided. As two different and distinct Iirsh Volunteers are mentioned and linked too at present, it would make more sense to use the originals other common name of "Volunteers" as pipe to avoid confusion (maybe it doesn't make sense in the context of what the article is on about).


 * The Fianna Fail term information i think should be added to that compromise i'm suggesting if it is placed into a more relevant context.


 * How is this a compromise? Because the 18th century Volunteers get to remain in the article regardless of relevancy and the synthesis and original research into their alleged republicanism is omitted. Mabuska (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of curiousity i stumbled upon this highly relatable article Óglaigh na hÉireann . Mabuska (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)