Talk:Volunteer (Ireland)

Merger of Volunteer (Irish republican) and Volunteer (Ulster loyalist) to here

I propose that the following two articles Volunteer (Irish republican) and Volunteer (Ulster loyalist) both be merged into one article at this namespace. There is not much difference in content and scope between either article with the biggest section in both articles "History of the term volunteer in Ireland" being almost carbon-copies of each other. There is really no need for two articles on essentially the same topic with the only definable division being the side that uses the exact same term for virtually the exact same purpose. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC for above proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Seeking more input for the above proposed merger of the Volunteer (Irish republican) and Volunteer (Ulster loyalist) articles into this namespace (Volunteer (Ireland)). The Ireland WikiProject and the two relevant volunteer articles were notified when I started the discussion and no input has arrived from them at all. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Support/Oppose

• Oppose. It's true that the two articles are very similar, but that's because the loyalist article was deliberately created as a mirror of the republican one, and expanded in tandem with it. To merge loyalist and republican articles into a single article would be counter-intuitive. There is no "Irish paramilitaries" article or "List of Irish paramilitary organisations", so a single article for members of same does not in fact make sense. I suggest, first, that both articles be ruthlessly edited down by removing the irrelevant "History" sections and, in the case of the republican one, that silly section that says "the role of a volunteer is to turn up and to obey orders". Second, that the edited-down loyalist article be merged into Ulster loyalism#Paramilitary and vigilante groups. I may be wrong, but I don't think the word "volunteer" occurs as frequently in articles on loyalist personalities and organisations as it does in republican ones, and I think that there would be few incoming links if it were not in a number of templates. Merging the republican one would be more problematical, because there isn't an obvious place in Irish republicanism to merge it to. But then again, there is no reason why the two articles have to be treated the same way, and the republican article is the older one, and has more content that is relevant and more incoming links. Finally, "Volunteer (Ireland)" would be a bad title for an article, because it implies that membership of a paramilitary organisation is the primary meaning of "volunteer" in Ireland, which is obviously not the case. Scolaire (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Both claimed a political descent from the Irish Volunteers (18th century), it is true, but have had such different aims and methods since 1913 that it's best to have separate articles.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Also the title is much too close to the loyalist American Volunteers of Ireland.PatrickGuinness (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The 2 articles are similar and can be merged into 1 article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support merge: There is absolutely no encyclopedic reason why these two article should not be merged. The two articles are enough alike. including the names, that one article can, and should, present any differences in sections. This would make one article that could likely achieve a high class rating. Some people pronounce potato one way, some people another, but it is still the same subject. The main reason for WP:NPOV is to present both sides without WP:Bias. Think about it: Should we have one article Potato (somewhere) and another Potato (somewhere else). What if the British or Irish use a slightly different pronunciation should we have 4 or more of the same articles with parenthetical disambiguation? Collaboration should not be hard and "if" this can not be achieved, because of political reasoning, then invoke sanctions like discuss before edit, "1RR", or other needed over-sight to ensure collaboration. People feel strongly about a subject of interest to them and if they can not separate political or religious beliefs, to present material "fairly" in this encyclopedia, they should recuse themselves or there is certainly a need for over-sight to help them. Because Ireland and Northern Ireland may be in a continual "battle" does not mean Wikipedia "must" try to advance this. From an encyclopedic point of view we should not care which side is right or wrong but present both sides in proportion. If I were to be the closer I would interpret oppose !votes that include "Both claimed a political descent from the Irish Volunteers (18th century), it is true..." and "It's true that the two articles are very similar, but that's because the loyalist article was deliberately created as a mirror of the republican one" as actual support and not oppose. We agree but have to disagree on grounds that..., and words like "loyalist article" or "republican" concerning the same "Irish potato" should be a big "giant" red flag. Sorry-- I had to add that as ironic. Otr500 (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a problem, that I suppose is just something over-looked. There are two articles proposed to be merged into one. This means there should be an appropriate template showing this. Otr500 (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Volunteer (Ireland) is a redirect. There is no point in templating it. The other two articles are templated. Scolaire (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merge and support merge into the pages of the respective organizations. I'm not sure we need a page for just the title "volunteer," separate from the pages about the volunteer organizations themselves. It would be like having a World War I Soldier page that then had different sections for soldiers in the French Army, German Army, etc. A single page that covers both sides seems strange and artificial. Chris vLS (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I need to do some more reading on this but one thing is certain. If there is a merge and it is into one page then Volunteer(Ireland) should not be the title - That sounds like an Irish definition of volunteering as opposed to the Rank in militaristic organisations of Volunteer. Perhaps Volunteer (Irish Rank) would make more sense? I will give an opinion on merge or not after I've read the various documents but this took a while for me to understand - that this was the discussion at all. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 00:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: I suggest "Volunteer (Irish paramilitary)" rather than "Volunteer (Irish Rank)" if there were to be a merge, though I still oppose merging. Scolaire (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Suggestion: How about merging to Paramilitarism in Ireland? I can't see an equivalent overview page (apart from the broader The Troubles). There's a lot of page links but because the pages are part of a transcluded navbox, it's unclear how much real use the pair get. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm editing my initial comment - I think there should not be a page for Volunteer (Ireland) since it makes it seem like the work I do for oxfam in Ireland is somehow different from any other country and that isn't what the topic is about at all. I confirm that I believe there could be an article for the rank of volunteer in Ireland and that shouldn't be split by loyalist or republican any more than there would be separate articles for different ideologies of soldier. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 12:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC) (just noticed my entry was cut short by 2 words when I saved it) ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 02:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Scolaire and other oppose !votes Mo ainm~Talk 13:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Scolaire and PatrickGuinness. The two topics have very different histories, and are better treated separately. Both articles need improvement, but that's a separate issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose It would be rather strange to merge to opposing sides of a conflict into one article, claiming that they are identical. Beside that, not every volunteer in Ireland is a warrior, many charities and sport-clubs have volunteers too. In fact, the republicans trace (at least some) of their history back to the Irish Volunteers while the Ulster loyalists trace their history back to the Ulster Volunteers. The Banner talk 11:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Scolaire and various others. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support I like Chris vLS's suggestion to merge the content back into each respective side's partisan article but I see no reason to oppose this merge. I think having both side in the same article will help both comprehensiveness and NPOV. I suspect the articles as they are now are a more convenient POV fork. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Comment My first reaction was that these are two distinct topics but looking at the articles they actually consist of mostly duplicate material in the "History of the term volunteer in Ireland" section. They are quite sparse articles aside from the material in common. —DIY Editor (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support per Mabuska. There's no point having two articles which are, for the most part, identical. No one's suggesting merging all paramilitaries' pages into one massive article – just the 'rank' Volunteer. — Jon C.^ॐ 11:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Just to note I will respond to Scolaire's reasonings after hopefully some more input. Though to fire a quick response to PatrickGuinness's reasoning: Having different aims and methods is not a credible reason for having two articles. The use of the rank is not subject to whatever organisations aims or methods. Also whilst that is a good point on article name, it can easily be clarified with a "For the" at the top of the article, or a better name for a merged article. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Having different aims and methods is not a credible reason for having two articles. On that basis, why not put all Irish political parties on one page? Or all Irish counties? It will look convoluted and stupid. By all means have one list page, listing them all.PatrickGuinness (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe because they are all large and distinct enough to merit their own articles, and have a lot of information? Whereas two articles on the exact same "rank" that applies to two different shades of Irish paramilitary groups which have very little unique or difference in origin and usage do not. In fact there is already one article about the Counties of Ireland along with all the individual ones as well as List of political parties in Northern Ireland. Moot points that have no bearing on this discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal stuff
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Otr500: I very deeply resent the accusation that my !vote is politically motivated, part of a battleground mentality or a prelude to edit-warring. Read it again. It is entirely concerned with making the article or articles encyclopaedic. "Loyalist article" was only shorthand for "Volunteer (Ulster loyalist) article". I ask you to strike through all your allegations of poor faith. Scolaire (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Let's just focus on the points being raised and not the possible reasons behind them. Just to note I disagree with Scolaire's points and will post a counter to them soon enough. I'm happy to let more input come in as the more the better. Mabuska (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC) @ Scolaire: Your comments makes my mind scream "what the hell are you referring to? I will support you taking this to ANI, as you are so off base it is astounding, and you are seriously mistaken. I am far more offended, than you might think you are, that you are even trying to place yourself as the object of my comments, using what seems to me to be possible Wikilawyering, and without a doubt attacking me by stating I directed "allegations of poor faith" towards you. Admins can read exactly what I wrote ---and I used quotes. I was NOT referring to anyone in particular, certainly not you, concerning article content. I have yet to look at the edit histories and have no idea who has contributed to either article. My statements are concerning merging in general, common sense reasons why they should be merged, and not letting differing politics (or religion) be a reason to affect Wikipedia article content, thus the word "Collaboration". I am utterly at a lost to even try to surmise what of my comments you even remotely deem were derogatorily "directed at you specifically", or what part you could misconstrue to make it "seem" I accused you of "...politically motivated, part of a battleground mentality or a prelude to edit-warring.". The quotes? The reasoning that I believe both quotes are proof the articles should be merged? That is the only part of my comments above that was directed towards you, and the other "oppose" !vote. You "might" want to read your comments again in case you forgot what you typed. Both articles are "very similar" ("It's true"), "descent from the Irish Volunteers (18th century), it is true...", and this supports a merge to me. Your own words, I assume since you signed them, "To merge loyalist and republican articles into a single article would be counter-intuitive.", to whom? Certainly not the readers and exactly how could this be against common-sense? The fact is that merging two articles, that has the supposed same roots, same definition, same spelling, differentiated only be editor disambiguation, and used by two different factions, means the two articles really should be merged. I am not trying to change your mind, as I have seen this rarely happens, but directed reasoning to others. If you are still resentful about some mistakenly (thus supposed and actually unknown) "allegations of poor faith" I really would not wait but take this to ANI immediately as I might do it myself. "IF" however, you reread what I wrote, maybe a couple of times, and realize you have clearly made a serious mistake, taking offense at something not directed at you at all, I will understand that mistakes can happen. IF the word "volunteer" does appear more in reliable sources (I am not really concerned about "other articles and any possible bias there) concerning "republican" use then due weight :dictates this be reflected in the article. Otr500 (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC) "If [collaboration] can not be achieved, because of political reasoning, then invoke sanctions"; "if they can not separate political or religious beliefs, to present material fairly in this encyclopedia, they should recuse themselves or there is certainly a need for over-sight"; "because Ireland and Northern Ireland may be in a continual battle does not mean Wikipedia must try to advance this." Only two people had !voted "oppose" when you wrote that, so it's not hard to figure out who it was aimed at. And "words like 'loyalist article' should be a big giant red flag": I was the only person to use that phrase. If you're now saying that your rant wasn't directed at us, but at hypothetical editors of the two articles who might edit-war over the term "volunteer" at some unspecified time in the future, then you should still strike all that, because it's not remotely relevant to a merge request. Oh, and you might think about anger management classes. Scolaire (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC) Oh give it a rest you two and ignore each other unless it's constructive. Though Otr500 has made a couple of good points, which I will reiterate in my response to you Scolaire. I would do it now but I'd rather do it from my laptop than from my tab. Mabuska (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, there are and were all sorts of volunteers, social, political and military. If e.g. we mention Myles O'Reilly's men as volunteers (in 1859-60), then everyone from Ireland who volunteered for any army or other body anywhere ever should be included. Better suited to a list!PatrickGuinness (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

We are on about a rank used in a military sense such as by the IRA and UVF, not a general term used to describe someone who enlisted in an armed body. In any case the background section in both articles deals with historical usage of the term in Ireland in a general sense. Also why create more redundancy with a short pointless list article when this namespace already redirects to one? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternate names

Some names have come up from comments that should likely be considered:

• 1)- Volunteer (Irish paramilitary): Is the parenthetical use still allowing the specific "Volunteer" in the title. It does allow for any future expansion concerning "Irish paramilitary" volunteers.

• 2)- Paramilitarism in Ireland: is specific to "Ireland", allowing future expansion to more than just "volunteers".

• 3)- Volunteer (Irish Rank): Specific to rank; The two articles uses similar wording: Volunteer (Irish republican); "a term used by a number of Irish republican paramilitary organisations to describe their members.", Volunteer (Ulster loyalist); "is a title used by a number of Ulster loyalist paramilitary organisations to describe their members.". Otr500 (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer (Irish Rank) is unsuitable for two reasons: one, it suggests that Volunteer is a rank in the Irish Defence Forces, which is not true, and two, the articles say that "Volunteer" can be used as a generic term for members, regardless of rank, as well as a specific term for the lowest rank. Scolaire (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm basically in agreement with Scolaire on this - I simply couldn't think of another way of putting it. I totally think Volunteer (Ireland) is wrong and unhelpful but unlike Scolaire I can see an article discussing how the title Volunteer is used in Ireland in military circumstances and situations by various opposing sides -So I'm happy for options 1 and 2. The title Rank came from the statement: We are on about a rank used in a military sense such as by the IRA and UVF by User:Mabuska. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiqueight (talk • contribs) 12:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Number 1 would be my prefered option and makes most sense. The choice I went with at the start was only because an older discussion between 2 other editors who supported a merge suggested it. The name of a merged article shouldn't be focused on too much right now anyways unless consensus is found for a merge. It's the principle of the merge that is most important right now. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer (Irish paramilitary) would be a neutral choice that I support since both articles currently have severe issues with neutral point of view. At present the "reason why the two articles have to be treated the same way" is because the topic, Volunteer is the same. Using parenthetical disambiguation just adds the specific association.

Despite some comments to the contrary, and with proof being the articles with the first part of the lead and the history almost identical, the real differences with the titles are the parenthetical disambiguation and not the actual topic. While not quite a mirror "Volunteer (Ulster loyalist)" is a fork. I didn't look to see if if the article is a POV fork, but that does not matter as the actual solution is merging. A problem is that "Volunteer (Irish republican)" leaves no room for any expansion nor merging as titled.

With "Volunteer (Irish paramilitary)" the history can be the same, almost the same, or just related, covered by subsections. Sections can explain "opposing sides", any differences in histories such as political decent and how loyalists and republicans came to use the term, as well as any connection with "rank in militaristic organisations of Volunteers". All that would be required is some collaboration. Otr500 (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

More personal stuff
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given your background, I'm going to assume good faith and guess that you're unfamiliar with the nuances of the history of Ireland, or the broader thrust of some of the basics such as Loyalist volunteers being described as "Irish paramilitary", and that you're not actually trolling. But it's hard to tell. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC) These are just personal attacks and I will not continue this here. Otr500 (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer (paramilitary) is also dodgy, as the Irish Volunteers evolved from a paramilitary organisation to a full blown army, so its members went also from paramilitary to military. The "Volunteer (Ulster loyalist)" never became a real army (I doubt if they ever became a fighting unit). The Banner talk 01:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Paramilitarism in Ireland has problems, too - it would appear to be an article with far too broad a scope, covering everything from the Irish and Ulster Volunteers through to the Provisional IRA, INLA, UVF, etc., during the Troubles, right up to the myriad I can't believe it's not the IRA splinter groups of today. All of these topics are already covered in depth, elsewhere. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The suggestion was deliberately broader than just the Volunteers on the two sides. A number of respondants here obviously have some level of knowledge of the area. Ideally articles and their structure/relationship should be built for a reader who doesn't. There's information scattered through various articles, but as far as I can tell, there's no overview article to link/focus on/contextualise/summarise the topic and its many related articles.

Volunteer (Irish republican) feels like it is built from the wrong end, as evidenced by its need to separate out designated officers, definitionally. The bones are there, but if the article focussed from the broader topic down, then it could describe (..."compare and contrast", to get all year 8 history) things like patterns of organisation, recruitment and retirement, officer-"volunteer" relationship (partially there in Volunteer (Irish republican)#The role of a volunteer), centralised vs decentralised decision-making, variance in permitted acts, etc. ie, more the how of paramilitarism in Ireland rather than the who (for which transclusion of Directory_of_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles#Paramilitaries might suffice). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a beautiful dream, but I don't know who's going to write this article. I can't think of any Irish paramilitary article that has had a major expansion or re-write in the last few years – indeed in many years. I don't think it would be wise to merge two not-especially-well-written stubs into an ambitious project that has very little chance of happening. Scolaire (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

"You may say that I'm a dreamer, but (I hope) I'm not the only one. I hope some day they'll join up. And the articles will be as one." (I'd always prefer there to be the overarching article and for more-specific articles to more naturally split from that as needed. That said, I'm deliberately not formally voting). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Merging will at least generate more interest than has happened so far while presenting both "views" of a general topic made politically biased by disambiguation. Being "too broad" is not a good reason to have two separate stub articles on the same subject, with a lot of duplicate content, while claiming they are both actually "different". We can deadlock on the merge issue, dance around the duplicate histories, and argue that expansion is not likely (as evidenced since 2011) which just adds #3 to #1 and #2 as reasons to merge, but a closing admin will look at these issues. It will be very unlikely that such an admin will ignore that there is a fork, and might conclude "Volunteer (Ireland)" is not offensive since in the "broad scope" Wikipedia has determined that Ireland is considered the Island and not the "Republic of Ireland". We need to consider the reader more than the politics. Otr500 (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a question of being offensive, or of whether "Ireland" refers to the island or the state. It's simply that that "volunteer" has as many meanings in Ireland as it does anywhere else, and somebody who works for Oxfam for no money would be a far more common meaning than somebody who fought for the IRA or UVF. As for what the closer might think, let's just leave that up to the closer. Scolaire (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion continued

Why seek a name change:A reply here to: "Why are you not letting that process conclude before starting a "What should we move this to?" debate?". These are fair questions:

• 1)- Is Volunteer (Ulster loyalist) a fork? If it is it should have been deleted or merged.
• 2)- Are there Ulster loyalist volunteers or is the topic "Volunteer" (paramilitary) specific to "Irish republican"?
• 3)- Can the the Ulster loyalist article be fairly merged into Volunteer (Irish republican) without bias presenting a neutral point of view?
• 4)- Can or should we get rid of the Ulster loyalist while fairly keeping the Irish republican article intact as named?
• 5)- If there is a forming consensus that some form of merge is needed, do we have to "stick to the guns" of the current merge request or, can a RM be altered accordingly?

If there is a forming consensus for a merge because of a consensus to not move to the target article (that consensus appears to be against), a formal closing will likely still leave the issue unresolved. A closing admin will more than likely weigh in on this and certainly that we do not need two almost identical articles claiming to be "different". Alternates were suggested, others were for a merge but not to the target article, so why not see if there is a solution? Otr500 (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

1)- Is Volunteer (Ulster loyalist) a fork? If it is it should have been deleted or merged. No. I think it merits an separate article

*2)- Are there Ulster loyalist volunteers or is the topic "Volunteer" (paramilitary) specific to "Irish republican"? What do you mean by this?

*3)- Can the the Ulster loyalist article be fairly merged into Volunteer (Irish republican) without bias presenting a neutral point of view? No, as it are two very different subjects.

*4)- Can or should we get rid of the Ulster loyalist while fairly keeping the Irish republican article intact as named? No, both merit an article.

*5)- If there is a forming consensus that some form of merge is needed, do we have to "stick to the guns" of the current merge request or, can a RM be altered accordingly? No, no merger needed as there is enough info available for separate articles. But I agree that the Ulster article needs improvement.

The Banner talk 12:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

To address the question of "identical" articles. They're not. They have identical sections entitled "History of the term volunteer in Ireland", but those sections are OR and OFFTOPIC. The sections in both articles could and should be deleted or replaced with "Background" sections that are specific to the topic. Then the issue of "identical" content would cease to be. Scolaire (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

To address Otr's other questions. 1) Volunteer (Ulster loyalist) was a fork (though not a POV fork), but it has developed as a separate article, albeit small if you take out the "History" section. 2) There are loyalist volunteers, if you read the article, in the Ulster Volunteer Force, Ulster Defence Association, Red Hand Commando, Loyalist Volunteer Force, Orange Volunteers and Ulster Protestant Volunteers. 3) The Ulster loyalist article could be fairly merged into the republican one without bias, and presenting a neutral point of view; the only question to be decided is if it ought to be. 4) There is no question of getting rid of the loyalist article, but as well as the merge into the republican one, there is also the possibility of merging it into Ulster loyalism#Paramilitary and vigilante groups (the republican one might also be merged, but it is not as simple, since the equivalent section doesn't exist in Irish republicanism). 5) No, the RfC doesn't have to be closed just in terms of the question asked: a consensus could form around a different proposal, and that could be the result of the closure. Scolaire (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting (and difficult) are the different eras in which the volunteer were active. The Irish Volunteers (later Irish Republican Army/Old IRA) in the 1910s and 1920s. The IRA-family up from the 1920s. The protestant volunteers mainly from the 1970s. With sometimes distinct differences between the generations. The Banner talk 15:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The term volunteer is used as a rank by the IRA's and the UVF and its offshoots. The only difference seems to be that in republicans it applies to all members, whilst in loyalism to rank and file members. Prime example is the Brian Robinson mural in the Shankill where he is clearly listed twice as "Vol." In the same way as republicans. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

To elaborate further on your questions @Otr500::

1) Is Volunteer (Ulster loyalist) a fork? If it is it should have been deleted or merged. - It was created by @Jon C.: back in 2011 because the then highly active cadre of republican editors (Mo ainm, Domer48 and One Night in Hackney) on this site prevented his move of Volunteer (Irish republican) to Volunteer (Ireland) and removed his addition of loyalist aspects of the term resulting in an edit-war between several editors. Unfortunately the whole issue then was discussed via reversion edit summaries and not on the talk page.

2) Are there Ulster loyalist volunteers or is the topic "Volunteer" (paramilitary) specific to "Irish republican"? - the term "Volunteer", abbreviated as "Vol." is used by the loyalist UVF and its offshoots as a rank, just the same as republicans use it. So the term is not the sole premise of Irish republicans.

3) Can the the Ulster loyalist article be fairly merged into Volunteer (Irish republican) without bias presenting a neutral point of view? - Jon C. added mention of loyalists back in February 2011 with no objections before moving the article in May 2011 (leading edit war). Mention of loyalists was removed in August 2011 by an editor as it wasn't under the scope of the article title ad led to another brief edit-war.

4) Can or should we get rid of the Ulster loyalist while fairly keeping the Irish republican article intact as named? - We can get rid of both articles and merge them into one as there is just about as much information on both and none has any real world precedence over the other. The only reason the republican one has more incoming links is due to the republican cadre of editors who ascribed as best they could almost every mention of an IRA member with the term "volunteer" or "Vol." and wikilink to here whereas there has never been a loyalist cadre of editors to do similar for loyalist members. There is a long known republican bias in regards to this WikiProject, and no surprise the republican article was created by one, the indefinitely blocked sockmaster VintageKits. Like seriously what precedence does a republican "Vol". have over a loyalist "Vol."? None except for a cadre here who pushed otherwise.

5) If there is a forming consensus that some form of merge is needed, do we have to "stick to the guns" of the current merge request or, can a RM be altered accordingly? - there is no consensus at the moment yet clearly no consensus for both articles to remain as is. Something needs done and as already stated above I am open to any other article namespace, or even merging the information into relevant articles. Scolaire suggested merging the loyalist one into Ulster loyalism stating there is no similar republican article to merge its too, however he is wrong... Irish Republican Army is a suitable article as it deals with all incarnation of the IRA and such. I'm happy to merge both articles into one or both of them into those two greater scope articles.

Most of the opposes are based on incredibly weak arguments and seem more focused on target namespace or misconceptions than anything else. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And you use a mural as evidence that you are right? The Banner talk 01:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't think of Irish Republican Army. Yes, a merge to there might work since it covers the INLA etc. Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just a quick and easily found example for anyone to see off Google images and yes it is evidence enough for use on Wikipedia to prove its use by loyalists of the term as a rank. Here are a few examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. This one makes use of the rank "Vol" in the context of the original UVF who pre-dated the original IRA. Even the UDA/UFF it seems made use of the term as a rank: [11] [12] [13]. In fact just take a look at [14] along with the associated links on the left of the page to see clearly how the term is used as a rank by loyalists in dedications, most notably with anyone who was an officer listed by that rank instead of "Vol.". In fact it is quite clear that CAIN, one of the most reliable, unbiased and oft used academic Troubles resources uses the term "Volunteer" to describe loyalists in its "Group/Individual Commemorated" parameter even when the mural/memorial/plaque doesn't. Does that satisfy you Banner? Mabuska ^(talk) 09:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

In fact Volunteer (paramilitary) is also dodgy, as the Irish Volunteers evolved from a paramilitary organisation to a full blown army, so its members went also from paramilitary to military. The "Volunteer (Ulster loyalist)" never became a real army (I doubt if they ever became a fighting unit). The Banner talk 01:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC) - what has the transition from Irish Volunteers to the IRA to the Irish Defense Force got to do with this? Does the IDF call its privates "Volunteers" as a rank? (going by Irish_Army#Rank_structure not one bit). Also the UVF was incorporated into the 36th Ulster Division of the British army during World War I so it too became part of a "full blown army". Mabuska ^(talk) 09:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, there should be one article for the rank as used in Irish (para)military contexts. Volunteer (Ireland) would be fine, with sections for both republicanism and loyalism. — Jon C.^ॐ 11:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we've agreed on nothing else, I think we've established a consensus that "Volunteer (Ireland)" would not be fine. Scolaire (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Why? Putting "Ireland" after it doesn't imply its the only usage of the term in Ireland. Failing that, I'd be OK with Volunteer (Irish rank), although it seems a bit over-specific and not very natural. — Jon C.^ॐ 15:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Because it suggests that volunteer has ONLY a military or paramilitary meaning in Ireland and that just isn't true. It isn't even remotely the primary use of the word in Ireland. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 16:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the proposed title is problematic for that reason. Is the difficulty coming up with a good title evidence that the merger should not happen? It seems like articles for legitimate topics usually have a pretty clear name. I expressed support for the merger above but can definitely see the problem. —DIY Editor (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jon C.: Add your !vote on this issue above please. The namespace to move the article too is something that can be worked out, it is the principle of the merge that is important. If we can agree it needs to happen then we can work on a good namespace. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Unofficial summery

Seeing the discussion, I fail to see much support for the proposal. At best, due to the many variants proposed, I would say that it can be summarized as "no consensus" for whatever official or interim proposal. But I do see a clear wish for improvement of the articles involved. The Banner talk 18:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said earlier to someone on the "Support" side, I don't think there's anything to be gained by telling the closer what he or she should think. Anyway, I've requested a close at WP:ANRFC. I have plans for improving the articles as soon as this is closed. --Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see what you can do. I would help but suspect I'd be more trouble than help on this.. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 21:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What is clear Banner is that there is no consensus for the proposed merge to Volunteer (Ireland) as well as no consensus for the articles to remain as they are. Due to some of the views its clear editors may be willing to support a merge or something else if it be proposed or shown to be a good option, and well most of the opposes were incredibly weak. Thus I intend to initiate a new RfC focused on those points. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is not anything to gain by telling the closer what he or she should think. I mean-- there are plans to improve the otherwise clear and usually unacceptable fork, and somehow make it acceptable, as soon as a closer decides no consensus (hint-hint) right? There is a very clear issue of a fork and consensus that a merge is needed but not to the intended target.

I would have thought that someone that thinks the articles are "very different" would have made a suggestion of improvements, especially to the fork history and add some applicable section, to try to allow the article to pass the duck test. "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then how can we present that it is not a duck.". A good time to "suggest" improvements would be to fix the fork problem (no suggestions there) but it seems it is better to battle over a location, or try to suggest a duck is not really a duck after all, then keep both articles, to gain what? Prove Wikipedia can not gain improvements by collaboration in some areas. Getting rid of it (the fork) would be biased and merging it back into "Volunteer (Irish republican)" equally biased. There would still need to be some indication somewhere (maybe a paramilitary subsection at Volunteer or Military volunteer) to allow for the branch of different views. Paramilitary volunteer, does seem to be a topic that could otherwise be presented on Wikipedia. Except: There is no agreed upon title that would allow the topic to be covered fairly with a NPOV. "Paramilitary volunteer" apparently is too neutral or too broad. Otr500 (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I took the opposite view: that to discuss edits that would make each article unique would likely be seen as attempting to forestall the merge while the discussion was ongoing. Therefore I refrained from any in-depth discussion of content. I will welcome a close – whatever form it takes – because it will allow those of us who are interested to get on with improving the article or articles. I still oppose a merge, but if there was to be one, I would still work on improving the merged article. And yes, I still make the assumption that the closer will be a rational adult, capable of making up his or her own mind without being directed by participants on either side. Scolaire (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The biggest debunk of the silly notion that the two can't be merged because of the background and aims of the two different sides is Death squad. Do all of these various and different death squads all share the same background, history or aims? No. In fact compared to that article Irish republican and loyalist "volunteers" (as in the rank) have just as much in common as those disparate death squads. In fact both sides are g8od enough to be lumped together in Death_squad#United_Kingdom_.28UK.29. Complete hogwash you can't put the two together. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

So no matter what the outcome of the RFC would be, you would go on RFC-shopping to you get the desired result of merger instead of looking for the option of improving both articles. The Banner talk 23:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Banner your particular bias is well known and your attempts to try to have this issue dead and buried by whatever excuse have no effect on me, especially considering the weakness of your arguments if you'd even call them that. I highly doubt that these two articles can be improved much considering the reality that there is more information and history on the actual factions than in a bog standard rank used by them. Maybe more (reliable and verifiable) information can be found to improve both, but they can be improved easily in one article or as part of other articles as per Scolaire's suggestion. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC shopping would be reposting the exact same RFC over and over again hoping for a better result. Posting a different RFC taking into account the thoughts of contributors to a previous RFC is hardly that, in fact it would be the best way of progressing a discussion especially when it is on something as sensitive (for some people) as this by maximasing the greatest amount of input especially when there are a few (and only a few) editors here who let their personal bias rather than logic or reason dictate their response. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I never saw that one before. What a dreadful article! Yes, it shows that it is technically feasible to throw disparate elements together in one article (which I don't think anybody doubted), but it also shows what an unholy mess you get when you do. Scolaire (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You can thank Gob Lofa/Lapsed Pacifist for me having that one on mt watchlist. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult to have much of an opinion either way on this merger; it seems really inconsequential. Makes me wonder if this is serving as a proxy for political disputes. —DIY Editor (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving on

Progress at ANRFC is glacial at the moment, and it's unlikely that this RfC will be closed this year. The discussion is pretty well done, however, so I'm going ahead with my edits of the two articles. The discussion is at Talk:Volunteer (Irish republican)#History section. --Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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