Archive 1

The assertion that "The Irish Volunteers were a paramilitary organization established by Irish Nationalists to oppose the Ulster Volunteer Force" is misleading at best. While they were clearly formed for different (indeed opposite) purposes, MacNeill and the other leaders made it very clear that the Irish Volunteers were formed in repsonse to, rather than in opposition to, the Ulster Volunteers. At no time did any of the original leadership condone any action against the Ulster Volunteers. MacNeill had gone so far as to state that the Ulster Volunteers had threatened war against Britain, and if that were to occur, the Irish Volunteers should join them. the notion of this ever really happening was basically ridiculous, as they would be fighting for opposite reasons, but his point remains clear. Also, neither organization was actually illegal, although both had engaged in illegal arms imports. The ban was lifted shortly after the Howth incident, but with the outbreak of war weeks later, clearly importing arms from Germany was not to be allowed. R. fiend

I rewrote the section dealing with the formation of the IV. In my revised section, I start with the facts and then give room to the interpretation of these. The facts are, as Ferriter outlines, what led to the formation of the Irish Volunteers. It is a FACT that MacNeill's article played the most important role, at least in the public eye, in this. That is what the first paragraph should outline what actually happened. Subsequent paragraphs can then discuss the role the IRB may or may not have played in this. That is good history. What Domer48 is proposing is that one point of view should take precedence over all others. The "rationale" he provides for this is that he has produced "referenced material". Well, so I have I, and from two professional historians to boot. (Eoin Neeson is not a professional historian, but is a former government press secretary).

I'm not sure whether Domer48 has studied history. I have and I hold a PhD in the subject. To be frankly honest, his behaviour on Wikipedia is appalling at times. He has a tendency to take subjective opinions from one book and enforce these as gospel on Wikipedia. That is certainly not how professional historians go about their business, and it should not be how Wikipedia functions.--Damac (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You do not know who Eoin Neeson. List all of his works! Or possible just the top 10. And lets not forget K Clarke, what she did not know what was happening --Domer48 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I do know Eoin Neeson, actually, thank you very much. He is not a professional historian, unlike the two others I mention. Mrs Clarke is of course worthy, but we always need to be particularly critical of any information provided by eyewitnesses, particularly when, as in her case, it comes in the form of retrospective recollections. Anyone who has studied history knows that. (And I presume your history is better than your Irish[1], [2]).--Damac (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So the more obscure and difficult to name an author's books are, the more reliable it is? Good logic. Enough of the attempts at one-upmanship. Just because you have a source that says one thing it does not mean every other source is incorrect. -R. fiend (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Work away folks, cause as everyone knows, I pull out more references than you can handle. As to my Irish, ha. PhD ye right. I'll let the references do the talking. --Domer48 (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You should be reminded that it's not the quantity but the quality of references that's important. Again, had you any idea of history you'd know that.--Damac (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Still can't name any books by Eoin Neeson? How about any of his plays? Or possibly one or two of his novels? What are thoses other name he writes under? Tell you what, place the referenced quotes you are using down here, to back up your claim? Lets us all decide if they reflect what is in the article. Now why not start with good old Diarmaid, just because I read the article in Phoenix Magazine last week. Now the full quotes mind, so there is no accusations of misrepresentation. --Domer48 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here on Wikipedia to engage you in your school-yard games (how many ... can you name, etc).--Damac (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Right you can not name any of them, so that is out the window, you don't know Eoin Neeson. Now, what you can do, is post the referenced quotes I asked for, as the information is being challanged, and it will be removed. Not a game. --Domer48 (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh oh oh! I can! I can! Birth of a Republic, The Civil War, The Life and Death of Michael Collins, A History of Irish Forestry, The Book of Irish Saints, An Tain, Cuchulain’s Saga, The Imperishable Celtic Epic, Deirdre and Other Great Stories from Celtic Mythology, The First Book of Irish Myths and Legends, The Second Book of Irish Myths and Legends, Irish Myths and Legends, Celtic Myths and Legends, Aspects of Parallelism in Japanese and Irish Character and Culture. I WIN!!!!!! -R. fiend (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that is the notability of Eoin Neeson sorted (just a fraction of his work), Bailing out the PhD, now the referenced quotes, to back up the changes. --Domer48 (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, you've landed yourself in all this by your evident inability to understand basic English. Nobody doubted Neeson's notability; I didn't even remove the references you made to his work. I simply stated that he is not a professional historian, mainly to pre-empt your mantra about removing referenced material, etc. Has Neeson ever published anything in a peer-reviewed historical journal? That is the mark of a true historian, not the amount of popular history books s/he churns out about mythology.

I don't have to prove to you that I have a PhD in history. I have one, and I couldn't give two hoots whether you take that on board or not. I am recognised by my academic peers as having one and that's what matters.

I'm not sure whether you've noticed, but I provided quotations from the source I mentioned, while you simply referred to the page numbers. I've stated what Ferriter writes; now why don't you come out with what Mrs Clarke and Neeson claim, rather than just provide page numbers. And let's not forget; you removed references to the works of historians, not me. --Damac (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Let us also not forget that Kathleen Clarke had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the Volunteers. She is far from an authority on that subject. -R. fiend (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed. And that this "autobiography" did not appear during her lifetime, but is an edited memoir published posthumously in 1991 (i.e. 19 years after her death). Interesting no doubt, but certainly not an authoritative source.--Damac (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Books by L. Ron Hubbard: Buckskin Brigades, Final Blackout, Fear, Typewriter in the Sky, Ole Doc Methuselah, Battlefield Earth, Mission Earth, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Child Dianetics. Dianetic Processing for Children, Notes on the Lectures, Scientology 8-80, Dianetics 55!, Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science, Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, The Problems of Work Washington, Have You Lived Before This Life?, Scientology: A New Slant on Life, The Volunteer Minister's Handbook, Research and Discovery Series, The Way to Happiness.

Just look at all of 'em! Now there's an authoritative source! -R. fiend (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Damac you have shown clearly that you don't know Neeson, as to your PhD, on wiki were not intrested. Now provide the Quote from the referenced source you want to use so other editors can judge. Your buddie has illustrated their lack of understanding of the subject and now wants to ride on your coat tails, and act like a court jester, thats fine. I know you have not got a clue, it is obvious to any one who studies history, but hey, wiki, anyone can edit, including you. --Domer48 (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

How you perceive things is of little interest to me. I know who Neeson is, have read some of his books, and am not obliged to spell that out for you on Wikipedia.

I have provided a quote from my referenced source; go check it out in the article and stop annoying me and others.--Damac (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Still trying to add WP:OR, now you can reference your changes, or the information can be challanged and removed. Since you have altered referenced information, it's up to you to back it up. --Domer48 (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Either you provide the references of it goes, you put stuff in, it's up to you to back it up. --Domer48 (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have provided references. You'll find them in the article.--Damac (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that fine, because there is a re-write coming up, backed up with references and quotes such as:

“undoubtedly the initiative and the impulse to the series of meetings leading up to the public inauguration of the Volunteers came from the IRB. It was Hobson’s guarantee that he could provide a nucleus of reliable men to launch the movement that persuaded O’Rahilly to go to MacNeill with the project. Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion, Charles Townshend, 2005, page 41

A view indorsed by

• The IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, 1970, page 33
• The Irish Volunteers 1913-1915,F. X. Martin 1963, page 24
• The Easter Rising, Michael Foy & Brian Barton, 2004, page 7
• Myths from Easter 1916, Eoin Neeson, 2007, page 79
• Victory of Sinn Féin, P.S. O’Hegarty, page 9-10
• The Path to Freedom, Michael Collins, 1922, page 54
• Irish Nationalism, Sean Cronin, 1981, page 105
• A History of Ireland Under the Union, P. S. O’Hegarty, page 669
• 1916: Easter Rising, Pat Coogan, page 50
• Revolutionary Woman, Kathleen Clarke, 1991, page 44
• The Bold Fenian Men, Robert Kee, 1976, page 203
• The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from the League to Sinn Féin, Owen McGee, 2005, 353-354

Now you can find some of them on the Easter Rising article. The IRB were the "initiative and the impulse" to the formation of the Volunteers. The article dose not reflect the opinion of a number of notable authors, so changes must be made to reflect these opinions. --Domer48 (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay. More snippets of other people's work haphazardly thrown into an article in a stylistic nightmare. Can hardly wait. -R. fiend (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Like Diarmaid Ferriter using Michael Laffan's book? Is that what you mean? Tell you what, reach up to your book shelf again, because I did. Now on wiki if you put something in you have to be able to back it up. --Domer48 (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, bring it on, Domer48, but remember the old adage of quality, not quantity. The accounts of professional historians Michael Foy, Brian Barton and Charles Townshend are certainly worthy of consideration, and should be discussed in association with Michael Laffan's research. I'd be more wary of the older books mentioned above, written by journalists, amateur historians and eyewitnesses.

Before you start adding material, I'd advise you to read up on the basic principles of grammar, as the stuff you've produced is, at times, appalling and difficult to follow.

Some basic pointers:

• please learn the difference between singular and plural. An organisation like the Irish Volunteers is singular. We say "it was" and not "they were" formed in 1913.

'*Learn when to use commas.--Damac (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh you have a problem with contemporary sources have you. Sources who were members of the IRB at the time and would be in an ideal position. I did not here you mention that when Hobson was used. Now let me see if I have this right, Hobson was a Journalist, an armature historian and an eyewitness. You’re not being selective now, are you? And you with a PhD! Now do you want to start the re-write? Because you would after all with your PhD know, that as the article stands, it’s misleading, erroneous and wrong. Now that is not me saying this, that’s what the sources say. Hobson, yes, I've read about him, the last thing that Tom Clarke said to him was "How much did the castle pay you Bulmer." --Domer48 (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Bulmer Hobson reference has nothing to do with me. It's been there for ages according to the edit history. Deleting it would be fine with me.

Again, another attempt at diversion.--Damac (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have a problem with them; I just said I'd be wary of them. People who experienced one thing often have very selective and subjective memories of those events when writing about them later. That's what every student of history learns. I'd take my cue from the famous historian Arthur Marwick, who said that the most recent academic studies on any topic were usually the most reliable, as they usually evaluate existing primary and secondary sources.

By the way, here's something interesting. It's a PDF version of the National Library of Ireland's guide to the Easter Rising, authored by Dr Noel Kissane. Dr Michael Laffan was history consultant. Again, it claims Mac Neill was the main force behind the formation of the Irish Volunteers, but does acknowledge that "a number of the executive, however, were members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood who aimed at using the Volunteers to gain full independence, which indeed came to pass, most of the participants in the 1916 Rising being members of the Volunteers."[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damac (talk • contribs) 21:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The recent edits have not addressed the issue being discussed reasonably here. The lead ommits all reference to the origions of the Volunteers. There is an abundance of sources provided to address this, which I have provided. Now the lead must include the origions, those who attended the first meeting, while mentioning the meeting in the lead, can be expanded later in the article. This could include who drew up the list for the meeting, and arranged the meeting. What was the varied thinking behind it, i.e. what they hoped to achive. Why was MacNeil encouraged to write his article, and by whom. What concerns did MacNeill have before the meeting, and why. When did MacNeill first meet with the IRB. There is enough detailed information available, so mention the meeting in the lead by all means, but ommiting the origins could lead to editors and readers thinking that the meeting just came out of the blue, and not know that it was in fact the IRB who planned it from the start. --Domer48 (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you can't be serious. The lead is the lead; it should explain, in a nutshell, what the article is about. Take a look at these articles: Irish Republican Brotherhood, Irish Republican Army, Irish Citizen Army, etc., and tell me where you can find detailed information on their origins? By all means the article should include the information you mention above, but in a separate section on origins. Let's write that first before radically altering the lead.

We have to assume that Wikipedia readers, as humans, have some cop on. Nothing on this planet comes outs of the blue, so we don't need to spell that out surely.--Damac (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The lead is to reflect the article in summary. Where is the fact, that the IRB, were the body behind it's formation. Please read Lead Section in Wikipedia:Layout."Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow." Now lets keep this discussion civil. Who organised the Volunteers, What, When, Were, Why, and How. The origins are currently ommited, that is Who, what, etc. Now we have a large body of material for this, provided in the sources I have mentioned above. I have additional sources, which we can use later, and give much more detail on all of the above. --Domer48 (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion will remain civil; it's all up to you. As regards the IRB role; the historical sources differ on the role of Eoin Mac Néill and the IRB. As it stands -- and as it stood -- the article did not contain clear information on the role of the IRB in the establishment of the Volunteers. One body of opinion claims that the IRB instigated the establishment of the Volunteers and encouraged Eoin Mac Néill in his plans; the other says that Eoin Mac Néill came up with the idea, was encouraged by the IRB, who later infiltrated it. The paragraph you wrote some weeks ago was not very informative, particularly from a grammar point of view. Once the article has been beefed out, properly referenced and taking all historical opinion into consideration, then, of course, the lead can be modified to reflect that. Let's not put the cart before the horse.--Damac (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The body of evidence is there, like I said I can add more. As it stands, the body of evidence suggests that it was that the IRB instigated the establishment of the Volunteers and encouraged Eoin Mac Néill in his plans. The lead must reflect that. You will agree will you not, that this large body of evidence is not reflected in the lead at all. I will again suggest that you Please read Lead Section in Wikipedia:Layout, it dose not say you must Once the article has been beefed out, properly referenced and taking all historical opinion into consideration, then, of course, the lead can be modified." We have the sources, would you like to re-write the lead, to reflect this abundance of new referenced sources, or would you be will to let me. --Domer48 (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to wait a bit. I expect Owen McGee's recent scholarly study of the IRB[4] to be in my Christmas stocking this year. Its the most recent account of the organisation, and will surely have something to say on the relationship of the IRB with the IV.--Damac (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have it, and more besides. Now do you want to re-write the lead based on the current sources or shall I. Because as it stands, it is breaching Lead Section in Wikipedia:Layout, neutral point of view, and gives undue weight base on the number of sources which contradict the information currently there. --Domer48 (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Lead_section Lead Section clearly states that "the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article". As the article stands, there is little or no evidence provided on the IRB's role in establishing the IV. Once that's added in detail, the lead can "summarise" that. And that reflects what I said above about beefing up the article. It's not that difficult.

After you've added your material about the IRB's role, the IRB link should be confined to one line in the lead. That's called summarizing. I know you've a problem with proportions, particularly after you made the SEGI article into one in which information on Ógra Shinn Féin took up more than half the article.

I'd be particularly interested to see McGee's take on it, considering that his is the most recent book on the subject. I'm just surprised that you haven't mentioned him up to know.

Remember your grammar in your re-write, and no whinging when it's corrected or when alternative points of view are added (Laffan).--Damac (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you are unwilling to re-write the lead, so I will attempt it myself. I'm glad though you have taken my conserns on board and accept that Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Lead_section Lead Section clearly states that "the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article". As to their being little evidence on the IRB, and their role, you may have overlooked the references I provided, so I will outline them again:

“undoubtedly the initiative and the impulse to the series of meetings leading up to the public inauguration of the Volunteers came from the IRB. It was Hobson’s guarantee that he could provide a nucleus of reliable men to launch the movement that persuaded O’Rahilly to go to MacNeill with the project. Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion, Charles Townshend, 2005, page 41

A view indorsed by

• The IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, 1970, page 33
• The Irish Volunteers 1913-1915, F.X Martin 1963, page 24 (cited)
• The Easter Rising, Michael Foy & Brian Barton, 2004, page 7
• Myths from Easter 1916, Eoin Neeson, 2007, page 79
• Victory of Sinn Féin, P.S. O’Hegarty, page 9-10
• The Path to Freedom, Michael Collins, 1922, page 54
• Irish Nationalism, Sean Cronin, 1981, page 105
• A History of Ireland Under the Union, P. S. O’Hegarty, page 669
• 1916: Easter Rising, Pat Coogan, page 50
• Revolutionary Woman, Kathleen Clarke, 1991, page 44
• The Bold Fenian Men, Robert Kee, 1976, page 203
• The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from the Lwague to Sinn Féin, Owen McGee, 2005, 353-354

As to McGee, again you may have forgot I did mention in my previous post that I did have additional sources. Now I regretable again must point out to you about your civility, using terms like "whinging" is hardly productive. With this in mind, I should point out to you the talk page guidlines, and hope you bear them in mind. --Domer48 (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Look closely at Townsend's quote: he talks about the IRB being the driving force in the "the series of meetings leading up to the public inauguration of the Volunteers". We know that Mac Néill published his article on November 1 and that the movement was launched on November 25. What Townsend is saying, and in this order, is that Mac Néill published the article, O'Rahilly encouraged him, the IRB attended meetings to organise it, particularly the Wyne's Hotel meeting and others, and the movement was launched. That does not contradict the existing wording in any way. The Volunteers was Mac Néill's idea, and the IRB encouraged it. When the movement was officially founded, the IRB were involved, but did not yet control it.

Townsend does not say that the IRB had anything to do with Mac Néill's letter; that was his inspiration and his alone.

Basically,

1. Mac Néill was the main instigator in writing the letter, not the IRB (Laffan, NLI, Ferriter);

2. the IRB was crucial in the formation period, which extended from the appearance of Mac Néill's letter to the launch of the organisation (Clarke, Neeson, et al.);

3. the movement was launched and led by a Provisional Committee containing all shades of green (see Pearse's letter to Devoy, which I've referenced)

4. IRB later infiltrated it big time (Laffan, et al.).

Can we agree on that? Isn't that what the sources suggest? Let me know what you think and we'll move on.--Damac (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Afraid not, on so many levels, but I suppose the main one, would be, that's not what Charles Townshend is saying. On this one I think you should really assume good faith. It is really clear. Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is really not the best way to proceed.--Domer48 (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A little bit of discussion would go along way. Please spell out what exactly do you disagree with, rather than hiding behind your own Wikilayers?

How would you indicate, based on the sources you have, the gestation of the Irish Volunteers, in simple point form? Is Townshend suggesting that meetings took place before Mac Néill's letter appearered? Does he suggest that Hobson gave his assurances before the letter appeared? From my reading of it, and please show me if (rather than state that) I'm wrong, Townshend is talking about the activities of the IRB during the first three weeks of November, after the appearance of Mac Néill's letter and before the launch of the Volunteers.--Damac (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then "MacNeill, in writing 'the North began', singled himself out as the natural public instigator, but undoubtedly the initiative and the impulse to the series of meetings leading up to the public inauguration of the Volunteers came from the IRB. It was Hobson’s guarantee that he could provide a nucleus of reliable men to launch the movement that persuaded O’Rahilly to go to MacNeill with the project. Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion, Charles Townshend, 2005, page 40 - 41. So you are wrong in your reading of it. --Domer48 (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, can I remind you about your tone terms like "hiding behind your own Wikilayers" is not helping. --Domer48 (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you accused me of not assuming good faith and threw in something about Wikilayers. Kettle black etc.--Damac (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are in agreement with me, but cannot see that. Are you suggesting that the IRB had something to do with Mac Néill's letter? Who suggests that, if so? I don't think it did. Again, in simple form

• 1 November. Mac Néill writes letter, on his own bat.
• 1-10 November. IRB gets interested, gives assurances on providing men, get O'Rahilly to encourage Mac Néill to make his idea into reality.
• 10 November. IRB sends its people to the meetings held to arrange launch of Volunteers, such as at Wyne's Hotel.
• 25 November. IV is launched.

You need to address a crucial point. When did O'Rahilly go to Mac Néill - before or after the letter appeared. I say after. What do you say?--Damac (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, because the quote by Charles Townshend is cristle clear. Now we are talking about the lead remember, as to the detail such as that the IRB did have something to do with Mac Néill's letter? Who suggests it to him, and why etc. yes that will be going in, in detail, and I have the references to go alone with it all. Now I know we are not in agreement, so we just go along with the large body of references I have provided. That is "undoubtedly the initiative and the impulse to the series of meetings leading up to the public inauguration of the Volunteers came from the IRB." --Domer48 (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to answer your question the O'Rahilly went to Mac Néill - before the "article" appeared, and was prompted to do so by Hobson. It will all be referenced. But we have not come to that yet. Also, I asked you to assume good faith of me, that was quite clear alo. --Domer48 (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote you provided is not "cristle" [sic] clear, as you say. I await your edits and references.--Damac (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added McGee to the list on your suggestion. --Domer48 (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion is getting unnecessarily convoluted, and we need to take a step back and look at exactly who is arguing what position, because there is probably more common ground than we are realizing. It seems to me this discussion is a continuation of a discussion between myself, Domer and User:Scolaire that took place over at Talk:Easter Rising a little while back (if you haven't read it, Damac, I suggest you do, for background information). There Domer argued that the IRB created the Volunteers. It took a while, but we managed to work out some compromise phrasing (I wasn't 100% satisfied with it, and neither was Scolaire, but I let it go for the time being, while Scolaire got fed up and took a Wikibreak). Now it seems Domer is putting forth the same argument over here. I think we can all agree that the IRB had a hand in the creation of the Volunteers (members were involved in the earliest meetings, to say the least). I think it's an oversimplification to say any one person, organization, or group created them.

In the Easter Rising article, the phrasing was that the IRB "instigated" the creation of the Volunteers, but did not "create" them. This is accurate, in the sense that they were an instigator, but they were not the only instigator. Many things instigated the IV, including The North Began and even the formation of the Ulster Volunteers. Can we all agree on that? Providing some motivation for an action is not the same as taking an action. If I tell a friend "you should open a restaurant" and he does, that does not mean I opened the restaurant, or can take the credit for it. -R. fiend (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My edit is a view indorsed by:

• Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion, Charles Townshend, 2005, page 41
• The IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, 1970, page 33
• The Irish Volunteers 1913-1915,F. X. Martin 1963, page 24
• The Easter Rising, Michael Foy & Brian Barton, 2004, page 7
• Myths from Easter 1916, Eoin Neeson, 2007, page 79
• Victory of Sinn Féin, P.S. O’Hegarty, page 9-10
• The Path to Freedom, Michael Collins, 1922, page 54
• Irish Nationalism, Sean Cronin, 1981, page 105
• A History of Ireland Under the Union, P. S. O’Hegarty, page 669
• 1916: Easter Rising, Pat Coogan, page 50
• Revolutionary Woman, Kathleen Clarke, 1991, page 44
• The Bold Fenian Men, Robert Kee, 1976, page 203
• The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from the League to Sinn Féin, Owen McGee, 2005, 353-354

Whats your?--Domer48 (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Which edit view? The one you originally inserted that they were "established by the Irish Republican Brotherhood"? Because I'll have to call you out on that. The article as it currently stands is much better (though the writing could use some polishing). I think we are getting somewhere with this, as long as the article refrains from asserting that the IRB "created" the Volunteers, or that the latter was some sort of "puppet organization". -R. fiend (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• "The IRB seized its chance to capitalise on this sense of identity when Eoin MacNeill, vice-president of the Gaelic League, wrote an article in the organ of the Gaelic League, An Cliadheamh Soluis, in October 1913, proposing that a body of Southern Volunteers be established on the same line as the Ulster Volunteers. Using the respected name of MacNeill as a front, the IRB organised a meeting to which all parties were invited, at the Rotunda Hall, Dublin, on November 25." (The IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, 1970, page 33)

I would certainly read from that that the IRB were behind the formation of the Volunteers, and that MacNeill was a figurehead. Scolaire (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Caught telling more lies. --Domer48 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that does not prove that the IRB "created" the Volunteers. Nor did I deny that the IRB played a important role, particularly in organizing the first few meetings. But there is a huge difference between that and the idea that the Volunteers were a puppet of the IRB. -R. fiend (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly read from that that the IRB were behind the formation of the Volunteers, and that MacNeill was a figurehead. Scolaire (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)--Domer48 (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get it! So Scolaire is a reliable source now? Come on! -R. fiend (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"In January 1913, however, the Ulster Volunteer Force was established and this prompted Bulmer Hobson (the co—founder of the republican boy—scouts, Fianna Eireann) to tell his Dublin IRB following that they should use this as an excuse to try to persuade the public to form an Irish volunteer force. James Stritch, an old IRB activist of the Parnell era who grew up with Jim Boland in Manchester, immediately had a drilling hail built behind the Wolfe Tone Clubs headquarters ( Parnell Square, the former site of the National Club, now the Foresters’ Hall) and he together with some much younger members of Fianna Eireann, began drilling a small number of IRB followers associated with the Dublin GAA, which was led by Jim Boland’s son, Harry…on 1 November, Eoin MacNeill of UCD and the Gaelic League wrote an article for An Claidheamh Solus suggesting the formation of an Irish volunteer force with the encouragement of Deakin, Hobson and others." --Domer48 (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind referencing this quotation? Thanks.--Damac (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The book you suggested I use, The IRB by Owen McGee, page 353-354. --Domer48 (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Had you provided this quotation from a trained historian some weeks ago, rather than that of Neeson, we would have saved ourselves considerable hassle.--Damac (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at my second post on this thread, no problem. --Domer48 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Townsend's was not clear as to the choreography involved. McGee is. As I said, it was a pity that you didn't provide a clearer reference first.--Damac (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of discrepancy about who was at the Wynn's Hotel meeting on 11 November. Bulmer Hobson's account does not list Eamonn Martin. Is there a source for him being there? Also, Pearse was there, but sources indicate he would not join the IRB for another month or so. -R. fiend (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Having established the fact that it was the Fenian’s (IRB & the Clan) who were behind the establishment of the Irish Volunteers, through verifiable and reliable sources, how much detail should we include on them. For example, should we also include that it was Fenian’s who founded and funded the GAA, or that it was Fenian’s who founded the Land League, and placed funds at their disposal to launch the Land War. Now I will included all of this in some detail on the Fenian article, all I would like suggestions on is how much of it should appear in this article. Should we include the role played by Thomas Clarke, and his reorganisation of the IRB, and how he bridged the divided between the Clan from the IRB which made the Rising possible? We also know that in January of 1913, the IRB were saying that they should use the excuse of the Ulster Volunteer force to form an Irish Volunteer force. James Strich an IRB activist immediately had a drilling hall built behind the Wolf Tone Club, 41 Parnell Square, and began drilling members of the IRB, who would then play a role within the Volunteer force, some months later, as we know, O’Neill wrote the article. As you can see, a lot of detail, all of which can be referenced, but how much do we us. --Domer48 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In my last edit, I have tried to include the above information as breifly as possible, using existing text, and adding reference. I have a number of references for this should any additional ones be required --Domer48 (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For references on Tom Clarke I have placed some references on the Easter Rising article talk page here. Obviously these could be expanded by adding more referenced works, but they give a general idea. --Domer48 (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the added material on the Nov 11 meeting, it doesn't completely agree with the source I have, which again is Hobson's account. I'm not saying Hobson is right, but I'm not sure the other source is better. Hobson puts the following people at the meeting (based on who was invited to attend): MacNeill, O'Rahilly, Pearse, MacDermott, Ryan, Ceannt, Fitzgibbon, Deakin, Beaslai, and Campbell. He cites O'Rahilly as naming the same people in his pamphlet The Secret History of the Irish Volunteers (though O'Rahilly also listed Moran, which does not match Hobson's recollection). Hobson states that he himself did not attend, and I think he'd be a pretty good source on that, even though he was writing years later. (The reason for his absence he gives is him being regarded as an "extreme nationalist".) He goes on to say that he had earlier named Page, O'Connor, and O'Loughlin as being in attendance, but admits he was probably thinking of a larger meeting 3 days later. In fact, he mentions that "there were several meetings, fresh names being added until the original committee of eleven had reached its final total of about thirty." I think the descrepency lies in that these numerous meetings are being blended into one, in retrospect. So the question is, how do we address this? I think in cases like this where the sources differ, we give the most complete agreed upon account. It seems that both sources indicate that these people listed were in attendance in a series of meetings, starting with Nov 11 and continuing for the weeks after. We can mention that without having to go into conflicting details on who was at which specific meeting (they were all important).

On the final 30 member Provisional Committee, both sources are in agreement, which is a good sign (except that Hobson has George Walsh instead of John Walsh, which I guess is a minor point). Hobson does mention Moore, Gore, and the Kettles as belonging to the IPP, and names a further 12 as being IRB (though not Pearse, Plunkett, or MacDonagh at that time). -R. fiend (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

To claim that the IV was in opposition to the British Empire, as at the infobox, is nothing but ridiculous hyperbole. It was established as a reaction (in opposition to) the Ulster Volunteers as is evident from the text of the article. RashersTierney (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It was established as a reaction to the UV is fact, that they were opposed to them is debateable. British Empire may need changing, but UV is not correct. O Fenian (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That the UV was established to frustrate the introduction of Home Rule is a verifiable fact. That the IV was established as a direct reaction to the establishment of the UV is also a verifiable fact. For statements to be made on Wikipedia verifiability is a minimum requirement. The question at issue was Home Rule, not opposition to the British Empire. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it. RashersTierney (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is your evidence? Provide some, or do not bother to reply. O Fenian (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

...the Irish Volunteer movement, established in 1913 in responce to the Ulster Volunteer Force formed by Ulster unionists to prevent the implementation of Home Rule. p 34 The Transformation of Ireland By Diarmaid Ferriter And a little civility please. RashersTierney (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

You talked about verifiability for anything I say, then advocated your own unverifiable opinions be in the article, and insisted I provide evidence, my tone was merited in my opinion. Coogan's "1916: The Easter Rising" says that MacNeill said in his opening speech at the 25 November 1913 meeting "We do not contemplate any hostility to the Volunteer movement that has already been initiated in parts of Ulster". There is no evidence of any plans for the IV to engage the UV, or any evidence they ever did so. The only military engagement the IV ever took part it was against Great Britain/British Empire/whatever. As I said that may need changing, but UV is completely wrong. O Fenian (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that the Volunteers were formed in response to the Ulster Volunteers, but that is not the same as in opposition to them. They made it very clear from the beginning that they would under no circumstances would fight against them. -R. fiend (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They were formed in reaction to them but not in opposition to them? Perhaps then in support of them! And the idea that the IV's 'Area of operations' was Ireland, implying unrestricted activity throughout the entire 32 county territory is also nonsense. Blatant propaganda of this kind diminishes rather than enhances the legitimate narrative of the Irish Volunteers.RashersTierney (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you going on about now? Yes, there is a difference between reaction to and opposition to. Yes, they had antithetical motives, but the IV stated form their formation that if the UVF were to fight Britain, as they threatened to do, the IV should aid them. I admit, it makes little sense, but it was the official line. As for the 32 county initiative, keep in mind that when the Easter Rising was planned, they decided (well, the IRB decided) not to take action in Ulster for fear UVF presence there would lead to civil war, which they wanted to avoid at all costs. There was never any thought on the part of the Irish Volunteers to engage fellow Irishmen, even Orangemen. They were "opposed" in the sense that they had opposing aims, but that is all. Inclusion of the Ulster Volunteers in the infobox implies violent opposition, which was not the case. -R. fiend (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No one said they intended opposing them militarily, not that hey could have done so sucessfully. The primary motivation for their formation was political, not military opposition, despite the subversive intentions of the IRB. RashersTierney (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that when you have a military template such as this, with a space for opposition, then military opposition is heavily implied. I don't think any other use of this infobox includes every other organization that had contradicting objectives when no violent clash was evident nor threatened. To include the Ulster Volunteers here is in the very least highly misleading, even if it is true in a very general sense. It is not our objective to mislead readers. Leave it blank if we must, or remove the template entirely, but let's not have labeled as an oppositional force an organization with which violent conflict was never a consideration. -R. fiend (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The situation is tricky. I can't honestly think of a succinct way of describing any entity they were opposed to. This is why I don't like infoboxes, they insist you sum up complex situations in a word or two. I will say that the Ulster Volunteers should not be included as such. -R. fiend (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Then this infobox is inappropriate, at the very least introducing unnecessary ambiguity by the use of weasel phrases such as 'Opposition to' and 'Area of Operation', and should be removed or replaced with one that does not give rise to these oversimplifications. RashersTierney (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the removal of the infobox, even if nothing replaces it; they are not mandated by any policy. It wouldn't be the first time controversy erupted over trying to oversimplify a complex issue in order to pigeonhole it into a brief template entry. As for the discussion below, this is really not the place to rehash the tired discussion on who exactly formed the Volunteers. -R. fiend (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

R. fiend I agree that the Ulster Volunteers should not be included. Both yourself and O Fenian have addressed issue in a clear and informative way to support its removal. RashersTierney from your own contrabution you indicate that you are well aware of why they were established and that "the primary motivation for their formation was political," and formed part of the "subversive intentions of the IRB." However you also suggest "it [IV] was established as a reaction (in opposition to) the Ulster Volunteers" when you know full well that the IRB used the Ulster Volunteers as a pretence to established the IV. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The IRB did NOT establish the Irish Volunteers. If they had done, this issue would be straightforward and their purpose and intentions would be obviously to establish the Irish Republic (the uncontested goal of the IRB). They were openly established in support of Home Rule; that was the wish of the majority of leaders and members as is clear from the rhetoric of the early speeches and from the subsequent split. RashersTierney (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read the Formation section, it is quite clear who set up the IV and why. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is anything but clear. The retrospective 'finding' of MacNeill was the beginning of a systematic revisionism continued by F.X Martin. JJ O'Connell's and Hobson's own accounts of the establishment are more nuanced. RashersTierney (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just two points; First on the attitude of MacNeill to the Ulster Volunteers.

“

“We do not contemplate any hostility to the Volunteer movement that has already been initiated in Ulster. The strength of that movement consists in men whose kinsfolk were amongst the foremost and most resolute in winning freedom for the United States of America, in descendants of the Irish Volunteers of 1782, of the United Irishmen, of the Antrim and Down insurgents of 1798, of the Ulster Protestants who protested in thousands against the destruction of the Irish Parliament in 1800. The more genuine and successful the local Volunteer movement in Ulster becomes, the more completely does it establish the principle that Irishmen have the right to decide and govern their national affairs. We have nothing to fear from the existing Volunteers in Ulster, nor they from us. We gladly acknowledge the evident truth that they have opened the way for a National Volunteer movement, and we trust that the day is near when their own services to the cause of an Irish Nation will become as memorable as the services of their forefathers.” Cite: Bulmer Hobson, History of the Irish Volunteers, 1918, p. 30.

”

On the second point, The initiative for a series of meetings leading up to the public inauguration of the Volunteers came from the IRB. Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion, Charles Townshend, 2005, page 41, The IRA, Tim Pat Coogan, 1970, page 33, The Irish Volunteers 1913-1915, F. X. Martin 1963, page 24, The Easter Rising, Michael Foy & Brian Barton, 2004, page 7, Myths from Easter 1916, Eoin Neeson, 2007, page 79, Victory of Sinn Féin, P.S. O’Hegarty, page 9-10, The Path to Freedom, Michael Collins, 1922, page 54, Irish Nationalism, Sean Cronin, 1981, page 105, A History of Ireland Under the Union, P. S. O’Hegarty, page 669, 1916: Easter Rising, Pat Coogan, page 50, Revolutionary Woman, Kathleen Clarke, 1991, page 44, The Bold Fenian Men, '''Robert Kee''', 1976, page 203, The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from the League to Sinn Féin, Owen McGee, 2005, 353-354. RashersTierney do you still suggest that "It is anything but clear?"

Would editors agree that some of the above quote should be included in the Formation section? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As an analysis of the political reality, MacNeill's words were cock-eyed, but by all means include part of it as a record of his stated position. RashersTierney (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On the second point, a brief quote from each backing the assertion would be very useful. RashersTierney (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

RashersTierney please provide a quote to support "As an analysis of the political reality, MacNeill's words were cock-eyed" and on your second point, thats no problem at all and I'll put them together for you. --Domer48_'fenian' 00:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just my POV, which people are free to judge as equally cock-eyed. On the quotes, that would be appreciated. RashersTierney (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we agree on the removal of an infobox pending proposal of one more likely to lead to consensus? RashersTierney (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fine with me. -R. fiend (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Wouldn't it be simpler just to leave the "opponents" field blank? ~Asarlaí 17:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me too. -R. fiend (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly be simpler. It would be even more simple to leave it as t is. The question is would it be better. Blanks in templates usually indicate hitherto unsourced info. such as date of birth etc., not as in this case an unresolved debate. RashersTierney (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, a blank in an infobox usually indicates that line is not applicable to the subject. There's nothing wrong with that and it happens all the time. Since "Opponents" will not appear if the line is blank, it is not generally missed. -R. fiend (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That still doesn't address issue of 'Area of operations' And 'Became' could equally indicate National Volunteers. RashersTierney (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC) 'Strenght' figures refer only to post-split organisation. RashersTierney (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is "Ireland" incorrect for area of operations? It's not terribly specific, but they had branches throughout the island. As for becoming the National Volunteers, that is correct to an extent, along the organization itself did not become the National Volunteers, but most of the membership did split off an join that group. Again, this is why I don't think infoboxes are always useful, but if it can be made useful here I'm willing to go along with keeping it. -R. fiend (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with R. fiend on this. Firstly they were active on the island of Ireland. Secondly, the National Volunteers broke away from the Irish Volunteers and effectively joined with the British Army for the duration of World War I. If something isn't specific enough we can just add a comment next to it. ~Asarlaí 19:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

'Area of operations' is so ambiguous in this context as to be pretty meaningless. If what is meant is 'Drew its membership from' then the 32 county area applies only to the pre-split body. Fitzpatrick cites the 'MacNeillites' as drawing membership from only 24 counties. If anything else is meant by the phrase...who knows? RashersTierney (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

24 counties is still "Ireland". These infoboxes are not designed to be overly specific; we're not going to put the addresses of every branch headquarters. It doesn't imply absolutely every part of Ireland, it's just meant to give a quick idea of what part of the world we're looking at here (admittedly in this case the "Irish" in the title is mostly a giveaway). -R. fiend (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think the current infobox is most suited, but "Infobox militant organization" could be an alternative. ~Asarlaí 18:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I just took a gander at the infobox and I don't think it's an improvement. -R. fiend (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

On another issue, the Formation section of the article needs work. It's full of repetition, redundancy, and non-chronological flow. The first paragraph and the others basically tell the same story twice, I think they need to be merged together and in a chronological format. Should I take a stab at it or does someone else want to? Tasks like this are always a drag. -R. fiend (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fire on. I'll chip in if I can. RashersTierney (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'll get to it today. I'll see if I can take a stab at it sometime this weekend. -R. fiend (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a go at the section and removed the repetition and put it into a chronological format. I'll expand on some of the details, over the next day or so. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is kind of an extension of a discussion between myself and R. fiend on Talk:Easter Rising, but it's more relevant to this article than the Rising. A sentence in the lead says, "Its declared primary aim was "to secure and maintain the rights and liberties common to the whole people of Ireland", in other words, the safeguarding of Home Rule" (italics mine), but this is not borne out by the article itself. In the "Formation" section, it says that "the catalyst" for its formation was the formation of the Ulster Volunteers to oppose the Third Home Rule Bill, but not that it was itself formed to defend the Bill. Rather, it was formed simply in order that the (nationalist) Irish might have its own volunteer force, as the article correctly states. The "liberties" it was intended to secure might result from the passage of the Home Rule Bill, or from some other action or eventuality. Both MacNeill in his writings, and the Volunteers in its manifesto, studiously avoided any explicit reference to the Bill, or the use of the words "Home Rule" at all. The first committee, as the article also correctly says, was made up of members of the Gaelic League, Ancient Order of Hibernians and Sinn Féin. Only three of the thirty were Home Rulers. Since the lead is supposed to summarise what is in the article, I believe that the "in other words" phrase should be removed. Scolaire (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I never liked the "in other words..." phrasing, and would certainly not mind seeing it go. However, I do think Home Rule still needs to be mentioned, as it was indirectly the reason the group was formed. I too noticed how Home Rule was not specifically mentioned much in these writings, and I can speculate as to reasons why this may have been (it wasn't the only or ultimate goal; the IRB, who heavily influenced the Volunteers, did not want to be seen as endorsing a movement they did not support), but Home Rule was the issue of the day, and it was through Home Rule that most Irishmen aimed to ensure their liberties were secure (sure there may have been other potential eventualities, but none were on the table at the time). In any case a quick look at a few books did state a direct connection between the Volunteers and Home Rule. F.X. Martin, in his introduction to The Irish Volunteers 1913-1915 states "It was this which convinced a growing number of nationalists in Ireland that strong action must be taken if hard-won liberties of the country were to be maintained, let alone the promised measure of Home Rule secured. With this purpose in view the Volunteers were founded, 'to secure and maintain the rights and liberties common to all the people of Ireland'" Robert Kee, in The Bold Fenian Men says "MacNeill complied with an article entitled 'The North Began' in which he advocated that Home Rulers should imitate the example which Carson's volunteers were setting..." My main concern is that we do not inadvertently create the impression that the Volunteers were a republican organization, which I fear we are in danger of doing at times. Now, when you state that "Only three of the thirty were Home Rulers" do you mean only 3 of the members of the Provisional Committee? Where do you get that number? -R. fiend (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean that three of the Provisional Committee were IPP/UIL. No other group can properly be called Home Rulers. There was a big difference between Home Rulers and nationalists, just as there was a difference - though maybe not as big - between nationalists and republicans. That's why Kee is plain wrong. MacNeill in 'The North Began' advocated that nationalists should imitate the example which Carson's volunteers were setting. He obviously believed that the Home Rule Bill would advance the nationalist cause, but he was not a Home Ruler or a friend of Home Rulers. In contrast to F.X. Martin (who stops short of specifically saying "the Volunteers were founded to secure Home Rule") let me quote C. Desmond Greaves, Liam Mellows and the Irish Revolution, p. 59: "The aim of the organisation was to 'maintain the rights and liberties common to the whole people of Ireland'. Nothing expressly stated that these rights were not subsumed under the constitutional right to enjoy Home Rule when it was decreed by the Union Parliament. On the other hand nothing expressly restricted them." I don't know how you can say that no other options "were on the table at the time." Sinn Féin advocated the Austria-Hungarian model, and the IRB advocated revolution. Neither was specifically ruled out in 'The North Began' or the Volunteer manifesto, just as Home Rule was not specifically endorsed. Scolaire (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can say that only the IPP can be considered Home Rulers, unless you're using a different definition of Home Ruler than I am. I consider the term to mean anyone who supports implementation of the Home Rule Act. That's the majority of Irishmen outside of Ulster and certainly includes most of the Volunteers and the Volunteers Provisional Council. If you take Home Ruler to mean one who supports Home Rule but no further separation from The United Kingdom, then you may have a point, but I'm not sure that's a definition that is obvious to most people. About the only group that advocated for at least some degree of Irish autonomy who didn't support Home Rule were many of the republicans, mostly because they thought it would appease the public's desire for separation from Britain, and they weren't buying the stepping stone theory. As for other options on the table, yes, there were other ideas, but they weren't realistic possibilities, at least at the time. Sinn Fein was a fringe organization with no real power, and the dual-monarchy concept never really took off. The IRB was in no position to begin to establish a republic; a decade earlier they were basically an impotent debating society. These were ideas, but they were not "on the table" in any meaningful way. They were not being discussed by anyone who was in any position to bring them to fruition. On the other hand, Home Rule appeared imminent to many people, and had widespread support in Ireland and even in England. It was in this context that the Volunteers were formed. Even if they were not formed specifically to ensure Home Rule, the background of Home Rule is essential to understanding the movement. But as I stated before, the important thing in my mind is that the reader is aware that the Volunteers were not a republican organization, and an emphasis on the IRB in this article and the Rising article can create that impression if the differences aren't spelled out. -R. fiend (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

TBH I don't think you understand the situation at all. There were Home Rulers i.e the IPP/UIL, and there were "advanced nationalists". Your friends Hobson, O'Rahilly and MacNeill all belonged to the latter group. They all shared the same goals - independence for Ireland not limited to a Home Rule parliament subject to Westminster, and a sovereign nation that was Gaelic, not Anglicised. Crucially, they all also agreed on the means - putting pressure on the British Government by creating an armed and disciplined volunteer force. The issue that concerned them least at that stage in the game was what form Irish sovereignty should take - a monarchy or a republic. You seem to think that republicans in Ireland at that time were like the Bolsheviks in Russia: red revolutionaries waiting and planning to overthrow the white revolution. That's not how it was. Republicans and so-called monarchists happily sat together and shared platforms, and the only people who were uncomfortable sitting with anybody else were the Home Rulers. Since Sinn Féin and IRB members outnumbered IPP members on the Provisional Committee, your continued insistence that their ideas carried no weight is frankly bizarre! True, the majority of voters supported the IPP in 1911, but those who thought that parliamentary politics were the be-all and end-all were not interested in forming a volunteer force. The thousands who came out to the meeting on 25 November 1913 supported the ideals of the Volunteer manifesto, and the manifesto said nothing at all about safeguarding the Home Rule Bill. Scolaire (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Talking about groups as if they are individuals is a difficult thing, as there is a wide variety of opinion even within some of the more homogenous groups, such as the IRB (witness Hobson and Clarke). But in general members of the Volunteers supported passage of the Home Rule act as at least an important first step. If Britain were to re-neg on even the limited autonomy of Home Rule, especially when it was passed by Parliament, there was no way they were ever going to institute Griffith's plan, or achieve a republic. In that sense, with the exception of much of the IRB, and perhaps some others, they were "Home Rulers". And while the manifesto didn't mention Home Rule by name, it opens with a clear reference to it: "At a time when legislative proposals universally confessed to be of vital concern to the future of Ireland have been put forward..." although it admittedly does stop short of endorsing these proposals. I'm not sure how you can say that strict Parliamentarians had no interest in a Volunteer force when several members of the IPP were on the Provisional Committee, and Redmond himself would later basically take control. The Volunteers were basically a supplement to Parliamentary politics, as they were not formed to take any sort of offensive action. So whatever credence a dual-monarchy or a republic may have had within the Volunteers leadership, it was of little practical consequence as the only may these could be brought about in the foreseeable future would by force of arms. And the objective of the Volunteers clearly states "Their duties will be defensive and protective, and they will not contemplate either aggression or domination." Of course, in 1916 the IRB would make that little clause null and void, but that's a separate issue. So I guess my overall point is that unless they Volunteers wanted to go on the offensive and set up a government of their own (which they didn't), the Home Rule Bill was the only game in town, for the time being. Which makes sense as to why the wouldn't specifically mention the bill, as they wouldn't want to create the impression that with its implementation the volunteers would have achieved their goal, and would thus be superfluous. We seem to be getting into details out of the scope of what this article need cover, but I want to reiterate what I think it is important that this article, and the Rising article, make clear: 1. despite the IRB's involvement in the formation of the Volunteers, they were not set up along specifically republican ideals. 2. the Volunteers were a defensive, not offensive, organization. If these points are not made clear to the reader, the actions of the IRB and MacNeill, and most of the events of Holy Week, won't make too much sense. -R. fiend (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) First off, Hobson and Clarke is not a good example of a wide variety of opinion even within a group. Their differences were personal, sparked off by Hobson voting in good faith for something that Clarke took grave exception to. In any case, I'm not talking about homogeneity within groups, but the fact that Sinn Féin, the IRB and various unaligned college professors, schoolmasters etc. had far more in common with each other than they had with the Home Rulers. Yes, they could see that the passage of the Home Rule Bill would be a step towards independence, but that did not make them Home Rulers, it made them nationalists who could see that the passage of the Home Rule Bill would be a step towards independence. This is a fact of history. You can't just substitute your own definitions.

Secondly, as regards HR being the only game in town, here is a little chronology: 1909, Home Rule was not on the agenda. The Liberals had a huge majority in the Commons and had forgotten about Ireland altogether. MacNeill, O'Rahilly, Hobson, Pearse, Griffith and all the other players already knew what they wanted, and it wasn't Gladstonian Home Rule. 1910-11, The Liberals went to the country over the Parliament Bill and Home Rule suddenly went back on the agenda. Irish nationalists voted for the IPP, believing they couldn't lose. 1912, the Home Rule Bill was introduced and Ulster unionists opposed it in arms. 1912-13, The Tories took the stance that armed opposition was sufficient grounds for scrapping Home Rule. The Liberals were so desperate that they were prepared to exclude four, six or nine counties from the Bill. Irish nationalists saw that they could lose and went back to the drawing-board. Home Rule had been the only game in town for maybe 24 months, now it was 'as you were'. It was in that context that the Volunteers were formed. It was not about Home Rule any longer, it was simply to be a vehicle for nationalists - not only republicans, but of which republicans were an important part. As I said at the very beginning, the article as it stands correctly says that the formation of the UV was the catalyst. No more needs to be said.

Finally, as regards the IV not being offensive, read what MacNeill wrote in 1916, from the National Library web page: "The only reason that could justify general active military measures - as distinct from military preparations - on the part of Irish Nationalists would be a reasonably calculated or estimated prospect of success, in the military sense." In other words, if you believe you can win independence by offensive means, go for it! Scolaire (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

While intresting, I see very little sources being cited in the discussion. I have removed text which is not supported by either references or the article itself. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting quote from Dorothy Macardle, The Irish Republic, p. 90: "[O'Rahilly] described the efforts made to secure the co-operation of men prominent in existing organisations such as the Parliamentary Party, the United Irish League, the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the Gaelic Athletic Association and the Foresters, and how refusals were the order of the day." It doesn't sound as though the Home Rulers were too keen on being safeguarded!

Besides Macardle I have checked J. Bowyer Bell, The Secret Army, Charles Townshend, Easter 1916, Foy and Barton, The Easter Rising, McNally and Dennis, Easter Rising 1916, Max Caulfield, The Easter Rebellion and Joseph Connell, Where's Where in Dublin. None of them say that Home Rule was the issue, or even an issue, in the formation of the Volunteers. Scolaire (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A quick minor point first. The differences between Hobson and Clarke were more than personal, as can be seen by their actions immediately prior to the Rising. Hobson was against a rising that was doomed to failure, Clarke wanted to go ahead regardless. Now as for the Volunteers and Home Rule, while those books you mentioned may not have explicitly said Home Rule was the issue, they all mention the Volunteers in the context of Home Rule (or at least the ones I'm familiar with do). It's clear that the founders of the Volunteers opted for the "big tent" option, and in an effort to appeal to as many different views as possible made their goals and objectives overly broad and all-encompassing. Hence the vague "rights and liberties" clause. Regardless of what MacNeill said in 1916, the Manifesto (which you just said was supported by the thousands at the Rotunda) made it clear that the Volunteers were not to take offensive action. Now, there are basically two ways of securing independence from a government, through political means or through insurrection (and perhaps through non-violent resistance, which is not terribly relevant here). What exactly offensive or defensive actions are is somewhat open to interpretation (MacNeill would later consider resistance to conscription a defensive action, but that's not relevant yet), but it is pretty clear that it was meant to rule out what basically happened in 1916, whether it was to establish a republic, a dual-monarchy, a theocracy, rule by ninjas, or whatever. Since their manifesto ruled out unilaterally forming a government by force of arms, they were relying, at least partially, on political means. It is no coincidence that the Volunteers were formed just after the Home Rule Bill went from being a done-deal to suddenly seeing severe back-pedalling through coercion, nor is it coincidence that the manifesto opens with a reference to the bill. I didn't mean to imply that the Volunteers were formed to pressure the implementation of Home Rule and nothing more, but when they mentioned the rights and liberties of the Irish, it certainly included their most basic democratic rights as expressed through their representatives, so that when thorough legal Parliamentary procedure they are granted a Home Rule Parliament, it is not suddenly canceled because of undemocratic coercion by an opposed minority. If they can't even get that much then there's no way they could hope to attain greater independence without a violent offensive, and their talk of rights and liberties is meaningless. So, in brief, "the rights and liberties common to the whole people of Ireland" included the right not to get fucked over by an empire because they're suddenly uncomfortable with the way their democratic procedures have worked out. -R. fiend (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes to most of that. As you put it, anything I would quibble with is outside the scope of what this article needs to cover. You didn't mean to imply that the Volunteers were formed to pressure the implementation of Home Rule and nothing more, and I didn't mean to imply that any of them - including the republicans - were opposed to the implementation of Home Rule. We seem to have met in the middle. Scolaire (talk) 06:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lots of words to come to a basic agreement, but I think the discussion was illuminating. All that being said, I do think Home Rule is important enough to warrant mention of some kind in the intro, though I agree with the removal of the earlier phrasing. I also think the defensive nature of the organization, as mentioned in the manifesto, goes a long way towards explaining what the Volunteers were and were not, and should be addressed somewhere. -R. fiend (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

When listing the members of the provisional committee, including IRB with their affiliated organizations seems to make sense (and I'm surprised it wasn't done before), but I see a discrepancy. In Hobson's Foundations and Growth of the Irish Volunteers he does not list Gogan or O'Lochlainn as IRB members, though he does list Macken, who is not listed as such here. He names a total of 12 IRB members on the Provisional Council at its formation, although by May 1914 we would have Pearse included as well (but not MacDonagh or Plunkett by that stage, I'm pretty sure). Also, there is mention of a 12 member Provisional Council, which I had not heard of before. I'd like to know what this council was and if Provisional Council is its proper title. Again, Hobson lists 12 people as being invited to the inaugural meeting, but does not call it a Provisional Council, and lists only 5 as being in the IRB (Hobson (who did not attend), MacDermott, Deakin, Beaslai, and Ceannt), but I assume we must be talking about a different 12 here.

Additionally, I want to take a pass at cleaning up some of the writing, which is at times pretty sloppy and redundant. -R. fiend (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hobson does mention in his history of the volunteers the provisional committee. It was both The O'Rahilly and himself who sent out the invites. O'Hegarty states that eight out of the twelve present were IRB. He also mentions the July committee which was also not mentioned at all. That he states that it is up to those intrested to get the names of those present themselves indicates that they were all IRB at the July meetings. That this book had to go through the censor would also explain why he did not mention who was in the IRB and who was not. I added the IRB to each name, none of which are in the source. Some were removed. I'll add them back and reference each and every one who were or became IRB as this information is important. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about a few things. While Hobson makes no reference to a 12 member Committee in my source, if he does in yours I guess that's okay. Does he mention when it was formed, how long it lasted, what it did, or who was on it? Without any of that information I'm not sure how useful it is. I also wonder about the O'Hegarty source. I know he was on the IRB Supreme Council, but was he a member of the Volunteers? He doesn't seem to be a key player in their formation, so I sort of wonder how reliable he is about the details, especially if he basically says (as you claim) "if you want to know who was involved go figure it out for yourself" (doesn't sound too reliable), and to therefore claim everyone must have been IRB because of that statement is certainly original research. And if who was and wasn't in the IRB is not mentioned in your source, where did you get the information that Gogan and O'Lochlainn were IRB men? The source I have was not censored, and says exactly who was in the IRB and who was not (at least according to Hobson, who as a founding member of the Volunteers and a member of the IRB Supreme Council is in a very good position to know this information). -R. fiend (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"I shall here deal with the immediate events that led up to the calling together of the Provisional Committee, of which I had personal knowledge, and leave any further search for founders to those interested in such matters." Hobson is referring to the establishment of the Volunteers and how they came to be established. "In July, 1913, I was present at a small Committee in Dublin where the Ulster Volunteer movement was under discussion, and it was decided to undertake the organisation of an Irish Volunteer Force." It is the names of this committee which Hobson does not name, and leaves any further search for founders to those interested in such matters. O Hegarty referring to this committee makes the point that they refrained from any action until the precedent of Ulster should have first been established while waiting for the lead to come from a "constitutional" quarter. This explains Hobson's and O Hegarty not naming names. At the beginning of October this Committee made their move, reacting to Mac Neill's article. Again, O'Rahilly was the conduit to MacNeill asking him to arrange a meeting for "publicly starting the new movement." "O'Rahilly and [Hobson] then sent out invitations for the first meeting of the Provisional Committee, at Wynn's Hotel in Abbey Street. This meeting was held towards the end of October, 1913, and Eoin MacNeill occupied the chair. There were present: MacNeill, O'Rahilly, John Fitzgibbon, Sean Mac Diarmada, Eamonn Kent, Pierce Beasley, Seumas O'Connor, Robert Page, P. H. Pearse, Colm O'Loughlin, W. J. Ryan, James Deakin, and Joseph Campbell. With the exception of the last three, all these became members of the Provisional Committee when that body took definite shape a few weeks later." This Provisional Committee is the one with the members listed in the article. There is some differences in sources as to the number of members to this committee between 30 and 28. I hope that explains the chronology of events. All quotes are from Hobson. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That basically supports what my source says, which is not surprising as it is Hobson as well. However, there are some minor points, in fact I addressed some of this far above in a section on the Wynn's Hotel meeting more than a year ago. Exactly who was at what meeting isn't entirely straightforward. Here is what Hobson says of the 11 November meeting at Wynn's: "In his pamphlet The Secret History of the Irish Volunteers (8th April, 1915) page 3, The O'Rahilly says that the following eleven persons were invited to the meeting: MacNeill, Hobson, Pearse, MacDermott, Ryan, Ceannt, Fitzgibbon, Deakin, Beaslai, Campbell, O'Rahilly. This tallies with my own recollection. I did not attend the first meeting." (Hobson gives the full names, I'm just listing them by surname here.) That would make 10 people at the first meeting. A bit later he says "In my own book A Short History of the Irish Volunteers, pp. 17-18, I mentioned three other people as having been present at the first meeting, namely: Robert Page, Seamus O'Connor, Colm O'Loughlin. In fact their first attendance may have been at the second meeting, on Friday, the 14th November, when we had a larger gathering. Actually, there were several meetings, fresh names being added until the original committee of eleven had reached its final total of about thirty. On page 19 of my book I have given twenty-eight names, but I omitted by mistake the names of Seamus O'Connor and Piaras Beaslai. This would bring the total to thirty." Is the earlier book he mentions the one you have? I sort of think the key passage here is that there were many meetings, and who exactly was at what meeting changes slightly with the recollection of the individual, who in general were writing years later without any official records. If I had to go with one account, I'd probably go with O'Rahilly, as he was actually present at the original meeting at Wynn's, unlike Hobson, and Hobson admits his memory might be off. I actually don't think its terribly important to this article who and how many were at each of these early meetings, as its clear there were many, and the council expanded rapidly. What is important is that these early meetings were planned by the IRB, and while the IRB had a substantial presence in them, they were not the majority; by O'Rahilly's account, of the 10 at the first meeting 4 were IRB: MacDermott, Ceannt, Beaslai, and Deakin (with Pearse joining soon after).By Hobson's account, which he admits may be his recollection of the second meeting we have 2 more IRB men, Page and O'Connor, and one non-IRB, O'Loughlin. While you have O'Loughlin listed as an IRB member, Hobson states he isn't. If you have a different source directly stating that he and Gogan were IRB members I'd like to know what it is.

It seems you get your 12 member Provisional Committee as being the members of the initial meeting, though whether this comes from Hobson or O'Hegarty is unclear. Hobson, in my book, doesn't refer to these attendees as the Provisional Committee, but if he does in your then that's fair enough. By that then we're looking at a Provisional Committee starting with between 10 and 13 members, rapidly growing to 30, on the way losing Deakin, Ryan, and Campbell, (Hobson specifically mentions those three as dropping out in my source too). I'm not sure where the 8 IRB members out of 12 comes from, as no matter how you count it it seems the non-IRB members equal or exceed the IRB in these first couple meetings. More confusing is that at one point Hobson mentions a D.P. Moran (not IRB) as having attended, or at least been invited to, the initial meeting. The name does not appear in the Provisional Council after that.

So how to address this in the article? I think we have to be rather non-specific, as when we try to specify how many and who was at this first meeting, we have differing accounts, sometimes coming from the same person. All sources seem to agree that there was an inaugural meeting at Wynn's Hotel on 11 November, attended by roughly a dozen people, just under half of them IRB members (you have one source saying 8 of 12 were IRB, but without naming who they were I think we will have to give priority to the source that names them and gives their affiliations, especially as that source appears to be O'Hegarty, who was not present and was never a member of the Provisional Committee). Several meetings ensued, as the membership expanded until it formed the 30 member group we have listed in the article (it would appear the 28/30 discrepancy is based on Hobson having forgotten Beaslai and O'Connor, which he corrected in his later writing). I would hesitate to say anything much more specific than that as long as the sources are not in agreement, although I think we should list the key members who all sources agree were at the first meeting: MacNeill, O'Rahilly, Pearse, MacDermott, and Ceannt. Perhaps Deakin should be mentioned as well, not the he was terribly important, but the presence of the President of the IRB at such a meeting is telling. If anyone actually got through all that and has an opinion I'd like to hear it. -R. fiend (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is differing accounts include them all. The inaugural meeting at Wynn's Hotel was towards the end of October. No one source in this should should have to be given priority, each source is equally valid. It is not up to use to suggest the cause of the discrepancy or differing accounts, only to note that they exist. We do this by presenting the differing accounts. Again it is not up to us to suggest who we think were important or if we should include them or not. I've provided the list for the October meeting, we can add references to each name as to their IRB membership, likewise the 30 members of the new Provisional Committee. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

To include them all would be to give way too much emphasis on a very minor point, making the article tedious. It would put much of what I have written above, which is really more detail than even needed for this talk page, into the article, which is already steadily losing its readability. This is an encyclopedia article, not a treatise on the subject. We are supposed to cover the important points succinctly. What's important is that there were several meetings called to establish a Volunteer force, starting with about a dozen people (the exact number is unknown and not terribly important) and growing over the subsequent weeks to the Provisional Council of 30. In each of these meetings the IRB was prominently represented. Some of the names are important (such as MacNeill, to name an obvious example), while others are just names that mean little to anyone (such as Sean Fitzgibbon, another name you have as IRB but identified by Hobson as not affiliated with them). Spending several paragraphs going over numerous accounts on who may or may not have been present, and explaining possible reasons for these minor discrepancies, goes way beyond what an encyclopedia does. Obviously we pick and choose what to include in an article and what to leave out. That's what editors do. -R. fiend (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

F.X. Martin, in a brief essay in the book he edited Irish Volunteers 1913-1915 gives a clear summary of the first meeting at Wynn's Hotel on Nov. 11, and seems to clear up discrepancies in various accounts. He states O'Rahilly and Hobson invited the following people to this meeting (this is the same as O'Rahilly's account, also included in the same volume):

1. Eoin MacNeill
2. The O'Rahilly
3. Patrick Pearse
4. Sean Fitzgibbon
5. Sean MacDermott (IRB)
6. Eamonn Ceannt (IRB)
7. Piaras Beaslai (IRB)
8. J.A. Deakin (IRB; attended this meeting only, then withdrew)
9. W.J. Ryan (attended this meeting only, then withdrew)
10. Joseph Campbell (attended this meeting only, then withdrew)
11. Bulmer Hobson (IRB; did not attend this meeting, but was considered a member, and attended all subsequent meetings)
12. D.P. Moran (declined the offer, and did not attend this or any other meeting)

That leaves 10 people at this meeting, 4 of them IRB, plus Hobson, who was considered a member despite his absence. He then discusses the formation of the Provisional Committee at the next meeting 3 days later, which included the 8 remaining members from the previous meeting (counting Hobson), plus 9 more:

1. Eoin MacNeill
2. The O'Rahilly
3. Patrick Pearse
4. Sean Fitzgibbon
5. Bulmer Hobson (IRB)
6. Sean MacDermott (IRB)
7. Eamonn Ceannt (IRB)
8. Piaras Beaslai (IRB)
9. Laurence Kettle
10. Colm O'Lochlainn
11. Michael Judge
12. L. Gogan
13. Col. Maurice Moore
14. P.J. Nolan (who appears to be the only one listed here who did not become a member of the 30 member final council)
15. Robert Page (IRB)
16. Seamus O'Connor (IRB)
17. Eamon Martin (IRB)

It is not entirely clear if this list is complete, but it seems it is, to the best of anyone's knowledge. Martin then mentions more meetings, with names being added regularly until we have the 30 member Provisional Council included in the article. I don't think any of these details need be included in the article, as a summary suffices, and the article already puts too much emphasis on how the Volunteers were formed compared to what they did, in my opinion. I include here only to hopefully serve as an explanation. -R. fiend (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The first meeting was held towards the end of October, 1913, stated by Hobson himself in his A Short History of the Volunteers, page 17. The list is not complete or would appear so from Colonel Moore who has described the composition of the original committee: "On my first entrance I found about twenty five members present..." A History of the Irish Rebellion of 1916, by Warre B. Wells & N. Marlow, pg.35. The O'Rahilly in The Irish Rebellion of 1916 and It's Martyrs, page 51 tells how a dozen men met in a Dublin Hotel to discuss the plan with Eoin MacNeill. "As the invitations to that meeting were issued and written by myself," he wrote, "I am in a position to know something of the personnel of the original committee." Besides Eoin MacNeill, they included P. H. Pearse, Sean MacDermot, W. J. Ryan, Eamonn Ceannt, Sean Fitzgibbon, J. A. Deakin, Pierce Beasley, Joseph Campbell, and the writer...Arthur Griffith's name was deliberately not included, while Mr. D. P. Moran, the editor of the Leader and a consistent supporter of the Parliamentary Party, was asked to attend..." Now as you mention O'Rahilly's account above how could you omit Arthur Griffith's name? This article is about the Volunteers, so how could we put too much emphasis on how the Volunteers were formed? Stop removing well referenced second and third party sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The O'Rahilly account you just cited is the same one I mention. If you look at the list of 10 names above they are exactly the same 10 you just mentioned: MacNeill, Pearse, MacDermott, Ryan, Ceannt, Fitzgibbon, Deakin, Beasley, Campbell, and O'Rahilly. This backs up what I wrote 100%. I omitted Griffith's name because he was not invited. By numerous accounts, those 10 people attended the inaugural meeting, which, regardless of what Hobson way have said in error, was held at Wynn's Hotel on November 11. All sources agree on this date, except whatever weird source you have, which you are probably misreading anyway. How the hell could they have met in October before MacNeill's article was even published yet? As for Moore, well, he wasn't at the first meeting, so his account is of probably meeting #2. He says "about" 25 people. Martin names 17, so its about the right ballpark anyway. I don't know if Martin's list at the 2nd meeting on the 14th (the first of the Provisional Committee) is complete, but there were at least 17 people there. Maybe more; it isn't terribly important. In any case, you still haven't found one source indicating that Hobosn encouraged O'Rahilly to encourage MacNeill to write The North Began. If you can find one, please quote the appropriate passage here. -R. fiend (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYN you have removed secondary and third party sources from this article. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You are again removing the information, please stop. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Though I don't want to end the discussion above, I do want to address some issues I will be handling when cleaning up this article. Other than a bit of clarification and reorganizing/cleaning some writing that is all over the place, there are a few factual issues to be addressed:

1. The claim that Hobson encouraged O'Rahilly to encourage McNeill to write The North Began is not only overtly convoluted, it as also untrue. Though there are 5 footnotes, none of them back up the claim that Hobson was involved in this (at least the 4 I have don't). Hobson, in his Foundation and Growth of the Irish Volunteers, even expressly denies involvement at this stage: "This article of MacNeill's was certainly not inspired buy the IRB. MacNeill, who was an avowed adherent of John Redmond, leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, was never a member of the IRB, and was not in any way in touch with them. His article was for that very reason providential." O'Rahilly appears to have approached MacNeill on his own accord (which makes sense, as there is no indication O'Rahilly was looking specifically for an article on volunteerism). Hobson's involvement came after, when he took the more important step of encouraging O'Rahilly to go to MacNeill to see if he could be persuaded to act on a Volunteer movement. That part all sources agree on. I also have no idea where the "three months later" comes from. I have MacNeill claiming he wrote it for "the next issue", meanign O'Rahilly likely approached him in October. (I think Hobson may have exaggerated MacNeill's devotion to Redmond, but that's not important.)
2. The first organizational meeting of the Volunteers did not happen in October. This would be impossible, as The North Began, which inspired these meetings, was not published until November 1. Hobson says the first meeting was at Wynn's Hotel on November 11, and I have not seen any other sources say otherwise.
3. The sentence "Of the other twelve members of the Provisional Committee eight were members of the IRB most of them unlikely to have been known as such" doesn't seem to work. What does "other twelve" mean? Other than who? Who were these 12 men and which 8 were IRB members? The Provisional Committee, as much as it existed before its official 30 member incarnation, was consistently changing, as members were added at subsequent meetings (and at least 3 withdrew). I have no idea where this magical number 12 comes from.

There's other organizational stuff and details, and weird emphasis on mostly unrelated drilling by some guy named Stritch, while almost nothing is said about the Rising itself. The intro needs expansion as well, I think. -R. fiend (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

1. . The referenced information which you reject is well supported, provide quoted references to support your claim.
2. . The referenced information which you reject is well supported, provide quoted references to support your claim.
3. . The referenced information which you reject is well supported, provide quoted references to support your claim.

The "unrelated drilling" is of the utmost importance, obvious to anyone intrested in the formation of the volunteers. It's also well supported, provide quoted references to support your claim.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to your typical non-responses I see. Did you actually read what I wrote? Because I did provide quoted references. You're the one who seems to think you can write any old crap and as long as you put a footnote after it it's gospel, whether or not the footnote supports the statement. None of the 5 footnotes you have state that Hobson encouraged O'Rahilly to get MacNeill to write any sort of article, while I have provided an actual quote from Hobson denying he was involved whatsoever. Furthermore, do you really mean to say that MacNeill published The North Began on November 1, then Hobson told O'Rahilly confront MacNeill about starting a Volunteer force, and then they got in Hobson's time machine and had the first Volunteers meeting a few weeks earlier? Multiple sources state the first meeting was at Wynn's on November 11. If there was some sort of other meeting in October it was not this, and putting a footnote to a random page in a random book isn't going to change that. As for the third point, the statement makes no sense in the context provided. If you can give some sort of context to explain what it means, give it a go, but I suspect you can't. Anyway, I'll start rewriting sections soon. -R. fiend (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

@ R.Fiend, Correct me if I am wrong you seem to be sourcing a book called Foundation and Growth of the Irish Volunteers by Hobson, I can't seem to find this, can you give me a publishers name and date of publication and also the page number you are using thanks. BigDunc 12:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have it in a collection called The Irish Volunteers 1913-1915: Recollections and Documents, which is a collection of mostly primary sources. It is edited by F.X. Martin and published by James Duffy and Co., Dublin, 1963. It includes Hobson's Foundation and Growth... which is about 50 pages, so it's not exactly a book in itself. It has a bunch of other parts, such as The North Began, Pearse's The Coming Revolution, various brief accounts of the Volunteers' formation by MacNeill, O'Rahilly, Ceannt, Beaslai, and Sean O'Kelly (some are only a page or two long). It also has a history of the Provisional Committee by Martin himself, which, looking at it, seems it may clear up some of the questions about the first meeting which I expressed above. It has other primary documents, such as the first subscription list (including how much dues everyone paid) as well as the manifesto. There'd an account of the Rotunda meeting from the next day's Freeman's Journal, which includes the speeches by MacNeill, Pearse, and Davitt. It has a bunch of other documents and the like as well. It's a very good source for this article. It's been a while since I read much of it, but I'm going to go through it some more as I work on this article. I've been largely concentrating on Hobson's account, as it is the most detailed and written by a very involved parrty, but O'Rahilly's and MacNeill's accounts probably deserve more inclusion than they are currently getting. -R. fiend (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read re:primary sources. Please do not remove secondary and third party sources to present alternative opinions. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's relevant, but not necessarily prohibitive. Primary sources may be used to support descriptive claims (like the date of a meeting) but not analytical ones. (Of course where to draw the line can be debated.) Quoting:

Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

Rd232 ^talk 22:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

R fiend, with this edit you're making a number of changes, it may make things easier discussionwise to break them down; at least to separate cleanup from substantial changes. In addition, you've written as part of your reasoning "Though there are 5 footnotes, none of them back up the claim that Hobson was involved in this (at least the 4 I have don't). Hobson, in his Foundation and Growth of the Irish Volunteers, even expressly denies involvement at this stage..." Since the footnotes address different, albeit related things, it would be helpful to clarify what exactly you're saying about the relationship between the article's claims and the sources supposedly backing them up. The sources surely say something relevant, so what do they say? (And which is the 5th source you don't have access to?) Also the second sentence in my quote of you, referring to Hobson, illustrates one reason to be cautious about primary sources. Primary sources have agendas, and may outright lie; secondary sources (reliable ones anyway) we trust they're at least trying to get it right. (I'm not saying Hobson's lying, I've no idea, it's a general point to be cautious.) Rd232 ^talk 22:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

PS I'd also remind everyone of the possibility of using a WP:Usersubpage to draft major changes, which takes some of the drama out and can make it easier to see what's going on than trying to read diffs with loads of red in them. See eg User:Rd232/PIRAlededraft for this in action at the moment. Rd232 ^talk 22:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I will address the specific changes here, as I have done numerous times. For right now I will address this single Hobson issue, and while I would agree that primary sources often have agendas, in this case we have a person specifically denying taking credit for something. If he has some self-interested angle in doing so I fail to see what it is. This issue is this. It appears Domer is confusing two things: this idea that Hobson, via O'Rahilly, encouraged the writing of The North Began, and the idea that after its publication Hobson, via O'Rahilly, encouraged MacNeill to act on this and oversee the formation of the Volunteers. The latter is certainly true; many sources are in agreement and no one is trying to remove that. The former is what isn't supported by sources, and specifically denied by Hobson, who, to reiterate, said "This article of MacNeill's was certainly not inspired buy the IRB. MacNeill, who was an avowed adherent of John Redmond, leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, was never a member of the IRB, and was not in any way in touch with them. His article was for that very reason providential." So it was "providential", that is "lucky",that while they were seeking a respected and moderate persona to do what the fringe radicals of the IRB could not do, MacNeill, who fit the bill, published an article suggesting that very thing. The sources cited back up the fact that O'Rahilly sought a contribution from MacNeill, but make no mention of any involvement by Hobson. This is also logically sound, as according to O'Rahilly he did not ask for an article on anything specific, just something that would be of interest outside the Gaelic League. That Hobson would seek out O'Rahilly to get him to encourage MacNeill to write an article on nothing in particular would hardly be relevant, even if true. MacNeill and O'Rahilly (as well as Hobson) give accounts of what happened, which I can quote, and none of them indicate any involvement by Hobson prior to the article's publication.

As for the sources cited that are purported to back up this claim, they do support the fact that O'Rahilly asked MacNeill to write an article (no one denies this) but don't support the notion that Hobson played a role at this stage. I can't quote what isn't there, but the Robert Kee footnote says this: "The O'Rahilly was then running the Gaelic League magazine An Claideamh Soluis and, having recently decided to re-style it, had asked MacNeill to write an editorial for the first issue of the new series. He suggested that it should be on some wider subject than mere Gaelic pursuits." The next footnote is the F.X. Martin edited Irish Volunteers 1913-1915: Recollections and Documents. This is a source Domer doesn't have so he can't even pretend it supports his statement. It is an account by MacNeill in which he says quite a bit, including "The O'Rahilly came to my house, told me about his plans and asked me to write a leading article in English for the first number of the new issue. He proposed that this article should not deal with the special objects of the Gaelic League, but should have a wide appeal to the general public on matters of public interest." The only time Hobson is mentioned is following the publication: "A few days after its publication, The O'Rahilly came again to my house, accompanied by Bulmer Hobson. They referred to this article of mine and asked me did I mean it in earnest. I said of course I did..." The next reference is the one I don't have, Bowyer's The Secret Army: The IRA. I'm sure I could find it in the library if I thought it worthwhile, and thought there was any chance it supported Domer's claim, but I don't. Next we have Foy and Barton's The Easter Rising. I can't find anything on pages 7 or 8 relating to this at all, so there's no point in quoting anything here. The fifth is just a repetition of Kee, already mentioned above. So on one side we have references which fail to support the claim at all, and on the other we have Hobson saying he had nothing to do with the article, and only took action after reading it following its publication. Domer's repeated cries of "The referenced information which you reject is well supported" don't make it so, and grow ever more tedious. -R. fiend (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

First off I'm not confusing two things, I'm citing sources per our policy on verifiability. Hobson and Deakin approched the O'Rahilly to encouraged MacNeill into writing an article. The O'Rahilly suggested to MacNeill that it should be on some wider subject than mere Gaelic pursuits. It was this suggestion which gave rise to the article entitled The North Began. There are four sources to support this and plenty more if needs be. The information is reliable, third-party, published sources and meet our policy of verifiability. Do not try to personalise this, or say what sources I do or do not have. Do not put forward my edits as claims by me. I do not put my opinions into articles! --Domer48_'fenian' 10:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, because it sounds like you're agreeing. I mean, you're making very similar points of fact; so what's the analytical difference? PS Domer we're clearly all aware of the policies you refer to, so citing them isn't really helpful and is in fact slightly distracting from the content issue. Rd232 ^talk 11:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 you appear to be being very hypocritical and you need to be more consistent IMO. You have been citing policy at me [5] [6] [7] being just recent examples, however ignoring other editors who make personal attacks ignore talk page guidelines and use talk pages as soap boxes why is that? Now your distracting from the content issue when you do this. Now the above posts are addressed to an editor and not the edit, address that and it may come at least look like your being consistent IMO. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time responding in detail to that, as I have done to some of your comments in this vein elsewhere. If you suffer from a WP:Battleground mentality there is nothing I can do about that. However, I will ask you again to respect talk page conventions on indentation. Consistently failing to do so despite repeated reminders could be construed as disruptive, and is certainly unhelpful. Rd232 ^talk 11:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Domer, if Hobson had anything to do with the publication of The North Began please provide an extensive quoted reference to this effect. So far you allude to vague sources that do not support this claim at all. -R. fiend (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 could you please stop disrupting discussions with claims and accusations. Do not make claims as to my motivation on talk pages. Now if you have a problem with an editor I suggest you take it to WP:RfC and file a report. Please read the essay on WP:indentation, and if that is the format you wish to use suggest it. Your indentation is nothing like the essay. Please read WP:Civil as your post could appear to be almost Taunting in tone or WP:baiting. The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence examples cited above. Also your comments [8] and above can quickly look like Wikipedia:Harassment so stop. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Domer, can you quote a reliable source indicating that Hobson played any role in the publication of The North Began? So far you have not, and if you can't do so I suggest you let the matter rest. Any source you might be able to dredge up better be quite reliable and specific, especially if you think it should trump Hobson's specific denial of any involvement, as well as the lack of any reference to this in a plethora of other sources. -R. fiend (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Kee, Robert, The Bold Fenian Men, 1976, The Irish Volunteers 1913-1915, F. X. Martin (cited) 1963, page 71 Bell, J. Bowyer, The Secret Army: The IRA, RV Ed 1997, page 9, ISBN 1 85371 8130, Foy, Michael & Brian Barton, The Easter Rising, 2004, page 7-8. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, but they don't back up your assertion at all, as I illustrated above by actually quoting the relevant passages. I can make up all sorts of stuff too if I want, and claim that books support things they make no allusion to. But I'll let you do all that yourself. Now, can you quote a passage from any of those books that says Hobson instigated the writing of The North Began? Didn't think so. -R. fiend (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to do this at all, because the facts should be readily available to anyone who looks for them, but I am able to supply abundant sources stating that the first Volunteers meeting took place on November 11, 1913. just from the various accounts provided in The Irish Volunteers 1913-1915 we have accounts by:

• Bulmer Hobson: "I engaged a room in Wynn's Hotel, Lower Abbey Street, Dublin and the first meeting took place there on Tuesday 11th November, 1913, Eoin MacNeill being in the chair." (p. 25)
• The O'Rahilly: "The Irish Volunteers (as distinct, of course, from the Ulster Volunteer Force) wre started in Dublin in November, 1913, by a dozen men who came together at Wynn's Hotel to discuss with Eoin MacNeill the formation of an Irish Volunteer Army." (p. 76)
• Piaras Beaslai: "A week later, on Monday, 10th November, I was in the office of the Evening Telegraph in Middle Abbey Street when I was visited by Bulmer Hobson who was at the time "Centre" of my circle of the I.R.B. and also by Eamonn Ceannt, a recent recruit from the same circle. Hobson told me that Mac Neill had agreed to attend a meeting to discuss the possibility of starting a body of Irish Volunteers, and that the meeting would be held at Wynn's Hotel on the following night." (p. 80)
• F.X. Martin: "During the first week of November 1913, after consultations between Eoin MacNeill, The O'Rahilly, and Bulmer Hobson, it was decided to summon a preliminary meeting, at Wynn's Hotel, Dublin, on the evening of Tuesday, 11th November to discuss the possibility of forming an Irish Volunteer Force." (p. 95)

We also have other accounts:

• Michael Tierney, in his biography of MacNeill: "The first meeting took place in Wynn's Hotel, Lower Abbey Street, on 11 November 1913, an event commemorated by a plaque unveiled on 15 November 1966." (p. 115)
• Ruth Dudley Edwards, in her biography of Pearse: "On 11 November the meeting was held. Eleven men were invited to attend. Pearse was now a political figure of sufficient importance to be one of them..." (p. 178) (She mentions 11 invitees instead of 12; perhaps she omits Hobson as more of an inviter than an invitee, or perhaps she omits Moran, as others have done. It doesn't really matter, but I do note the discrepancy.)
• F.S.L. Lyons, in Ireland Since the Famine: "MacNeill agreed and invitations were sent out to a select few to meet at Wynn's Hotel in Dublin on 11 November for discussions on how best to build on this initiative." (p. 321)

I could go on but it would just be flogging a dead horse. A plethora of sources, as well as the laws of physics, put the first meeting of the Volunteers on 11 November, 1913. It could not have occurred in October, as all sources say the publication of The North Began on 1 November instigated these meetings. October, in case anyone was unaware, comes before November. I hope we can at least put this measure to rest before moving on? -R. fiend (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You can go on if you want, however Eoin MacNeill in his preface to Hobson's A Short history of the Irish Volunteers, says "I first met the author of this history [Hobson] at the first meeting of the original Provisional Committee of the Irish Volunteers." Now if all sources agree that Hobson did not attend the meeting on November 11, what meeting was it that he first meet MacNeill. He meet him at the original Provisional Committee which was held at the end of October. Hobson on page 16 says "I have little doubt that if the men who organised the Irish Volunteers had not taken the preliminary steps in October, 1913 many weeks would not have elapsed before others would have come forward to undertake that necessary task." So the preliminary steps were taken in Ocober, and on page 17 he says "this meeting was held towards the end of October 1913..." There were present: MacNeill, O'Rahilly, John Fitzgibbon, Sean Mac Diarmada, Eamonn Kent Pierce Beasley, Seumas O'Connor, Robert Page, P. H. Pearse, Colm O'Loughlin, W. J. Ryan, James Deakin, and Joseph Campbell. Hobson goes on to say that "with the exception of the last three, all these became members of the Provisional Committee when that body took definite shape a few weeks later..." Hobson says that he "was not present at this meeting, being away from Dublin on that day, but I attended all the subsequent meetings." Hobson was at the original Provisional Committee held in October were he meet MacNeill for the first time, but was not at the November 11 meeting. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Two questions. 1) is it agreed that the publication of The North Began on 1 November instigated these meetings of Volunteers/Provisional Committee? (Are there sources to contradict that?) Because if that's agreed, all else follows from that. 2) Are these sources talking about different meetings on 11 Nov and end October - perhaps 11 Nov the first formal one, and the latter more or less the same people but meeting less formally? Rd232 ^talk 10:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no "perhaps" about it. The original Provisional Committee meet at the end of October! Is there any sources which dispute this. The article is a different subject, deal with the meeting first. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly a different subject if the article, whose publication date is undisputed, is supposed to have instigated the meeting of the original Provisional Committee. Hence my question 1 above. Rd232 ^talk 10:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Your disputing both MacNeill and Hobson then, based on what? At what meeting did MacNeill first meet Hobson? --Domer48_'fenian' 11:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you're misreading the sources. When MacNeill taiks of the first meeting of the Provisional Committe, he's talking about a later meeting, apparently the one on 14 November. Here is the chronology of events:

• October and before: various IRB members meet and plan, but know that they themselves will not be able to form a nationwide Volunteer organization, so they prepare among themselves, and wait for action from a "constitutional quarter". Sometime around then, O'Rahilly goes to MacNeill, and asks him to write an article for An Claidheamh Soluis about something other than Gaelic League activities.
• 1 November: The North Began is published.
• First week of November (or thereabouts): Hobson and O'Rahilly approach MacNeill to see if he's serious about a Volunteer movement, and if he will take the lead. He agrees, and Hobson and O'Rahilly send invitations to a meeting for interested parties.
• 11 November: The first meeting of the Volunteers is held. It is a preliminary planning session. 12 were invited, 10 show up. 3 drop out right away.
• 14 November: The remaining 7 from the previous meeting meet again, along with Hobson and at least 9 others, maybe more. They form the Provisional Council. (This is the "I first met Hobson" meeting, though they had met before plenty of times. They were both in the Gaelic League, for example)
• 15 - 24 November: Other meetings to plan their public gathering at the Rotunda. The meetings get bigger and the Council expands. No details other than there were a series of meetings and names were constantly being added.
• 25 November: huge rally at the Rotunda. Volunteers are formally publicly launched.

No one but Hobson alludes to a meeting in October, and he does only in n early publication littered with errors. Errors he corrects later. He confused the 1st and 2nd meetings, which he admitted and rectified ("In my own book A Short History of the Irish Volunteers, pp. 17-18, I mentioned three other people as having been present at the first meeting, namely: Robert Page, Seamus O'Connor, Colm O'Loughlin. In fact their first attendance may have been at the second meeting, on Friday, the 14th November, when we had a larger gathering."); he forget two names from the final Provisional Council ("On page 19 of my book I have given twenty-eight names, but I omitted by mistake the names of Seamus O'Connor and Piaras Beaslai.") and now he got the date of the first meeting wrong ("the FIRST meeting took place there on Tuesday 11th November, 1913, Eoin MacNeill being in the chair.") This is why one needs to be careful when using primary sources. Hobson is generally a very good source on this, but for some reason his early account was sloppy. I have provided no less than 7 accounts that contradict this early account of Hobson, including one by Hobson himself, writing in more detail later. I could provide more. You have one line from one guy who corrects this mistake in his later writing. Can't you let this matter drop and admit that this one vague reference is an error? Let's use Occam's Razor here. Which is more likely, that Hobson got a date wrong, or that he invented a time machine and met with MacNeill and others prior to the publication of the article that started it all, and before the Volunteers first meeting? -R. fiend (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

When did MacNeill first meet Hobson? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea when MacNeill first met Hobson. Probably when Hobson joined the Gaelic League. That has nothing to do with when the first meeting of the Volunteers is. Do you have any other source that specifies October as the month in which the Volunteers first met? Or are you going to cling to this one unspecific early account by Hobson (one he corrects later) as gospel? -R. fiend (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read my post again then, MacNeill says when they first meet. The account is not unspecific at all. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently he says they first met at the first meeting of the Provisional Committee (I doubt this is literally true, but what the hell). Does he say when that meeting was? Does he give a date? Seems to me it's the 14 November meeting. Does he contradict that? -R. fiend (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My quotes above illustrate quite clearly they first meet at the meeting in October of the original Provisional Committee , now provide a source that says this meeting did not take place. Hobson is clear about this, and equally clear that this meeting was before the November 11 because he was not at that meeting. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Fucking Christ! You want me to come up with a source saying a meeting that didn't take place never took place? Are you serious? Find me a source that says MacNeill, Carson, Churchill, Xenu, Michael Jackson, and Ethrel the Unready didn't meet for coffee at Club 57 in 1911.

Think about this carefully, Domer. Do you really, honestly believe that MacNeill, Hobson, O'Rahilly, Pearse, and a bunch of others somehow got together spontaneously in October 1913 and formed the Provisional Committee of the Irish Volunteers. Then, the following month, MacNeill published an article suggesting such a group should be formed in the future. Then O'Rahilly goes to MacNeill to ask if he's serious about that suggestion, to which MacNeill could only reply "Of course I'm serious! We did this already! We had a meeting last month! We formed a governing council! You were there!!!" This makes less than zero sense. If you need sources saying there was no meeting in October, look at any of the ones above the specify that the FIRST meeting was on November 11. If you want to say that there was a pre-first meeting, or a zero-th meeting or something you go ahead and give that a try. I'll wait here. This is just plain ridiculous. Hobson fucked up when he said October. He corrected himself later. Let it go. -R. fiend (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I'll make it easy for you. Here's F.X. Martin in a short article called "The Provbisional Committee of the Irish Volunteers", it's p.96 of The Irish Volunteers 1913-1915: "The positive result of the discussion at this preliminary meeting was that during the subsequent three days various people of nationalist sympathies were approached and invited to a further meeting. This was held at Wynn's Hotel, on Friday, 14th November, and it was then that the Provisional Committee was founded." This is the meeting MacNeill and Hobson refer to. A later one, not an earlier one. This is when the "Original" Provisional Committee was formed. -R. fiend (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that seems pretty conclusive. Note: despite your frustration at being asked to prove a negative, please do avoid profanity. Rd232 ^talk 15:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No that still does not address the issue. You are the one saying that Hobson and MacNeill meeting outlined by Hobson refer to a later one. The quoted text I provided is pretty conclusive that the meeting was before the November 11 meeting. I know Rd232 that if I make wild outbursts you will also put it down to frustration. Suggesting that I'm asking an editor to prove a negative is very distracting, when what I'm asking them to do is offer a source which challanges the one I have put forward. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Your "quoted text" (somewhere above) is based on one account, which the author later revised due to having a number of errors. All other accounts seem to be incompatible with an October meeting, even if we ignore (as you have done) the factor of the 1 November article. I suggest at this point maybe bringing in others who are familiar with the topic? Big Dunc and Scolaire have commented above. Or you could try the WP:Content noticeboard for input. Rd232 ^talk 16:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That you continue to make changes despite on going discussion could be considered disruptive. Address the issues on the talk page first, and propose the changes here first. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Disruptive" is pretty strong. However a summary of the changes would be helpful. Rd232 ^talk 16:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"MacNeill was interviewed and agreed to take part in the formation of such a force...a Provisional Committee for the establishment of a Volunteer Force met at the end of October..." P. S. O'Hegarty, A History of Ireland Under the Union: 1801 to 1922, Methuen & Co. Ltd, London, pg.669. Did Hobson say he revised his account due to having a number of errors? No he did not! The editor suggested that is what he did. Please don't cite the opinions of editors, and read the posts. The other accounts are not incompatible with an October meeting at all. Now there is another quote, a secondary source which supports the primary source. Now when I change the text to reflect the sources, I do hope my edits will not be seen as disruptive, and I will include a summary of the changes. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like O'Hegarty is just using reiterating Hobson. O'Hegarty isn't a historian anyway. F.X. Martin is. Shall we look at what MacNeill says? "A few days after its publication [i.e. November 1], The O'Rahilly came again to my house, accompanied by Bulmer Hobson. They referred to this article of mine and asked me did I mean it in earnest. I said of course I did; I should not think of publishing it otherwise, and then at once we began to discuss plans for the institution of a Volunteer Force." So here we have MacNeill talking about preliminary plans for forming a Volunteer force in November, at least a week or two after you naively maintain the group was formed. He continues "Before we parted, we decided on the formation of a committee with the express purpose of organising a National Volunteer Force - the committee to be made representative of the various degrees of national politics and soon afterwards a committee came together, and the Volunteer organisation began." Let me repeat for emphasis: "A few days after [The North Began's] publication" (that is, early November) "we decided on the formation of a committee" (the committee you claimed had already met the previous month) "and soon afterwards a committee came together, and the Volunteer organisation began." How is that in any way compatable with the idea of a Provisional Committee established the month previously? Are you really this obtuse? Because I'm starting to think it's an act created to annoy people. It's working.-R. fiend (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion really should be over now, unless Domer is finally willing to address the issue he has repeatedly declined to: how a group could be started before the publication of an article widely agreed (apparently?) to have inspired it. PS Again, watch the frustration, it doesn't help matters. Rd232 ^talk 18:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to ask R. fiend again to please remain Civil, and insist they stop engaging in personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor! I have claimed nothing, I have simply cited sources. You state as fact that "O'Hegarty isn't a historian anyway" well these sources suggest otherwise, [9][10] [11][12]. Please read again our policy on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Hobson and MacNeill contradict each other, obvious! Both Hobson and O'Hegarty say a meeting took place in October. MacNeill says he meet Hobson for the first time at "a" meeting, but says above that he meet him in his house with the O'Rahilly? Could it be possible that Hobson had access to the article before publication? You could draw that conclusion from Hobson's A short History of the Volunteers. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

O'Hegarty died in 1955, F. X. Martin in 2000. O'Hegarty's is a general work covering over a century; FX Martin's is "a short article in The Irish Volunteers 1913-1915". There is no doubt which source we should prefer. Equally, any further discussion that ignores the issue of the article publication date would seem to be a waste of time. Rd232 ^talk 19:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

[E.C.] There is no indication that Hobson read The North Began before publication. All accounts, even those of Hobson, indicate that MacNeill was not approached until after it was published on November 1. You are correct about one thing, if MacNeill does say that he never met Hobson before the 1st Provisional Council meeting, it contradicts he statement that they planned that meeting along with O'Rahilly when they came to see him at his house. I, for one, cannot believe that Hobson and MacNeill, who travelled in the same circles and were both members of the Dublin branch of the Gaelic League for 6 years before this, had never met. In any case, it is a very minor point. People make minor mistakes like this all the time in their recollections. This is why one must be wary of primary sources. When many of them give the same date for the first meeting of the Volunteers, that is an acceptable source. When someone makes the case MacNeill said he first met Hobson on the Provisional Council, and that he met him at his home in early November, that therefore the Council must have met in October, that is synthesis and original research, terms you love to throw about haphazardly. MacNeill may be mistaken that Hobson accompanied O'Rahilly to his house to discuss his article. Hobson implies he wasn't there, and most sources say Hobson urged O'Rahilly to see MacNeill, not that they visited him together. Hobson says "At my suggestion [O'Rahilly] asked MacNeill if he would preside at a committee meeting to discuss the formation of a Volunteer body. Next day he said that MacNeill was quite willing to take the chair" (p.24) This certainly makes it sound like he wasn't present when the two met, but he does put this after the article's publication, further supporting the widely accepted notion that the Provisional Committee was not formed until November. I have no idea what the deal with O'Hegarty is. He's a postal clerk writing about 125 years of Irish history, not about the Volunteers specifically. He was also writing in the 50's and had fewer resources available to him. For example, it appears that Hobson's later, corrected and uncensored account of the Volunteers formation had not been written yet. O'Hegarty devotes how much space to the formation of the Volunteers? A page or so I guess? The detailed accounts, ones specifically about the topic, are the more reliable ones. You put too much stock in passing comments by various individuals to the detriment of researched, detailed accounts. They are not of equal value. -R. fiend (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

These comments on O'Hegarty do not address the issue. "O'Hegarty isn't a historian anyway" "O'Hegarty died in 1955, F. X. Martin in 2000" "O'Hegarty's is a general work covering over a century; FX Martin's is "a short article" or "There is no doubt which source we should prefer." MacNeill wrote the Preface to Hobson's A Short History of the Volunteers in it he says "I first met the author of this history at the first meeting of the original Provisional Committee of the Irish Volunteers." This would contradict MacNeill's comments cited above. Hobson says "this meeting was held towards the end of October, 1913, and Eoin MacNeill occupied the chair." So MacNeill wrote a preface to a book he never read? Is that what is being suggested? So all the sources cite Hobson and MacNeill accounts, primary sources and both these contradict each other. Any further discussion that ignores that these sources are at odds with each other would seem to be a waste of time. Can we stick to sources and not offer our own analysis , already we were told O'Hegarty was not an historian, and one editor citing another to support an opinion. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

O'Hegarty not being a historian seems a simple error we've moved on from. The other quotes (from me, though you omit a key part of the last one), if it wasn't obvious what I was saying, are clarified by R fiend above - eg Hobson's later, corrected and uncensored account not being available to O'Hegarty writing 50 odd years earlier. Rd232 ^talk 21:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does "So MacNeill wrote a preface to a book he never read?" come from? Are you trying to pack as many non-sequiturs into a paragraph as possible? Yes, there are a few contradictions here. Hobson disagrees with MacNeill about showing up at his house to discuss forming the Volunteers. Hobson disagrees with Hobson on when the Volunteers had their first meeting. Some of these contradictions are easy to work out (ie Hobson said the wrong month in his first account, but got it right in his second one) others aren't very significant (where MacNeill and Hobson first met; whether Hobson accompanied O'Rahilly when he visited MacNeill, or whether O'Rahilly went on his own). The point is, Hobson, O'Rahilly, MacNeill, and numerous qualified historians agree that the first meeting of the Volunteers was on November 11. How could they have formed a Provisional Committee prior to their first meeting? Did they do it online perchance? Perhaps Pearse was on facebook one day and got the meesage "You have been invited to join the group 'Provisional Committee of the Irish Volunteers'. 13 friends are members." Everyone except O'Hegarty at some point agrees that the first meeting was on Novemebr 11, and all the others followed. This article will reflect that.

Think of it this way. Why is The North Began considered an historically significant work? Generally because it's seen as prompting the creation of the Volunteers (and hence the Rising, and much that followed after that). You seem adamant that before it was even published, the Volunteers had already formed, organized a governing council, and were preparing for a public launch. The North Began, therefore, is a completely insignificant document. It simply voiced approval for something that had already been done; there is nothing less groundbreaking than that. Why even mention it in this article? Pointless. Members of the Provisional Committee had already met up in the CarsonSuxx chatroom, and got the ball rolling. -R. fiend (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your growing frustration and Domer's apparent unwillingness to change his position in the face of what looks like overwhelming evidence (and his apparent unwillingness to address the key point about the article publication date made repeatedly above) makes it pointless to carry on discussing without getting input from more editors. To that end I've asked BigDunc and Scolaire for input, since they've been active on this page recently, but not in this discussion. If that doesn't resolve the issue, I guess an WP:RFC would be the way to go. Rd232 ^talk 21:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 that you have continued to allow this incivility to go on, and your distortion of this discussion and my participation in it will end up at WP:RfC. Your contributions are provocative and in my opinion an attempt to inflame this issue. I will no longer assume good faith based on your contributions here and misleading comments elsewhere, I suggest you stop directing your comments to me and confine them to the issues. You are not here as a moderator, you are here as a participant, and your contributions are less than helpful. Stop deflecting and distracting this discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added some detail in this section on the Article by Eoin MacNeill. I've taken the information from The IRB: The Irish Republican Brotherhood from The Land League to Sinn Féin, Owen McGee, Four Courts Press, 2005, ISBN 1 85182 972 5 pg.353. The exact quote from the book reads "Three months later, on 1 November, Eoin MacNeill of UCD and the Gaelic League wrote an article for An Claidheamh Solus suggesting the formation of an Irish volunteer force with the encouragement of Deakin, Hobson and others." --Domer48_'fenian' 13:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This contradicts most other sources, including first hand accounts by both Hobson and MacNeill. McGee doesn't reference this statement in his book, which has almost nothing to do with the Volunteers anyway. -R. fiend (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please cite sources which contradict this information, and provide quoted references. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I did already, several times, but here we go again, Hobson: "This article of MacNeill's was certainly not inspired buy the IRB. MacNeill, who was an avowed adherent of John Redmond, leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, was never a member of the IRB, and was not in any way in touch with them. His article was for that very reason providential" (p.24). This would appear to be the slam dunk. We also have the account of MacNeill you provided, in which he says he had not met Hobson, so Hobson couldn't have done much to encourage him. By MacNeill's own account he came up with the idea of writing about a Volunteers force on his own, all O'Rahilly asked him for was an article on a subject of wide appeal. Furthermore, no other sources that I have seen (and I've looked) mention Hobson, let alone Deakin, as being involved in this exchange between MacNeill and O'Rahilly. Neither MacNeill's biographer nor O'Rahilly's (not that I consider that a terribly great source) make an allusion to it. You're putting a lot of emphasis on a vague, passing mention by a historian whose writing a book on a different topic (the Volunteers don't even appear in the index) to the detriment of more detailed accounts. Even if it were true, McGee gives no indication of what he means by "encouragement", and it's such a very minor detail it really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. We know Hobson and company were in favor of a Volunteer force; that's the important issue and the article already makes that abundantly clear. -R. fiend (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are offering a Primary sources to challange third party source and offering your own analyses. "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Your edit summary is also very misleading, you have simply reverted yet suggest that you have provided a "better source." Please stop, and do not be disruptive, as you actions are starting to suggest. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not interpretive by any stretch of the imagination. Do you know what that word means? Hobson says, in no uncertain terms The IRB had nothing to do with this article; I'm merely putting what he said into the article. There is no analysis. You're taking one vague, unspecific, and uncited (by McGee) reference from a book on a different subject and making it gospel. You're also removing cited material, which you consider a cardinal sin when others do it. And quit saying "use there talk page" in your edit summaries. I'm using the damn talk page, as anyone can see. If McGee is right, why do none of the books on the Volunteers, MacNeill, O'Rahilly, or any involved parties mention it? This is such an absurdly minor issue there's no point in making a huge fuss about it. -R. fiend (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You are using a Primary source to challenge a secondary source. You are offering your own analyses. Both Hobson & MacNeill and been shown to be unreliable. You are suggesting that the book I've cited on a different subject which is completely untrue. You suggests above that another historian was not even a historian, please stop with this. I've not removed any cited material, again untrue. My edit summaries are to encourage you to discuses the issue, and unlike yours not misleading. Please remain civil, and moderate your tone as its not helpful. Now you are well aware of our policy on WP:3RR, so please stop and use the talk page. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 15:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am offering a detailed first hand account to challenge a vague, unspecified, casual mention in another source. There is nothing wrong with that. McGee's book is not about the Volunteers, he doesn;t even include them in his index. I am not inserting my own analysis; it's perfectly obvious you have no idea what that word means. Additionally, you removed the Hobson reference from my last edit, please don't lie and deny this. And quiting saying "use the talk page." I'm using the fucking talk page, obviously. -R. fiend (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This sentence and reference was added by you " This article was not inspired by the IRB, and it was pure chance that such an article appeared from a widely respected individual at this time." You cite this to Irish Volunteers 1913-1915, F. X. Martin (cited) 1963, page 24. Now from previouse discussion you attribute this to Hobson, however this now suggests that it was from F. X. Martin. Could you explain this please? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The book is edited by Martin, but the passage within the volume is Hobson (as I said, it's a collection with many different contributors). It is possible that the formating of the footnote should be altered. I'll look into it when I get a chance. -R. fiend (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Both Hobson & MacNeill have been shown to be unreliable. Hobson is a Primary source, and an unreliable one at that. That is why the dubious tag has been placed. Now, I have no problem with the information been added, but it must be attributed in the text to Hobson. The reader must also be aware that Hobson as a source is considered unreliable. Claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Now you will therefore accept that the tag remains till this is addressed, and the information can stay pending discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It could perhaps be explicitly attributed to Hobson in the text as opinion. Rd232 ^talk 09:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hobson isn't "unreliable", he simply isn't 100% reliable, as no source is. First hand accounts aren't always perfect, but second or third hand accounts aren't necessarily any better, particularly when they don't identify sources. I would have no problem going with Hobson's statement that the meeting was in October if it weren't for the fact that 1. it's a chronological paradox, and 2. it's contradicted by every other source. Neither is true about the statement in question here. A few minor oversights don't mean everything the author says in unreliable, in fact it says more about the piece he wrote than about himself. I'm not sure why he was sloppy with his first account (maybe it has something to do with it having been censored), but his second account actually shows he did some research. In any case, his statement isn't an opinion. He is stating, very clearly, the fact that he himself did not have anything to do with The North Began. Could he be lying? I suppose. I have no idea why he would be; it would be much more likely for him to lie about the opposite, and claim credit when he had none to take. I'd take a look at McGee's source but he doesn't provide one.

Often more important than whether an account is first or second hand is how specific an account is. "the first meeting was sometime in October" is vague. "The first meeting was at Wynn's Hotel on Tuesday, Nov. 11, 1913. In attendance were MacNeill, O'Rahilly, Pearse, MacDermott, Ceannt, Beaslai, Deakin, Ryan, Campbell, and Fitzgerald" is very specific. Which, in general, will be the better account? Usually the more specific one; it shows evidence of research and is more than a vague, passing reference that may have been given no thought at all. Domer has a tendency to think them of equal value, or give preference to the undetailed one. Additionally, a source specific to a topic at hand is usually going to be better than a more general one. When writing on, say, the Thermidorian Reaction, a book on the Thermidorian Reaction will usually be a better source than one on the French Revolution as a whole, or on French History, or a general overview of World History.

In this case we have something very specific said by Hobson, in a work specifically about the formation of the Volunteers. I see no reason why this should be cast aside in favor of a source about a different subject, making a very general claim. What did Hobson, Deakin, and others (what others?) do to "encourage" MacNeill? It can't have been very direct. No other subject seems to back up McGee's claim. If another can be found I will be more lenient here. As I said before, this is a very minor point. Except the two we are discussing, no other source makes a claim either way about this, and they stick to the important facts: 1. The IRB was looking for a respected public figure to take the lead on a Volunteers movement, 2. MacNeill (encouraged by O'Rahilly, but even that isn't terribly important) wrote an article advocating this, 3. Hobson sent O'Rahilly to encourage MacNeill on this, and the Volunteers had their first meeting shortly thereafter. Those are the important points. I wouldn't even care about a point so minor but I don't want a statement that is most likely untrue in the article, particularly when it doesn't add anything. Remove both statements and stick to the facts as they are known. If we were writing a scholarly book covering and examining every detail, we might want to examine this. But we're writing an encyclopedia article here. Stick to the facts we know. -R. fiend (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is considered to be a personal attack. Stop. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the totality of your response? You're not going to address anything I said? C'mon! Heed your own advice: use the talk page! -R. fiend (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Your post is for the most part your personal analysis, interpretations and opinions, and as such does not require validation or challenge from me. Hobson is unreliable as a source, this has been illustrated above, but this is not reflected in the article. We don’t remove contradictions, we include them. We let readers know that they exist. We have included to date only one contradiction, that between Hobson and McGee. We need to include the others. That includes, when the first meeting occured, when MacNeill first meet Hobson and using the same format as the Hobson and McGee example mentioned above. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

God, I hope you're not serious. We need to include every contradiction? No, that is not the case at all. We need to include the important facts that are essential for understanding the Volunteers. Minor, insignificant details can be omitted especially if the sources contradict one another. Do you really want to include the minor possible discrepancy on when Hobson and MacNeill may have first met? How is that important to the article at all? I'll give you a hint: it isn't. The date of the first Volunteers meeting is pretty well established; we're not going to get into this "on the one hand...on the other hand" stuff. When sources contradict each other in insignificant ways it's generally best to go with what they both agree on. For example, if one sources says "X happened on June 23" and one source says "X happened on June 26", saying "X happened in late June" is a fact everyone agrees on, and a good way to frame it in the article. If we had, for example, a source saying on Easter Monday Pearse had a buttered muffin for breakfast, and another source says he had no appetite and just had a cup of tea, would you really want to bring the Great Pearse Breakfast Controversy into th article, or would we do the sensible thing and leave his breakfast out of the article? The latter, clearly. The same goes for these other insignificant details, including this slim possibility that Hobson, Deakin, and unnamed "others" appeared at MacNeill's house to egg him on into writing a proposal for the formation of a Volunter Force, and certainly the MacNeill-Hobson first meeting "controversy". I mean, is it your hobby to make every article as unreadable as possible? I suggest finding a new one. -R. fiend (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is considered to be a personal attack. Stop.--Domer48_'fenian' 12:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll just consider this refusal to discuss on the talk page on your part and proceed accordingly. -R. fiend (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to check my sources, which might take a little while, but I think the edit that after MacDonagh and Plunkett joined the IRB they held half the seats on the Provisional Committee is misleading. MacDonagh, I believe, was not on the IRB until 1916 (again, I'll have to look this up) and at that stage I don't believe the Provisional Committee was still the governing body, or if it was, I think its membership had changed (which may have even made the IRB representation more than half). After the Redmond split the organization was different, I know that much. Regardless, neither MacDonagh nor Plunkett joined the IRB before Redmond's appointees made the council twice the size, and I don't think either of them was a member before the 1st Volunteers Convention on October 25, 1914, which altered the Volunteers' structure. I'll look this up when I have a chance and bring up the specifics here. -R. fiend (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Also the phrasing doesn't seem right. "The final list when it was published showed that the number of I.R.B members had been brought to twelve..." implies that an official list of the Provisional Committee members would specify who was in the IRB, which it clearly would not have done. This should be rephrased to show that while there were 12 members, their status as such would not be advertized. -R. fiend (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

For reference, that would be this edit, which primarily introduces the second para in that diff. We await your sources. Rd232 ^talk 16:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at some of the other recent edits (both of you skirting WP:3RR), I note this edit from Domer. In view of the previous discussion above about the genesis of the article, this edit goes in the wrong direction, leaving an implication (which the previous discussion suggests is unjustified) that the content of the article originated at least partly with people like Hobson. The discussion above concludes that MacNeill was encouraged write something wider than Gaelic games, but not more specific than that - and the edit leaves that impression. It is notable too that the edit removes a referenced sentence which clearly stated the opposite. Rd232 ^talk 17:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion! Removing the sentence was an oversite on my part. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, it was an oversight. But clearly I had read the above discussion so that isn't a helpful remark. If your view is that Hobson etc did tell MacNeill to specifically write something on the topic ultimately published, please point me to specific parts of the discussion that support your view, either by quoting or telling me what date stamps to look for. If that view is supportable, it should be explicitly stated. If it is not, it shouldn't be implied. PS Correctly indented your reply for you. It's easy - one more colon : than the previous comment! Rd232 ^talk 17:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, with the sentence re-placed there that seems sorted. Rd232 ^talk 17:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop distracting this discussions. In the above discussion I draw attention to the fact that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." McGee is a secondary source, Hobson is a Primary source. Now, you have started a discussion on the text I added in this unrelated discussion. The above section above addresses the issue. Saying my comment "Please read the above discussion" isn't a helpful remark is just plain nonsense. Now the issue is being discussed above, that is were it should be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand either your attitude or your response. Your remark didn't seem overly helpful because it merely indicated previous discussion without giving any details, in response to a comment that made it clear I was aware of the discussion. And commenting on it now seems redundant after the issue is resolved. And of course we're well aware of WP:PSTS in general; the point is if you're going to rely on it, you need to show exactly what conclusion has been impermissibly drawn from a primary source, otherwise it's all too vague. PSTS does not mean that every secondary source automatically trumps every primary source. Rd232 ^talk 19:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so here's where we are: due to a content dispute between myself and Domer, and some odd notion that removing anything preceding a footnote is some sort of affront to God, we now have two basically contradictory statements abutting one another in the article. One says the IRB encouraged the publication of The North Began; one says the IRB had nothing to do with it. Both are sourced. It seems to me an article simultaneously stating two contradictory things cannot stand; doublethink does not make for a good encyclopedia. I propose this: that we do what 99% of the books on the subject do and remove both statements, making no claims about this at all. Just about every source is content to state that O'Rahilly had MacNeill write an article, without expressly stating or denying that the IRB had a hand behind the scenes. If it's good enough for the pros, it's good enough for us. If there were a substantial controversy on the subject, we should cover it, but this is an excessive amount of weight being put on two sources, neither of which are terribly mainstream on the subject. McGee's account is a casual, passing mention, devoid of any specifics whatsoever; he gives zero indication of what this "encouragement" consisted of. Did Hobson lean over MacNeill's shoulder as he wrote the article, whispering into his ear? Did he encourage MacNeill the way I encourage Obama to close Guantanamo Bay (by thinking it in my head and occasionally discussing it with friends and acquaintances)? It just isn't supported by anything else. McGee does not give a citation, and says almost nothing about it. This tendency to give passing mentions as much or more credence than detailed accounts does not make for scholarly writing. Let's drop the matter, reverting the article and not making a claim either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R. fiend (talk • contribs)

See discussion above on this subject. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added three section tags. I'll start to add or replace the text with referenced text. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, more tags, just what every article needs. And please don;t replace with "referenced text". You've done enough. Really. -R. fiend (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please remain civil, tags are useful reminders. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There's been some changes to the section on organisation and leadership. The good news is all sources seem to agree on who the 30 members of the Provisional Committee were. The problems arise when their allegiances are stated, as they change, and if were are going to state what they were, we should try to be accurate about when they were held. Hobson lists 12 of the Provisional Committee as being IRB members when the volunteers were launched at the end of November. We know 3 more were added by the time of the Rising: Pearse, Plunkett, and MacDonagh. Pearse, by just about every account, became a member in late November or December 1913, so very shortly after this Council was formed (I think there is basic agreement on this). Plunkett and MacDonagh are more difficult to pin down. In any case, if we are to state their allegiance as IRB on the Provisional Council list, we should at least have evidence that they became IRB members while the Provisional Council was a functional body, which it would appear to be prior to October 1914. I have included members and their allegiances as of November 1913, which seems an appropriate time, as it was when the group was founded. Previously, May 1914 was mentioned, which seems a pretty arbitrary date (although there may have been a convention then). I'm going by Hobson's account, which may not be infallible, but it is quite thorough; he lists all members and puts them in 4 groups: IRB (12), IPP (4), AOH (4), and unaffiliated (10). We have, through other sources, added different affiliations, such as Gaelic League, Fianna, various publications, etc., which is fine, but those are not specified in the Hobson work. Domer has added the IRB label to Pearse, MacDonagh, Plunkett, and O'Lochlainn. The former three certainly were in the IRB eventually, but not at the formation. If Domer has a source specifying that O'Lochlainn was an IRB member, and when he might have become one, I should like to know what it is. Hobson's account says he wasn't one in November 1913 at least.

Other changes I made include the removal of a duplicate mention of Liam Mellowes: saying he was added later, while his name appears in the above list. That sort of counts him twice, and I don't know why. If Mellowes deserves separate mention it should be stated better, and explained why. I also changed an inconsistency, one paragraph quotes the manifesto attributing it to the manifesto, while the next quotes the same document but references it as MacNeill. While MacNeill did write it, we should be consistent with attribution. The previous phrasing makes it seem as though one statement is the official position of the Volunteers while the other is the personal opinion of MacNeill. They are both from the same document. I think that's all for now. I intend to add more to the organisation section, covering how the Volunteers were governed as time progressed, but it seems this isn't terribly straightforward and will take some research. I probably won;t have time until next week. -R. fiend (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Per the source I've used their allegiances are stated, as are the dates. That Mellowes was brought to Dublin to increase their numbers is in itself informative. The statement is attributed to MacNeill and no it does not makes it seem as though one statement is the official position of the Volunteers. I have included also what the view of the IRB was also. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added correctly referenced and sourced information, and it has now been removed three times. I have added nothing that is not in the source, adding information that is informative and subject pecific. The rational being used is without merit or foundation with the editor again using incivility to make a point. This is the last time I'll be replacing this information, I will not replace it again pending a third opinion. This type of disruption really needs to be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've explained my edits in great detail. You, as always, have just said "sources". I have sources too. Sourcing your edits doesn't mean that you haven't screwed up how you've used them (such as with Mellowes; I'll fix that myself later, if you really think he needs to be singled out) or your POV phrasing of "the manifesto says..." for the more militant stuff and "MacNeill's opinion was..." for the less militant stuff, when they both quote the same document. Nor the discepancy about O'Lochlainn's membership in the IRB. I have a source saying he was not a member, I don't even know what your sourcing contradicting it is, or what it says. (Earlier you said your source didn't say who was and who wasn't in the IRB.) Furthermore, do you have a source that says Plunkett and MacDonagh were in the IRB while the Provisional Committee was a functioning body? If so I'd like you to quote the relevant passage here. Also the writing needs cleaning up. I'm going away for a few days, but I'll address this more when I return. If you could quote some relevant passages from sources in the meantime I'd appreciate it. -R. fiend (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of civility to respond would be to accept this conduct. You make a request in a civil manner, minus the personal attacks and you get a responce, simple really. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Good man Domer, make sure the you don't debate the content issues anyway. Much better to quote rules at people eh? Jdorney (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Good man Jdorney, make sure the you don't debate the content issues anyway. Much better to comment on the editor eh? BigDunc 11:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Since no one seems to have a reliable source on when Plunkett, MacDonagh, and O'Lochlainn joined the IRB, and if it was before the Provisional Committee ceased functioning (evidently in Oct, 1914) saying the IRB held half the committee appears to be unfounded. If someone can quote a passage making this absolutely clear, they should do so. I have a list of IRB members at the time of the official formation of the Volunteers, and being the most specific list, we should go with that to avoid problems of chronology. In the meantime, there are other edits that keep getting reverted in this squabble, including the POV attribution of the manifesto. If no one cares to discuss this here, they should prepare to see their edits reverted. Posting platitudes, by the way, does not qualify as "discussion". -R. fiend (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What Lynch says;

"I give hereunder the names of those who were memebrs of the governing committee of the Irish Volunteers from November 1913 to October 1914...The IRB list is definite..."

1. Patrick Pearse
2. Thomas MacDonagh
3. Joseph M. Plunkett
4. Patrick O'Riain
5. Bulmer Hobson
6. Séamus O'Connor
7. Peadar Macken
8. Seán Mac Diarmada
9. Eamonn Ceannt
10. Con Colbert
11. Piaras Béaslaí
12. Eamon Martin
13. Liam Mellows
14. Robert Page
15. Colm O'Loughlin
16. Michael Lonergan

The above analysis, showing the IRB majority on the committee... BigDunc 19:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dunc, that is the source I have been using, and it just keeps being ignored! --Domer48_'fenian' 19:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So I noticed. BigDunc 19:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I corrected the page number for F.L.S. Lyons reference, and this fifth revert is not supported. While mentioning the manifesto the author does not quote from the manifesto, he quotes the North Began article. However it still get reverted. The responce in this edit summary is less than helpful, and considered a personal attack and should be discouraged. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire, it is from the manifesto, under the section "Our object" it explicitly says "The object proposed for the Irish Volunteers is to secure and maintain the rights and liberties common to the whole people of Ireland. Their duties will be defensive and protective, and they will not contemplate either aggression or domination. Their ranks are open to all able-bodied Irishmen without distinction of creed, politics or social grade..." So that edit needs to stay.

As for the quoted passage, now we're getting somewhere. However, this seems to state that as early as November 1913 Plunkett and MacDonagh were on the IRB, when they in fact were not (nor, apparently was O'Lochlainn, but he's not really an important figure); they joined sometime later. While no one denies that they were eventually IRB members (with the possible exception of O'Lochlainn), implying that they were at the Volunteers' formation is misleading, if not downright erroneous. I'm looking for sources on when the two of them joined the IRB, but it's not easy. Now, I also have a source, though unlike Lynch, it's specific as to who was on the IRB at a given time (that is November 1913). Pearse joined in November or December, so we know he was an immediate addition. Plunkett, MacDonagh, and O'Lochlainn are the unknowns. That's why I went with my edit: it says what we all, I think, agree on (and is well sourced):

1. at the committee's status at the Rotunda meeting, there were 12 IRB men
2. Pearse joined immediately afterwards
3. Sometime later (no years, let alone dates, specified) Plunkett, MacDonagh, and (I guess) O'Lochlainn joined too.

More important than some of these details, I think, is: what happened in October 1914 that changed the committee? Who governed the Volunteers then? The IRB's standing prior to the Rising is of as much or more significance than its standing in 1914. I'll look into this when I have a chance. In the meantime, can someone provide a more complete quote from Lynch, as the ellipses obfuscate exactly what he's saying? The book sounds interesting and I'd like to get a copy, but sadly I don't have $300 to spare right now. -R. fiend (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Lynch, is very specific as to who was in the IRB and who were also memebrs of the governing committee of the Irish Volunteers from November 1913 to October 1914.Plunkett, was an immediate addition to the MC and MacDonagh was last to join. Having cited a source for O'Lochlainn being a member of the IRB you still kept reverting and said that I had not. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

When you say Plunkett was an immediate addition to the MC, what do mean, and what is the MC in this case? I agree that MacDonagh was last to join the IRB. I think I recall reading that he became an IRB member in 1916, but I'll have to check up on that. In the meantime, there is no disagreement on who was on the Provisional Committee, so we can stop arguing about that. The only question remains were these 3 men IRB members while they were on the Provisional Committee, or did they take the oath after the Committee ceased to exist? If the latter, then the IRB did not hold half the seats or more on the committee (as they cannot retroactively hold seats). Lynch seems to say they were members at the time, but it's unclear exactly what he's saying from the clips provided. I'm just trying to figure out when the sources are in agreement and when they differ, so we can at least include what everyone agrees on in the article. -R. fiend (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Military Council (MC). There is conflicting accounts on who was on the Provisional Committee. The source clearly says that between November 1913 to October 1914 16 members of the IRB were on the governing committee of the Irish Volunteers. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military Council has nothing to do with this article. It isn't even mentioned here. Bringing irrelevancies into the discussion does no good. As for conflicting accounts of who was on the Provisional Committee, I have seen none. Other than Hobson's early account in which he accidentally leaves out 2 names, it appears all sources list the same 30 people as members. That is not the issue. If Lynch says unequivocally that from November 1913 until October 1914, 16 of the Committee members were IRB men (and I have seen nothing indicating that he says that exactly) then either he is wrong or every other source is. Plunkett and MacDonagh were not IRB members in 1913. Until now I never thought that point was even in contention. They joined later, though it is difficult to say exactly when, as much of the IRB is shrouded in secrecy.

It seems to me that we're getting into way too many insignificant details here. Almost no sources try to give such meticulous accounts, and I really don't see why we're trying to. I think we should stick with the more basic facts as they are known. I'd be glad to let some of these details go, but if we are going to include them I think we need to be as accurate as possible. I think what is much more important is covering what happened to the Provisional Council after October 1914, and what governed the Volunteers then. That's a much more substantial point than trying to figure out exactly who was in the IRB at exactly what point. -R. fiend (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have sources that challange Lynch put them up here. The Military Council has a lot to do with this article, to suggest otherwise is bizarre. On conflicting accounts of who was on the origional Provisional Committee, you say "I have seen none" and go on to say "other than Hobson's early account" which is contradicting yourself. Lynch is quoted above, that you refuse to accept it is neither here nor there. Details on the formation of the Volunteers is not insignificant details on an article about the Volunteers. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering the Military Council hasn't been part of the discussion, and isn't even mentioned in the article, why you suddenly brought them into the discussion is beyond me, but no matter. As for the makeup of the Provisional Committee, there seems to be no disagreement on its 30 members (yes, Hobson gives 28 names in an early account, but corrects himself very specifically in a later one, so there is no disagreement there). How long that group of 30 governed the Volunteers is a slightly different matter; I thought I recalled some of the IPP guys joined the National Volunteers after the Redmond split, but I'll look into that when I expand the section on Redmond moving in and then splitting off.

As for sources that challenge Lynch, I can't exactly say what does or doesn't, as I still don't know exactly what Lynch says. Right now I have a few sentence fragments, which is better than nothing, but still doesn't give a very full picture of what Lynch is saying. As I said, the names of the 30 men on the Committee seem to adhere to the other sources, so that isn't the issue. I can quote Hobson for you if you like. Here's what he says (in the list I'll just give last names to save me having to type too much, we know who these people are):

"Of the Provisional Committee of thirty set up on the formation of the Volunteers, the following is the analysis, as far as I can remember:

Members of the IRB:

Beaslai

Ceannt

Colbert

Hobson

Lonergan

MacDermott

Macken

Martin

Mellows

O'Connor

O'Riain

Page

Members of the United Irish League - Irish Parliamentary Party:

Gore

Kettle, T.

Kettle, L.

Moore

Ancient Order of Hibernians:

Judge

Lenehan

O'Reilly

Walsh

Not formally affiliated with any party:

Casement

Fitzgibbon

Gogan

MacDonagh

MacNeill

O'Lochlainn

O'Rahilly

Pearse

Plunkett

White

Pearse, MacDonagh and Plunkett later became members of the IRB. Liam Gogan was brought in to the Volunteers by Eoin MacNeill. He was a student of MacNeill's in the Faculty of Celtic Studies. He acted for a while as secretary, being succeeded by Liam Mellows. MacNeill and Kettle were honorary secretaries, but they were not members of the IRB.

There was no formal executive until after the Convention of 1914. MacNeill, Fitzgibbon and I, however, met almost daily and were often joined by Casement, Moore and O'Rahilly. We frequently met in MacNeill's house in Herbert Park."

I think that basically agrees with Lynch, though it's hard for me to say. So we start off with 12 IRB members, with 3 more joining later (Pearse, MacDonagh, and Plunkett). Lynch evidently mentions another, O'Lochlainn, and while Hobson has him listed as not an IRB member in November, he doesn't say he didn't join after that. If Lynch lists him then it seems he did in fact join at some point, and Hobson didn't mention it because he wasn't an important figure the way the other three were. If any of this is specifically contradicted by Lynch I'd like to know in what way. In any case, I think this formal executive mentioned by Hobson, and the Convention it followed, are more important than some of these details. I'll be looking more into that as time permits. In the meantime, a more complete quote from Lynch would help discern if and what discrepancies might exist. -R. fiend (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What source are you citing from? There are no discrepancies that between November 1913 to October 1914 16 members of the IRB were on the governing committee of the Irish Volunteers.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The source is the same Hobson source I've been using all along, Foundation and Growth of the Irish Volunteers from the Martin edited Irish Volunteers 1913-1915. As for discrepancy, if Lynch states that in November 1913, there were 16 IRB men on the Provisional Committee, then yes, he contradicts Hobson (and, I'm quite sure, most other accounts) who says there were 12 then (13 if you count Pearse, who became a member apparently almost immediately), if he's merely saying that by October 1914 there were 16 IRB men on the committee, then he may or may not contradict other sources (Hobson, at least, does not contradict that explicitly, as he doesn't make any specific claim as to who was in the IRB on that date). I still don't know exactly what Lynch says. -R. fiend (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd still like to see a more complete excerpt from Lynch so I can try to incorporate his view as I try to expand some of this and clean up some of the writing. Right now I have three sentence fragments, which don't even seem to be from consecutive sentences, and a list of 13 names. Based on one of the sentence fragments, it appears the list is supposed to be of members of the Provisional Committee, but it's clearly of the Committee's IRB members. Can I get the entire paragraph? I've been quite forthcoming about supplying passages from books I have but others don't. Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dunc has listed above the IRB members who were on the governing committee of the Volunteers. If you wish me to include the none IRB members also I will, but there mentioned above already. Lynch says that the IRB list is "definite." --Domer48_'fenian' 07:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I know who was on the Provisional Committee. That is not the issue (unless Lynch gives different names than the ones provided in the article already, but I assume he doesn't or it would have been mentioned by now). I would simply like to know what Lynch says about the formation of the Volunteers and the committee itself. 3 out-of-context sentence fragments don't really help too much, though it does at least clear up the O'Lochlainn question. I wish I had the book myself, but I don't have a few hundred dollars to spend on it, so I have to rely on others. If you have the book it would be helpful to quote the relevant passages in full here. -R. fiend (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

3 out-of-context sentence fragments don't really help too much? The O'Lochlainn question is addressed, he was IRB, and the number of IRB on the governing committee is addressed. This is what this tread was about, and has been addressed. What Lynch says about the formation of the Volunteers and the committee itself, is a different issue. I'll add some information on it later, and start a new tread on it. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)