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

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	new
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab new cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request made by: Logica 03:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28Ireland-related_articles%29#IRA_articles:_usage_of_the_word_.22volunteer.22

Who's involved?

...User:Logica, User:Vintagekits, User:Weggie, User:jnestorius, User:Stubacca , User:Pauric, User:Curtains99, User:Beaumontproject, User:Derry Boi, User:Demiurge.

What's going on?

...dispute over whether "Volunteer" is a neutral term to describe members of the IRA, implicitly taken to mean the modern IRA, including the ORIA, PIRA, CIRA, and RIRA.

What would you like to change about that?

...That the term "Volunteer" should not be used in place of "member" when describing membership of the ORIA PIRA, CIRA, RIRA, since this is a non-neutral term (it is the language of the IRA). "Member" shgould be used as it is a neutral term.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...not bothered. You can reach me at my talk page - User talk:Logica.

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

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

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

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

The definition of a volunteer is as follows -

Volunteer:

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

Obviously number three applies in this case.

To see the historical background and basis of this term see Óglaigh na hÉireann

Its a bit late now so I am going to end this section but I will be back to add more. Vintagekits 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28Ireland-related_articles%29#IRA_articles:_usage_of_the_word_.22volunteer.22 for the previous discussion. I am not sure if we are supposed to write here without mediator invite, but all discussions can be found in the above link. Logica 20:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firstly, the search was done for nearly all the sites that you posted above as evidence for the use of "V/volunteer" in, so disregarding the number of sites is disregarding your own argument. Secondly, there were 394 hits - which is a highly significant number, and hardly "a few searches". Thirdly, just because the sites used them at all does not mean to say that they are therefore NPOV. Different authors have different opinions on what to use, and there will usually be several authors on a particular site (esp for newspapers), and the majority used the term "member" over "volunteer". Moreover, many of the references are quoting other people (such as your link to the Mirror newspaper - it was quoting Gerry Adams), or deliberately using the language of the IRA for some reason (such as interveiwing a former IRA member - as in the case of your link to the Camden New Journal). Logica 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect of the debate is that of NPOV. It would be my contention that to impose this term on editors (i.e. 'Volunteer') would be to fundamentally breach the official NPOV poilicy of Wikipedia. As far as I am aware this is a non-negociable policy. The term member is entirely bias free and thus the only choice for editors. Weggie 10:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer (republican) is not POV - to go further I would agree with the argument above that it is actually the term "member" that is the POV terminology and an attempt to trivialise or disrespect. The use of Volunteer is used as the official term for a member of many republican instituations and irregular Irish armies. It has been shown that it is used by all sides pro, anti and neutral therefore it can not be POV (22,000 hit on Google.com for the direct quoted "IRA Volunteer". Can anyone explain exactly how you consider it to be POV as I do not consider it to be and if you cannot prove that it is POV then it should be used as the official title for a member of an instituation that uses that term for its member? The term Volunteer (republican) has been distinguished from the term volunteer so there can be no mix up in what it refers to. The term Volunteer has a long historical basis in Irish military from those in the Irish Volunteers which became the IRA through to the regular Irish Army today, in fact, correct me if I am wrong but the term Volunteer is also used to describe a member of the Irish Army reserve. Beaumontproject 13:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Irish Defence Forces have the right to use Óglaigh na hÉireann as their name in Irish because that is the name given to them under legislation, enacted by the democratically elected government of Ireland. They are volunteers, as there is no conscription in Ireland. On the contrary, it is the illegal terrorist organisations like the PIRA, CIRA and RIRA who have no right to use that name. Bastun 16:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DownDaRoad - see the postings of "Irish History") is an example of canvassing? The above users commenting on the 7 December have all received this message from User:DownDaRoad. Logica 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand the same could possibly said for this [1] Vintagekits 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user in question had just reverted the insertion of "Volunteer" into the article that User:Vintagekits) had performed (despite User:Vintagekits knowing the case was in mediation). The user seemed unaware tht the term was under mediation and discussion, so the user was informed. This is not canvassing. Messaging tens of users of a particular viewpoint, however, is. 88.107.30.112 01:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

• I dont really understand why this has become an either or issue surely something along the lines or memebers of the IRA often called volunteers would allow both equally valid names to be applied . Their isnt a drive to change the would member to volunteers in GAA. If and only if Vol can be proven as an IRA rank would i support it on its own (Gnevin 12:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Volunteer seems NPOV of view to me. ESpecially when you see definition 3 above, ie "3. Military. a person who enters the service voluntarily rather than through conscription or draft, esp. for special or temporary service rather than as a member of the regular or permanent army". It seems a fair term. Derry Boi 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Gnevin, why make it either/or ? Derry Boi can use volunteer, Zoney can use member, and others can use terrorist, or freedom-fighter, or murderer, as the mood takes them. Then everyone's happy. I particularly enjoyed Logica's statistical analysis, seeing as how it complete ignores strictures against "undue weight". What's An Phoblacht's circulation ? 15,000/week it seems. Irish Times, 117,797/day, Irish Independent 162,582/day. So much for NPOV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The pro-"Volunteer" lobby has repestedly stated that the onus is on the pro-"member" lobby to prove "Volunteer" is POV. While they have claimed "member" is lazy, journalistic or inaccurate, nobody, AFAIK, has claimed "member" is POV. Gerry Adams has used it: "I have not been a member of the IRA."; as has Martin McGuinness "My job is to continue to ensure political circumstances which will never again see British soldiers or members of the IRA lose their lives as a result of political conflict.". I think it is preferable to use a term some people consider vague than to use a term some people consider POV.

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

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

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

• • Very good post Jnestorius, a lot to take in and think about Vintagekits 00:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• On balance, I think volunteer is POV. It is a term used primarily by one side of the argument but not accepted generally by both. It is also used by one side as a legitimising term to imply legitimacy, and not used by the other for that same reason. Member is problematic because it is hard to characterise how does one become a member? Who rules that someone is a member? Do they sign up?? Is there a membership card? Rules of membership? Finally, where is the distinction between the political and the military? Who draws that distinction? In reality those in paramilitary organisations and attached movements are either active or inactive, so simply writing activist is relatively NPOV. It doesn't apply legitimacy or illegitimacy, formally joining or informally joining, or get into the nuances of actions. Activist carries no inherent ruling on one's status, legitimacy or otherwise. So I think it the least POV option. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • There are a number of basic flaws in your argument.

1. The title is used by all sides and therefore POV is discounted and even if it was used by one side if the title is given by the organisation then the title is fact, even if you disagree with the organisation and its aims they give that title and that is fact and therefore cannot be POV. This is not an argument whether or not you agree with the IRA it is about the use of the term Volunteer – whether you like it or not it exists and is used widely. The POV issue is a red herring used by those with an anti Republican agenda. The term has its own disamb page so there can be no confusion as to its meaning.

2. Republicans use the term more often because they will be more diligent in giving the correct title to those within there organisation, just like pretty much all organisation. There are plenty of terms that I consider POV such as Lord, Sir, Knight, Duke etc - does the use of these in those articles constitute POV?

3. Just because the IRA is not a legal organisation does not mean that the term Volunteer is not a legitimate term, there are plenty of references on Wiki to IRA Army Council, Chief of Staff, Quartermaster General, [2], Divisions, Brigades [3] [4], North and South Command etc within the page about the IRA and its organisation, all of these are taken as legitimate terms and show that there is a recognised structure to these republican movements so why are you disputing that official term for the member of the organisation? That to me smacks of your POV and an attempt to disrespect. Vintagekits 21:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]