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

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is closed. The consensus of the discussion was:
Where the initial definition occurs in the lead section, it should firstly be stated that a person is a member of the IRA. The term volunteer should then normally be mentioned. Lower case "v" should be used for the time being. In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article. Please do not modify it. Shyam (T/C) 11:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

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

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

If there are any disapprovals with this proposal, then please list them on the talk page in maximum of 200 words with valid points. Shyam (T/C) 20:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vintagekits

Yes, I totally disagree, there is no logic or reason behind this proposal. On what basis are you making this proposal? this is possibly the biggest loads of nonsense that has ever been on wiki, you are being totally conned by anti-Irish and anti-republicans editors who want to pick and choose what parts if the various republican movements are legitimate as long as that is in line with their POV. All of these organisations that you have outlined above use the rank of Volunteer (REMEMBER IT IS A MILITARY RANK NOT JUST SOME SCOUT PICKING UP LITTER!) so you can not make a distinction between them. Are you just making a decision to keep some editors happy but you are not making the decision based on any facts or logic! What is the REASON for this decision to try and prohibit this rank/title especially as you initially stated that it was OK to use it? Anytime someone is asked a reason backed up with consistent logic for there objection to the rank of Volunteer the whole place goes quiet! How can we have the following articles Army Council, Chief of Staff, Quartermaster General, [1], Divisions, Brigades [2] [3], North and South Command etc within the page about the IRA and its organisation, but you now want to prohibit the RANK of Volunteer, Obviously if the rank of Volunteer is POV then all titles given to IRA members are and should be deleted, also should we be allowed state what Brigade they were in or is that to be prohibited also - there is absolutely no logically arguement that can be made against the use of the term Volunteer.

Where it can be proven that those in the various Republican movements were or were referred to as Volunteer (note the capital V) or its abbreviation (Vol.) then the only sensible solution is to use the solution proposed by jnestorius as of 00:40, 10 December. This solution clears up any issues ambiguity about the word volunteer and introduces the capital V also to denote and further emphasise its alternative meaning. Its also states that the first use of the term should be disambed to the Volunteer (republican) page.

Vintagekits 21:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that some editors opposed to Volunteer are trying to cloud the issue in order to cast some doubt on the term by stating that it is a Title of honor however it is not a Title of honor. At the very least it is a Title of authority if not a Military rank. If it is a Title of authority or Military rank or other then it should be used, what it is exactly can then be debated over on the Volunteer (Irish republican). It's use and standing has now been proven the only arguement against it now is based on opposing editors is that it "gives legitamacy" this of course is 1. inconsistant and 2. based only on their POV. --Vintagekits 14:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An honourific title does not have to be different to a military rank, does it? Somebody pointed out that "martydom operation" is also an 'offical term' used by some organisations, yet it has obvious contrast to many other POVs - namely the positive connotations of "martyr" versus the negative connotations of the deaths that such operations cause. Similarly, "Volunteer" even if a rank, has the positive conntations of the word it derives from: "volunteer", and this contrasts strongly against the type of violence that many of these people use. "Member" on the other hand, does not contrast POVs, just as "Private" might not. What we need to look at is contrast of POV (see my (Logica's) comments below). Logoistic 18:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC) (this is Logica's new account)[reply]

In my opinion EVERYTHING and I mean everything you have just written is POV - your POV! you have not provided one shread of evidence to back your POV claim up. Where is there any link with matyrdom? nowhere only in your head, i.e. POV, where is there the suggestion of "positive connotations"? nowhere, again only in your head, i.e. POV - your whole agruement is based on POV and assuming the POV of other instead of reporting facts. Also linking the capitalised Volunteer to the term volunteer just in my opinion just shows that you do not understand the terms or their historical background even though we have added an article/disamb page to highlight the difference so that there could be no confusion. Reporting facts is not POV - I am all for reporting facts, let other people make their own minds up on what is good or bad--Vintagekits 20:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage, you assume all facts are neutral. Yet clearly "martydom operation" was created with the intetion of positive connotations. Why not use "suicide bombing"? By your argument, people would have no problem using either terms, yet clearly they do. You fail to recognise that the naming of a word does not make it value neutral. I contend that EVERY view is POV, and that a neutral term is only one that everyone has a common POV on. So which "fact" would you report, "martydom operation" or "sucidide bombing"?

Logoistic 22:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt understand a word of that - what has that got to do with this - please stick to the issue at hand. Infact I will end my discussion with you here and left others determine the merits of your arguement--Vintagekits 23:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was difficult to understand. Please feel free to ask questions though. Logoistic 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My proof for the term Volunteer being a rank

  • The most conclusive proof that Volunteer is a rank in the IRA comes from directly inside the organisation itself.
  1. Joe Cahill the former Chief of Staff of the PIRA stated in a press conference in 1971, after the introduction of internment that the British forces had arrested two officers in the IRA, "the rest are Volunteers, or as they say in the British Army, privates". See here for the actually clip.
  2. On p.108 of Ed Moloney's book A Secret History of the IRA, (which is recognised as one of the definitive books on the IRA) has an interview with a member of the Cumann na mBan (the women’s IRA) where she refers to a Volunteer as being a low rank but still important enough to boss around the women when see states - "That was in the days when the Cumann na mBan came under the authority of the IRA; in fact even a Volunteer in the IRA could give orders to a ranking Cumann na mBan woman".
  3. In the same book on p.571 in the glossary of terms there is a definition of the term Volunteer as follows - "Volunteer - Official name for a rank-and-file IRA member".
  4. Again in the same book on p.80 there is the quote "Whereas the first IRA commanders were Southerns, the footsoldiers in the war, the Volunteers, came overwhelmingly from the North" - this clearly shows the Volunteers (with the capital V) are low ranking members.
  5. On p.327 of David Beresford book Ten Men Dead: The Story of the 1981 Irish Hunger Strike he again refers to the term volunteer as being a rank with the quote - "Kieran lies there now, of course, under a low, black headstone stating only his rank-"volunteer"-and name"
  6. If you look at this picture you can see how it is used to denote a rank and also has the capital V.
  7. On p.210 of John Bowyer Bell's book The Ira, 1968-2000: Analysis of a Secret Army there is the quote "the IRA volunteer loses all rank in prison where the command structure is created locally" shows that Volunteer is regarded as a rank and then when the Volunteer is interred in prison that rank is removed (the rank will then be restored upon release from prison).
  8. In the handbook issued by IRA General Headquarters in 1956 - A Handbook for Volunteers of the Irish Republican Army here members are called guerrillas.
  9. On p.242 of Rebel Hearts : Journeys within the IRA's soul a book written by Kevin Toolis he states "Finnis was an ordinary IRA Volunteer and never privy to the secrets of the Brigade command" - note he is referred to as an ordinary Volunteer as opposed to being in the command of the Brigade - therefore showing the different tiers in the IRA the lowly/ordinary Volunteer (again the capital letter is used) and the command above those giving the orders.

--Vintagekits 22:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Derry Boi

I also disagree. There is absolutely no reason why users shouldn't be allowed to use the term "volunteer". Volunteer is a rank within the IRA's structure. There is absolutely nothing POV about the word volunteer. It is a rank within the IRA structure. ALso can you tell me why is it allowed for Irish Volunteers and the "original IRA" (as you term it) and not allowed for PIRA, CIRA, etc? Derry Boi 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Demiurge

I'd be inclined to use "member" for the 1919-1922 IRA, in the interests of consistency, and because there's no indication it was an actual rank (as opposed to a description) for this IRA either. Other than that, looks acceptable to me. Note that Volunteer (republican) doesn't say that "volunteer" is a rank, and neither do any reliable sources. Demiurge 23:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this should help assit you Vintagekits 23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't say anywhere that "Volunteer" is a rank. Demiurge 23:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Logica

I agree with the moderator, but with the following conditions: 1.

a).If 'Volunteer' can be proved to be a rank, then I accept Jnestorius' proposal (as stated below) that it should only be used under particular conditions, the main one being that the article must be close (or "intimately connected") to the IRA. b. However, I fear that the definition of "close" or "intimately connected" will be difficult to define and will open up another minefield. c. Furthermore, how intimately connected is surely not the only context that should define its use. Its POV varies depending upon the context of the article. Talk of "Volunteer (republican)" who planted the Omagh bomb in the Omagh bombing article, for example, would contrast most strongly the honorific nature of the term (the 'good natured' sense of volunteer glares from it) against the general sense of immorality felt and that cannot be ignored. A formal discussion should ensue over its POV status in each particular context it is questioned. This might involving using the term to fulfill the closeness criteria, but mediating the negative connotations in that context by disconnecting the term from the article persona (such as writing "IRA member (so-called "Volunteer (republican)")" rather than just "IRA Volunteer (republican)"). Note that ranks such as "private" or "General" have very little connotations compared to "Volunteer", so are not subject to this in the same way.

2. In light of dispute over whether "Volunteer" is a rank, articles should use the term "member" at least until the dispute over rank is statisfied, since it is clearly NPOV.

3. If "Volunteer" cannot be proved to be a rank, "member" should be used in contexts deemed POV.

4. Unlike Jnestorius, I think the term should only apply to IRAs in which people express an opposition to the use of "Volunteer". This may well apply to the older IRAs, but a word is only POV if people have different points of view to one another, and this is less likely to be the case in the past than the present (fewer oppose the 'legitimacy' of the pre Free State IRAs, for example). All positions have a particular viewpoint, and something is only 'NPOV' or 'neutral' if there is a common viewpoint, as in the case of "member", which avoids the honorific connotations of "Volunteer" (which contrasts different viewpoints in most, and particularly some, of the contexts in which it is being used).

88.107.5.213 15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (User:Logica) 03:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Weggie

Agree with the moderators proposal but with an allowance that the term volunteer can be explained within the PIRA article itself.

As previously stated the term rank denotes a position in a hierarchy - all PIRA members are regarded as 'volunteers' by the IRA regardless of their activity or standing within the IRA- the term 'Volunteer' itself is used to denote a spurious military basis to the organisation and to suggest a spurious historical relationship to the 'Old' IRA. The term volunteer when used in a biography of an IRA member gives zero information about that person that the term member does not provde so accept with the minor change suggested above Weggie 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jnestorius

  1. "Rewrite Volunteer (republican) and cite all the sources." I agree completely and this is the number one priority. Linking to this article should be discouraged until its quality is greatly improved.
  2. "Other than these two IRAs members the term 'volunteer' is strictly prohibited." I disagree completely. The same rules should apply for all IRAs; any other policy is POV. The proposal reflects the widely-respected official position of the current Republic of Ireland state; but it still just one POV among several.
    (clarification added: jnestorius(talk) 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)) The same rules should apply for all "IRA"s, but not necessarily for the Irish Volunteers, where the description "Volunteer" is harder to avoid; it may be better to reduce usage of "Volunteer" for the Old IRA to facilitate distinguishing between membership of one and of the other.[reply]
  3. "member" as a description of IRA people is used by themselves and sympathisers. Using it is not POV, not inaccurate and not sloppy. Therefore it should be the default term.
  4. I am uncertain whether "volunteer" is a rank equivalent to "private", or a generic equivalent to "soldier", or sometimes one and sometimes the other. This should be discussed at Talk:Volunteer (Irish republican)#Are all IRA members Volunteers?, not here.
  5. "volunteer" is, if not POV, at least a loaded term. But it may still be used judiciously (an analogy: Führer). Precisely when it may be used depends on the answer to point 4. To reiterate my suggestions, linked by Vintagekits above, it is acceptable to use "Volunteer" in articles in the following circumstances:
  • the article is intimately connected with the IRA; and
  • "Volunteer" is capitalised to signal it is a specific technical word, not a general description; and
  • "Volunteer" is wikilinked to Volunteer (Irish republican) when first used; and
  • Do not use as an honorific (so "John Doe was an IRA Volunteer" is okay, but "Vol. John Doe was from Cork" is not acceptable. (I have just added this condition, after the rest. jnestorius(talk) 23:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Comments from Stubacca

Agree. Volunteer is an honorific term and is being inserted to legitimise and glorify IRA members. I feel the comprimise I suggested on the main page is the best way forward. Plus I find Vintagekits' canvasing disappointing, inappropriate and offensive. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "comrade" reference is interesting, and relevant in my opinion. Also relevant is the fact that UDA member articles do not start with "Brigadier John Gregg was a ..." or "Brigadier Jim Gray was a ...". If they did it would be just as inappropriate as this. Stu ’Bout ye! 15:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Also relevant is the fact that UDA member articles do not start with "Brigadier John Gregg was a ..." or "Brigadier Jim Gray was a ...". If they did it would be just as inappropriate as this".

This is the crux of the whole issue. People are tying themselves up in knots over pov, when this is not a pov question. John Gregg's article should say that he was Brigade commander or Brigadier in the UDA. To leave out this information is to deny the reader an understanding of the role he played in the organisation. Similarly, say, Thomas Begley's article should say that he was low ranking member of the PIRA, or as they term it, a "volunteer". That's the central issue here, and turning it into an endless pov war is just a waste of everyone's time and energy.

Jdorney 18:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pauric

I disagree. The organisations noted there not to include all refered to their members as volunteers. I think calling their members volunteers is as acceptable as calling Brits soldiers.

Comments from Curtains99

Agreed. No proof provided that 'Volunteer' is a rank. We do not have articles about communists that refer to them as 'comrade'. End of story. Curtains99 09:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Beaumontproject

  1. I disagree completely with the Shyam proposal.
  2. There is no difference between the IRA's only that as time has gone by history has shown that their stance was correct. Initial they will be called terrorists by opposing governments but sooner or later buildings, train stations and streets will be named after those once called terrorists - therefore there can be no difference made between them. For more detail on this see Óglaigh na hÉireann.
  3. There seems to be some dispute as to whether Volunteer (Irish republican) is a rank like Private (rank) or a title like Viscount, Duke or Earl this is up for debate and should be debated on the Volunteer (Irish republican) page. Resolving this dispute and rewriting the Volunteer (Irish republican) should not be a condition of allowing the use of Volunteer.
  4. I also note that no editor who is opposed to the term Volunteer has made any attempt to contribute or improve the Volunteer (Irish republican) article. Allowing the use of Volunteer should not be dependant on that page being improved before Volunteer is allowed as that will mean that we will mean that we are just going to have to go through this all over again. However, it should be a recommendation that that page is improved.
  5. What is not debatable is the use of Volunteer as the official method of describing the members of the IRA that is obvious and widespread and as it isn’t an honorific title then is should be the preferred method of description allowed for all IRA.
  6. If we cant agree on whether or not Volunteer is a rank or title does that mean we are just going to ignore that that is the term that has been used to describe those in the IRA for nearly 100 years. As these the IRA is an illegal organisation it is not exactly going to have a website to show the rank structure.
  7. I do not see either member or Volunteer as POV and both could and can be used, however, as I have stated previously Volunteer is a more specific and correct description whereas member is a more general description and the capital V obviously distinguishes it as being a specific technical word.
  8. Finally, to some up what I am saying is - Volunteer should be used whether it is a rank OR a title as it has been shown that it the official name used to describe membership and I would agree Jnestorius proposal of how to use the word -
  • the article is intimately connected with the IRA; and
  • "Volunteer" is capitalised to signal it is a specific technical word, not a general description; and
  • "Volunteer" is wikilinked to Volunteer (Irish republican) when first used; and

But I would disagree with his final prohibition -

  • Do not use as an honorific (so "John Doe was an IRA Volunteer" is okay, but "Vol. John Doe was from Cork" is not acceptable.

You should be allowed say ’’Vol. Sean O’Doe was a member of Cork Brigade of the Provisional Irish Republican Army’’ as well saying ‘’Sean O’Doe was a Volunteer in the Cork Brigade of the Provisional Irish Republican Army’’ as this is the way a title or rank is used. Beaumontproject 17:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

Note that the User:Vintagekits has been posting the following message to people:

"Go to this page, an Indian guy is being forced by Loyalists and West Brit who are demanding that the rank of Volunteer is banned for describing the rank of members of the IRA – if you do not voice your opinion on this then they are going to get away with this bull Vintagekits 22:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)"

88.107.5.213 15:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (Logica)

  • Sent to a number of people who were already involved in the discussion that may not have been aware that it had moved on to this after the mediator had already stated the the use of Volunteer was OK Vintagekits 15:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You were very selective in who you asked, plus the post is insulting - it is wrong to imply that people opposing your view are "Loyalists" or "West Brit"s. Also, the nationality of the mediator should not matter. 88.107.35.169 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (Logica[reply]


Tiocfaídh Ár Lá!

Wholeheartedly disagree with this, completely pointless and a waste of keyboard labour to be perfectly honest. 'INTERNET DRAMA - SERIOUS BUSINESS' eh? What purpose would this serve? I agree with Vintagekits points on the issue. How can we have articles on the ranks of senior IRA members yet not the volunteers? Tiocfaídh Ár Lá! 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that 'Tiocfaidh Ár Lá' is Irish for "Our day will come", which is a "warcry" or motto of the PIRA. Bastun 15:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culnacréann

I disagree. If you join the IRA you become a Volunteer. That is recognised within Ireland and further afield. To say otherwise you most be a brit. Culnacréann 13:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jdorney

I realise that I am running the risk of trying to inject some rationality into this discussion, but here goes anyway. To be perfectly honest, I thnk this whole debate is a massive waste of energy. However, it is way over the top to actually prohibit the use of the term volunteer in this context.

  • It is not an "honourific" term, but a technical term within the IRA. Joe Cahill in a press conference in 1971, after the introduction of internment that the British forces had arrested two officers in the IRA, "the rest are volunteers, or as they say in the British Army, privates".[4]

"Membership of the army is only possible through being an active member of any army unit or directly attached to General Headquarters. Any person who ceases to be an active member of a unit or working directly with Gerneal Headquarters, automatically ceases to be a member of the Army. There is no reserve in the Army, all Volunteers must be active.

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

General Order Number 2:

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

(Martin Dillon, The Dirty War, Hutchinson, 1990, ISBN 0-09-984520-2, p468)

  • So we can see two things. One, the IRA uses the term "member" as in a "member of the army". Two, it uses Volunteer as a term for ordinary member, making a distinction between a Volunteer and an officer.

That's the IRA's internal language. So how do neutral historians use the term?

Michael Hopkinson in The Irish War of Independence uses a number of terms to describe the IRA of this era. For example; p.108: "On 7 September 1919, twenty five Volunteers under Liam Lynch attacked a party of fourteen soldiers" p.111: "In the ensuing gun battle, twelve IRA soldiers were killed" p.112, "The official British figures wereten killed and three wounded, with six IRA men killed" p.139, "The survival of acute land grievances meant that IRA and Sinn Fein members did not support the conservative work of the Dail courts"

So that's the old IRA. What about the Provisional IRA?

Eamon Mallie, Patrick Bishop, the Provisional IRA, p.12, "Home for most of the Belfast Volunteers is a council estate" p.173, "The leadership actively held back volunteers from attacking the Army".

Ed Moloney, the Secet History of the IRA, p.107. "IRA members woud drive randomly around their streets in the hope of encountering a British patrol" p.87 "At the time of the split th;ere were no more than 40-60 IRA members in Belfast" p.376. "Volunteers of the IRA swore their allegiance to the Army Council"

Richard English Armed Struggle: p.83, "there were not enough volunteers coming through to replace those who werre imprisoned or killed" p.128, had been a member of the IRA in the '40s

  • You get the idea. Historians use both terms.


So here's my point

Member should be used as the generic term for an IRA figure. However volunteer (republican) can be used to describe their role and status withn that organisation

Jdorney 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have made the most convincing argument so far and fully support your conclusion. Curtains99 01:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DagosNavy

I strongly disagree. Some "ranks" within resistance movements around the world are so inherent to those organisations that they must be accepted as a generic term for "membership". Imagine a proposal aimed to change the word peshmerga for Kurdish fighter, or to employ muslim warrior instead of the specific name mujahideen; it would result in an impoverishing simplification of their historical background. I think the same criteria should be use for all IRA members, despite their hierarchy. So we must keep the original "rank" or "title", namely volunteer (Óglaigh in irish language).

DagosNavy 01:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But mujahideen and peshmerga both literally mean Muslim warrior and Kurdish fighter, respectively, and have no other meanings that I'm aware of. Volunteer has many! Bastun 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are an english speaker, so you can't find any other meanings in these words. The arab word mujahideen doesn´t mean literally "muslim warrior" but barely "struggler" (according to the wiki article), what also seems a vague or ambiguous term. The word peshmerga can be traslated as "those who face death", not "kurdish fighter".

However, I am pointing out to the historical use of the term "volunteer", which has strong roots in the republican movement. "Volunteer" could be confused with other meanings, I agree, but certainly not in the context of any article about the Irish Nationalism. By using "member", you are watering down the historical background with a simplification, I insist. DagosNavy 02:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padraig3uk

I disagree with this proposal, the term 'Volunteer' is used to denote all members of the IRA, before the reforms within that organisation in the mid 70s, when they adopted the cell system, the IRA used ranks for officers and Volunteer for other non-ranking members, this was changed when all ranks where dropped and all members where refered to simply as 'Volunteer' in IRA statements, one of the reasons for this was they felt that giving the rank of members captured or killed in action was a boost to british propaganda.padraig3uk 04:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shtove

I disagree with the proposal - Jdorney sets out the case above, and that's all you need to know. The view that Volunteers shouldn't be used because of its connotation of honourable behaviour is kind of murky.--Shtove 10:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun

I agree with the proposal with Weggie's amendment. Willing to accept Jenestorius' alternative. Bastun 18:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:SCVirus

I disagree. Volunteer is the best term to use there are no good alternatives that arn't simply dodging the issue.SCVirus 10:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:El chulito

This guy User:Vintagekits is out of control. He seems to think he can do anything he wants, probably because he has not been blocked for an extended period of time for his activities, all of which violate WP:CIVIL.

As I informed him directly, "[you refuse] to answer directly a question posed to you rather than using some nonsense like implying that your opponent does not "abide by the rules" or is "breaking with consensus" or "POV", which you yourself do too much of, but overuse the word way too much as an accusation against others -- these are not answers, these are braindead soundbites which you employ when you cannot answer something or know you are wrong."

This person has gone about censoring and revising numerous pages, especially for IRA members and their actions/activities in which he always inserts a republican slant. And when anyone complains he says that they "are breaking consensus", "lack an indepth knowledge", violating WP:CIVIL, or as his favourite term is "POV", which he has just about worn out, since he accuses everyone else of it but refuses to acknowledge his own lengthy history of misusing that term in a rather pitiful attempt to silence his detractors.

He inserts "Oglaich" as part of the Gaelic translations of English names of IRA men/women, when this is not the case. The word means "volunteer"; you can figure out the rest. I am tired of having to run behind him and set things right, after which he harangues me demanding answers to questions already answered. He also continues to use the word "Volunteer" instead of "member" as was recommended previously while the matter is in mediation. He has no respect whatever for the rules and regulations of wikipedia. but pretends to so as to silence his detractors or opponents (whom he insults as "idiots" and "West Brits" and is not sanctioned for this).

I have not once read him admitting that he was wrong about anything and he demands apologies from everybody, which I will never issue and I hope no one else has, at least for the wrong reason.

This guy needs to be blocked for a long time to learn otherwise he is going to go on doing exactly the same thing.El chulito 14:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will let others judge who is acting contrary to WP:CIVIL - see both my and his talk pages.--Vintagekits 14:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits has been blocked for short period of time (3 hours) because of making personal attacks and not following the policies. The user has made many number of changes to the related articles which are parts of the mediation. I already suggested the established users to make a full article of Volunteer (Irish republican). If anyone is interested to do it fast then I would like to continue mediating. If not, then there is no issue of continuing this mediation case. Thank you, Shyam (T/C) 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is beyond outragous, Shyam has obviously just read his post and took him and his word without actually looking into what happened really today. If someone would like to point out when I have broken with the mediation here or been uncivil to El chulito PLEASE do, if anyone cares to look are the discussion today they will see who broke WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - I am not going to clutter this page with it I will take it to User:Shyam Bihari's talk page. All I will say is that I didnt not break with mediation it was El chulito - see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here - CAN ANYONE SHOW ME WHERE I BROKE WITH THE MEDIATION? So we was I blocked. That is the mediation covered. I will cover the WP:NPOV, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL elsewhere.--Vintagekits 18:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits sometimes has more enthusiasm than sense, and clearly expresses a POV - however many of his contributions make sense and in particular I would not fault his correction of some of the nonsense from others

recently, and that is no reason to ban him.

Perhaps we are missing the point that Wikipedia is supposed to inform people and it would be correct to describe in an article about Irish republican movements that they use the term Volunteer as a specific term in their structure.

However there is no need to edit every article to include this term as readers better understand what a member of an organisation is. Indeed as we are discussing proscribed organisations, 'rank' is immaterial to the illegality of forming part of such group.

--Gibnews 17:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that users make a record of all instances of Vintagekits breaking policy so that he is not allowed to get away with it. I cannot post warnings on his page anymore because he has "banned" me, which effectly means if I put warnings on, he reverts it. I agree that the user has done some good for Wikipedia, but I strongly agree that he thinks he can get away with virtually anything because nobody on an admin level does anything about it. Logoistic 17:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make any personal attacks. If you believe and assume good faith in the mediation then please stay away from the pages related to this mediation. I have asked to make the full article of Volunteer (Irish republican) with covering all the relevant reliable sources which are sufficient to make NPOV good article as mentioned below as well. Other than this, if you still make edits to other page, then I do not think we should continue mediation. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First few steps

I do agree with Jnestorius's concern. The first few steps are to resolve the dispute:

  • Discuss all the issues, whether "volunteer" is rank or not, at the talk page and cite all the reliable and non-disputant sources about points. The work has already been started there by Jdorney. Sorry, I am unable to verify the quotations mentioned there. I am assuming good fatith about those refernces and quotations. I suppose, these references could be assumed as non-disputant sources.
  • According to these quotations and refernces, rewrite the article. Cite all the sources, wherever applicable.

After writing a good, neutral and well-refernced article it would be very easy to reach a clear-cut concensus. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to close this case as soon as possible. So, any volunteers to write Volunteer (Irish republican) with full citations. I suppose this article should be written in well-format so that the articles of members associated with IRA could be linked to this page which should be NPOV and well-cited. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 14:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this what I said in the first place! If you had stood by your initial decision isnt of listening to POV then we could have avoided all this!--Vintagekits 18:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the policies. No personal attacks. Shyam (T/C) 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shyam, I have taken this mediation seriously and really tried to resolve it and listen to what you have has to say. This can be seen on the talk page for Volunteer. Ever since the beginning of this issue I have tried to clarify and comply with each request. The first request was to provide sources for the use of Volunteer, I did this, then I was asked to set up its own page so that it could be disambed away from the volunteer page and so that a distinction could be made between the two, I did this, then I was asked to change the name of the article to distinguish it away from the other types of republican, I agreed to this and the page was changed to Volunteer (Irish republican). Then we were asked to go through this process and you initially agreed that Volunteer should be used as long as the first time it was used it was disambed to the Volunteer (Irish republican) and the V was capitalised everytime it was used, however this was challenged and we had to move on to this page. Then we were asked to add reference to the talk page - we did this however the problem here was that those who disagreed with the use of the term never contributed to the page as can be seen again here. In my opinion those against using the term have never provided a shred of evidence against the term and have only every quoted their own POV against the term. From the talk page it is seen that the de facto use of the term in a low rank for the junior level members of the IRA. Is there anything else you want us to do before the final decision is made. I am sure you are getting tired of the mediation and wish you never got started in the first place but please hang on in there as we are nearly at an end. Thank you for all you work.--Vintagekits 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits, I respect your contributions in resolving the on-going dispute. As far as I know, we all agreed to make only to make a good and well-referenced article of Volunteer (Irish republican). Other than this, I never agreed to make any edits to other articles related to this mediation. Okay, I try to explain what I expect from the article. Article should explain the usability of term Volunteer on the related IRAs with mentioning reliable sources for all the following IRAs:
You may use seperate sections for each IRAs to explain the usability in brief (2 or 3 lines would be sufficient to explain). One more thing, do not start edit wars on the page, if you disagree with the edits made by a user then discuss it on talk page before reverting the edit. Thank you, Shyam (T/C) 05:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So is the moderator's response on the main page the final resolution until the disupte over rank is resolved? - i.e.

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

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

Provisional Irish Republican Army Irish Republican Army (1922–1969) Irish National Liberation Army Official IRA Continuity Irish Republican Army Real Irish Republican Army"

?????? Logoistic 19:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what he is saying is that in articles were a member of the IRA (all IRA's) is shown to hold the rank of Volunteer and this is cited then Volunteer should be used.--Vintagekits 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where on earth did he say that???? Logoistic 19:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave it to Shyam to clarify, alright? Logoistic 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented out my response on very first paragraph in this section for now. I repeat, re-write the concerned article first by citing all the sources. Wherever the term "volunteer" would be used as NPOV, the very first link would be produced to that page. That would be second step. Right now, working on that article only would be appericiable to resolve the dispute. Shyam (T/C) 19:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on the article, however, I would just like to point out that no editor has made any comment, attempt to edit or disputed any facts on the Volunteer (Irish republican)--Vintagekits 19:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because editors such as myself do not claim to a great deal about "Volunteer". The concern is over its use in other articles. The concern is that it has positive connotations that contrast against negative POV in certain articles. You don't need to know much about the term to see that. Logoistic 22:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what you’re saying is that you don’t know about the term Volunteer but you have been arguing about it for two months!!!! I mean no offence but IF you, as you have already said, do not know "a great deal about" the subject maybe you should not get involved and stick to things that you do know about it, that’s what I would do. Basically from what you have just said above is that you don’t know much about the term Volunteer but you don’t want it used because others may perceive it as positive!!!!!!!! Am I alone in being astounded that this has gone on so long if the argument against it is as weak as that? Maybe we should just stick to facts and not get involved with perceived POV --Vintagekits 23:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not read my arguments? I'm tired of explaining my points over and over, please try harder to understand the ones I have already made, please. I bet we both don't know much about the details about "martydom operation", but we wouldn't want it used in the article no the Sep. 11 attacks. By the same token, I wouldn't be knowledgeable enough to contribute significantly to the "Volunteer" (my point), but can still have an opinion on its use, like with "martydom operation", as it doesn't take a genius to realise it derives from the word "volunteer", and all of the POVs that throws up. As a point - what if the IRA members happened to be 'officially' called "thugs"? Would you need to know whether it was a rank, where it is mentioned, who uses it, etc, to get the fact that it is being negative? I think not. Yeesh. Logoistic 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically your arguement boils down to a lack of understand of the term Volunteer (that is why we made a disamb page) and POV.--Vintagekits 19:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It boils down to a term with positive connotations that would contrast against negative feeling in certain articles, such as the Omagh bombing. Logoistic 19:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats POV - I give up! I'm going to concentrate of the Volunteer (Irish republican) as Shyam (T/C) has suggested. If you have anything factual or construction to add do it there instead of basing your whole arguement on percieved POV--Vintagekits 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vintage, I'll end the conversation here as I've said all of this countless times before. The mere existence of a word as an 'official' term does not make it NPOV, as "Martydom operation" clearly shows. Please refer to my arguments above if you are still unclear. Logoistic 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a bit late in the day to mention it, but a reference to Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint might be in order. While that guideline relates more to "outsider" words, I think it's also valid for "insider" words. jnestorius(talk) 00:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am recalling all the persons who could produce reliable sources to prove "Volunteer" as a rank for all the discussed IRAs. If this could not be done in 5 days on the Volunteer (Irish republican), this case would be closed with the concensus as I proposed earlier at the top. If some of the IRAs could be proven "Volunteer" as a rank, then some modifications could be possible. So within 5 days produce all the reliable sources proving the same. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 07:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I've suggested a merge of the Volunteer (Irish republican) article to Irish Republicanism- see discussion at Talk:Irish Republicanism#Merge Astrotrain 19:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not qualify the merging policy as the article has real individual importance for this mediation. Thank you, Shyam (T/C) 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case closed

This case has been closed now. Please do not make any edits to this case. Reason of closing the case: Involved parties did not take mediation seriously and broke rules many times. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 00:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case has been re-opened to reach final concensus. Shyam (T/C) 13:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out what the rules are in this case, I would totaly disagree with the idea of banning the use of the term 'Volunteer' in any articles regarding the history of the IRA, nor do I believe in the historical revisionism used on Wikipedia with regards to that organisation where people trying to disect Irish History into seperate timeslots and claim that the IRA during those periods were seperate organisations with no link or relationship between them.--padraig3uk 13:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the point you are making - the IRA has one root with different branches, its would be wrong and futile to treat them separately.--Vintagekits 14:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to interruption in the case the deadline of producing proofs has been extended by one day. Now all the proofs should be produced by 08:00 UTC, February 7, 2007. The conditions of the closing of the case remain same. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation by Tyrenius

The first point to remember is that we are Wikipedians, i.e. editors of Wikipedia, where "every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (Jimbo Wales). In order to do this certain policies have been established. "Access" is a key word because it means making information available in the way that is most accessible, which is to operate on the principle of least surprise. We offer information to the whole of the English speaking world and have to present it in a way that can be most easily read by people of many different countries, cultures and expectations. Therefore things should be explained in a way that will have the widest value, common terms taking precedence over specialist terms.

In the current debate there is a polarisation of "either ... or". This will never reach a satisfactory solution. We need to think in terms of "both ... and". WP:NPOV demands that all significant viewpoints must be represented, in proportion to their importance. To this extent wikipedia is inherently conservative, because the majority viewpoint, whether right or wrong, is seen as the most important and given most weight, but a significant minority will be given its due weight, an insignificant minority no weight, unless the article is specifically about that normally insignificant minority.

As regards the current question, the first priority is to communicate to the average reader the relationship between an individual and an organisation. The simplest, easiest quickest way to do this is by using a term that is most recognisable in general. That term is "member". It straightaway defines the relationship that exists. Remember we are not writing initially about how the IRA sees itself. We are writing about it with an outside definition.

Having established that relationship, it is then appropriate to move to a more specialised insight into the organisation, by explaining terms that the organisation uses itself, but which are not necessarily in mainstream circulation. Such a term is "volunteer" or "Volunteer" (the former seems to be more prevalent, but that can be resolved separately). The fact that this word has been adopted by the organisation and applied to its members is then appropriate to include.

It does seem that this word is in general use with various permutations of the IRA, and not limited to specific offshoots, so should be adopted as the default. If there is a particular branch which rejects it, then it should not be used.

It is not appropriate to straightaway refer to an individual as an "IRA volunteer", nor is it helpful to refer to them merely as a "member", without also adding that members are termed "volunteers" by the organisation. We need both bits of information to gain a proper understanding, and to allow that understanding to be readily reached by the largest part of our readership.

The next question is how to refer to such individuals through the text of the article. We do not originate — under WP:NOR. In other words, we do not decide ourselves how something is done. We look at precedents in published sources. It would seem that in writing about the subject cited above that the text can use the term "volunteer" to then refer to an IRA member. This makes sense as it would have been defined in the lead section, so its use is clear to the reader, i.e. as a specialist term which the organisation itself uses to refer to its members.

There is therefore no reason to bar it from subsequent text, nor should it be mandatory to employ it on all occasions. Its use — or the use of another term such as "member", "ambusher", "attacker", "plotter", "fugitive", "adviser" or whatever — should be determined in each particular instance on grounds of sense and style. A heavy insistence or a rigid aversion both introduce a stilted quality and do not allow good writing.

It would seem that the term "volunteer" has been used in slightly different ways, sometimes as the equivalent of "private" to distinguish "foot soldiers" from "officers", and sometimes generically for any member of the organisation, as, for example, when it was desired to "hide" "officer ranks" for PR purposes in case of capture. Even when it is used for "private" I am not clear whether this is informal and colloquial or a formal title bestowed on an individual. There is also the question of capitalisation, as in "Volunteer" or "volunteer". It mostly seems to be the latter even in The Green Book (IRA training manual).

Pointing out these fine differences need not concern us in most articles, but certainly it certainly needs to be carefully and fully explored and properly referenced in Volunteer (Irish republican). I have noticed that mediator Shyam has sensibly and appropriately asked for this to be done. I have also noticed that it has not been done. There is no excuse for this and it shows a lack of appreciation for his efforts and guidance, and a lack of proper response to the mediation process. Editors have failed to do the most rudimentary requirement of properly analysing and defining in an article the term they are prepared to spend inordinate amounts of time and energy arguing about. Editors should refrain from further comment in this mediation until they have fulfilled Shyam's request. I am not surprised he closed the mediation. He has generously given of his time, and now has re-opened it. Do what he says, or don't expect credibility.

To sum up, where the initial definition occurs in the lead section, it should be stated that a person is a member of the IRA and as such is termed by the organisation a volunteer with of course the wikilink. The exact phrasing can vary from article to article, as long as the principle is followed. The simplest text could just be:

Lower case "v" should be used as this is the normal usage, even per The Green Book, for the time being. Upper case "V" needs to be proved in the volunteer article as in general use, before it can be considered. In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should certainly not be used rigidly and the term "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference.

The first thing I want here is Shyam's reponse. If there's anything that he disagrees with, then I propose in the first instance to resolve things between him and me. Other participants are asked not to comment yet, and to make it a priority to complete a full article on Volunteer (Irish republican). This proposed procedure is entirely at Shyam's discretion, and I defer to any other decision he thinks proper.

Should he endorse my proposal, there is a separate section (currently as hidden text) which can be opened to other editors, when and if he judges the right time.

Tyrenius 19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal and I suppose all the parties should agree with the proposal. I am very thankful to Tyrenius for his good write-up and efforts to resolve the disputes. Following is concensus of the mediation, as proposed by Tyrenius, and approved by me. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 19:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on IRA member and volunteer

Where the initial definition occurs in the lead section, it should firstly be stated that a person is a member of the IRA. The term volunteer should then normally be mentioned. Lower case "v" should be used for the time being. In the main text of an article the word, volunteer, is free to be used, but this has to be judged in each particular instance to achieve maximum sense and good style. It should not be used rigidly and other terms such as "IRA member" can also be used or any other appropriate reference. Different terms can be interspersed, and may vary from article to article.

Agree

No comment or qualification allowed in this section: signature only (with 4 tildes ~).

Logoistic 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weggie 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jnestorius(talk) 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jdorney(talk) 22:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stu ’Bout ye! 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curtains99 09:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

padraig3uk 12:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastun 14:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Vintagekits 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- Pauric (talk-contributions) 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

Sum up in maximum of 4 lines + signature what you disagree with. Make specific points. Keep it brief.

Excerpt from wp:concensus

"Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome ... a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level."

Tyrenius 23:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section outside consensus

I make this 18 lines, not 4. I said 4 lines, not 4 numbered points. We are meant to be dealing with definitions in this mediation. Can you explain? Tyrenius 00:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I respect Tyrenius very much as an editor and really appricate his input here but this proposal would be ignoring that Volunteer/Óglach is a rank and therefore is a more encyclopaedic term than member and member is inaccturate,
If it's inaccurate and someone is not a member of the IRA, then they can't hold a rank within it either. Member is a perfectly neutral word which explains to most people that someone is part of something.

you wouldn't say "Joe Bloggs was a member (or Corporal) in the British Army", when it is capitalised and disambed to the Volunteer page then this should do away with the need to clarify on the page - when there is an offical title given such as Major, Sergeant, Corporal, Private etc to decribe a role then the most accurate term should be used.

You have to read what I've written if you are to counter it: "WP:NPOV demands that all significant viewpoints must be represented, in proportion to their importance. To this extent wikipedia is inherently conservative, because the majority viewpoint, whether right or wrong, is seen as the most important and given most weight." The most weight is that there are no official ranks because there is no official organisation to start with. The IRA is not recognised by governments, even the Irish one. The British army is. That's the difference.
  1. As shown on the Volunteer talk page the de facto usage of the rank is akin to Private
That is not yet established...

and is used to describe a non officer in the IRA

...as you have just demonstrated. Non officer = corporal, sergeantt etc, not just private. You have proved the confusion and ambiguity.

and should be used to describe those, what about those who hold other ranks in the IRA - Adjutant General, Chief of Staff, Operation Commander, Quartermaster General etc. are they all to be referred to as member also?

Indeed - "member (holding the rank of Chief of Staff within the organisation" will serve the requirements.
  1. Here Jnestorius probably came closest differentiating between member and Volunteer. Member should be used when referring to a number of people in the IRA and Volunteer when describing an individual "rank and file" member - e.g. six members of the IRA went to on an operation in Tyrone AND another Volunteer from Antrim went missing.
That is exactly what shouldn't be done. It's stilted and clumsy, the result of pedantry over common sense.
  1. Volunteer is more commonly used with a capital "V" or abreviated to "Vol.",
That too remains to be determined.

I believe the Joseph MacManus and Jim Lynagh articles show exactly how I think the term should be used used in its most clear fashion - rank then section then organisation.--Vintagekits 21:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last bit might be clear to you, but it certainly isn't to me. I don't understand what you mean, which indicates it might not be the best way to present whatever it is you're presenting. Tyrenius 14:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Volunteer (often shortened to Vol. or written as Óglach) is a specific rank within the IRA. It is much more specific and encyclopedic than the term "member". If you look at the Lough Shore Martyrs memorial in Ardboe for example, you will see certain names will have Vol. before them, while other names have "Quarter Master" or other ranks. Volunteer IS a specific rank within the IRA. I also agree with what Vintagekits has said above. Derry Boi 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One usage of the term volunteer/Volunteer does indeed seem to fairly definitely refer to a rank, or rather what is not a rank. In other words, officers are given ranks and everyone else is denoted Volunteer. This is not equivalent to private, as that is the lowest out of several ranks (including corporal and sergeant) that are non-officers in the British army. It is thus more accurate to say that it refers to non-officers, than to say it refers to Privates.

Whether it is more encylopedic, depends on which encyclopedia. It it were an IRA encyclopedia, that may well be true, but it is wikipedia and therefore must follow wikipedia's guidelines. Please study these, particularly WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Please also read the preceding talk on this and other relevant pages before you jump into the middle of something which is about to conclude. For the third time on this page alone I post the following:

"WP:NPOV demands that all significant viewpoints must be represented, in proportion to their importance. To this extent wikipedia is inherently conservative, because the majority viewpoint, whether right or wrong, is seen as the most important and given most weight."

The majority viewpoint is expressed in the national media, government documents and major works on a subject. If you can show that these consistently refer to individuals as "Volunteer O'Brien" etc, then you may be onto something. You will find that such sources do refer to British and other nations' army personnel in such a form, e.g. "Corporal Jones". Wikipedia does not lead the way: it follows existing precedent, namely the majority viewpoint. From wikipedia's perspective, how RTE refers to members of the IRA is more important than how the IRA itself refers to its members, although the latter would come into play where there was focus on the IRA as a specific subject or a significant part of a subject. Even then, however, the existing majority viewpoint would have precedence.

You may disagree with the wikipedia policies that arrive at this result, but until such time as they are changed, they are the ones we follow.

Tyrenius 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage"