Talk:Ulster Volunteer Force

2005 Comments: Bias

Aughavey 29 June 2005 13:49 (UTC) Just a note to say that whilst the article is based in truth it is also biased. The conflict in Northern Ireland was ethnic-religious by the fact that largely, although by no means unanimously, the Catholic (Nationalist / Republican) people did not support the Northern Ireland state or its continuing links to the UK prefering to obtain reunification with the South of Ireland whilst the Protestant population were largely Unionist / Loyalist in out look wishing to retain Ireland (Northern Ireland after partition - the vast majority of Irish Protestants live in Ulster) within the UK.

The comment about the Ulster Defence Regiment helping with the Dublin bombing is also unsubstantiated. The Barron report could not find any eveidence for this but did not rule out individual members of the security forces colluding with the UVF.*

• This has recently been proven TRUE, as of 22nd Jan 2007...."Police colluded with loyalists behind over a dozen murders in north Belfast, a report by the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland has confirmed.

Nuala O'Loan's report said UVF members in the area committed murders and other serious crimes while working as informers for Special Branch."

Aughavey 1 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

"These attacks were carried out in conjunction with the Ulster Protestant Volunteers, another paramilitary organisation, which had been established by the Reverend Ian Paisley. Many men were members of both groups."

This is entirely unsubstantiated. From the University of Ulster CAIN website:- Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV) A Loyalist paramilitary style grouping which was established in the late 1960s. The UPV had close links with the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee (UCDC) which was established by Ian Paisley in 1966. The UPV took part in most of the counter demonstrations organised by Paisley against the Civil Rights marches of the late 1960s. The motto of the UPV was, 'For God and Ulster'.

Ulster Constitution Defence Committee (UCDC) The UCDC was established in 1966 and was made up of a committee of 13 with Ian Paisley as the head of the committee. The UCDC was the means by which Paisley led the protest against the reforms of Terence O'Neill in the late 1960s. The UCDC was also the ruling body of the Loyalist paramilitary style grouping the Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV).

Aughavey 14:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Mr McCord was in Washington for St Patricks Day 2005 alongside the McCartney sisters who`s brother was killed by Sinn Fein / IRA members and also the widow of Detective Garda McCabe(Irish police officer) who was shot during a bungled IRA armed robbery to campaign in america against the Loyalist and Republican paramilitaries.

Reaction: Sinn Féin/IRA? Robert McCartney was murdered by members of the (late) IRA for sure, but by members of Sinn Féin...?

Disambiguation Page?

I am new to Wiki, so bear with me as I figure out how to organize my comments and keep them separate from others'. I wanted to say, after reading this article, and then going to the article about the IRA, this one seems extremely biased. There is so much about the anti-Catholicism that it actually serves to stir people up, thinking only formed for purposes of religious hatred. Contrast this article to the one about the IRA. The one for the IRA, which was/is composed of Roman Catholics who were usually fighting against Protestants, is written in a much more objective style. For example, the article on the IRA notes that the British gov. considers them a terrorist group, but supporters prefer "freedom fighters", "guerillas", etc. For the Ulster article, it is simply said this group is terrorist. Then it goes on and on about all the anti-Catholic rhetoric. Whoever wrote this, is either Catholic and very anti-protestant, or...? because there seems to be an angry undertone, as if this author takes personal offense. It needs to be rewritten, if it is to be suitable for an encylopedia Honeytrap

Hello, Would this article not be better and more clear if it was made into a form of disambiguation page. The original "Ulster Volunteer Force" is in no way related to the current paramilitary/terrorist organisation that uses the name. Having them in the same article implies tat they are the same organisation. Comments please.

Jonto 01:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be different pages. Jdorney 16:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ulster Volunteer Force today is the same force when it was first established but today are known as paramilitary/terrorist organisation , thats the only difference. [Unsigned]

I think this should be made into a form of disambiguation page with Links to Ulster Volunteer Force (1912) and Ulster Volunteer Force (1966), as they are clearly two distinct organisations.--padraig3uk 16:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dublin/Monaghan bombings collusion

The UVF issued a statement[1] in 1993 claiming they carried out the bombings alone.

The Barron report [2] says this: "However, while [Mr. Justice Barron] felt there was direct evidence that collusion was operating in Northern Ireland at that time, he also felt there was no evidence to suggest direct collusion in relation to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.". (That's not to say there was no collusion of course, especially given the incompetent Garda investigation and the various other confirmed cases of loyalist/security force collusion, but the word "alleged" is necessary as a disclaimer.)

Demiurge 10:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The UVF are terrorists... Plain and simple... Not "defenders" just psychopats... murders...

I personally think 'Death Squad' is a more accurate label. SCVirus 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

When exactly did the UVF "defend" the Loyalist people? The well armed police in Northern Ireland consisted, and still consists of, a large majority of Protestants. It's members therefore have always been broadly sympathetic to the Loyalist community. Surely this was the most effective defense they had?

The UVF never protected Protestants, the vast majority of it's victims were civilians that were targeted for their religion rather than as part of any specific strategy against the IRA. This would indicate that it's motives were hatred of Catholics rather than protection of it's own community.

Indeed, considering the fact that the UVF killed a total of 21 IRA or INLA members throughout the entire troubles (the UDA got another 2), while they murdered over 350 civilians (the UDA murdered another 78), they cannot be considered by any sane individual defenders. SCVirus 05:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) PS: please sign your messages people.

To the above 'For God And Ulster' person - Can't you grasp that this is an encyclopedia? Keep your opinions off it. If you think Ulster will remain british, fine, but don't try to provoke people by putting in on Wikipedia. There are plenty of Loyalist websites you can post your opinions on.--Dicdoc 15:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To the "for god and for ulster" guy. This is an encyclopedia. Go away back to followfollow.com and take your bigoted, hate filled, loyalist pish with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.34.78 (talk • contribs) on 01:30, 21 February 2006

i'm sure the southern irish volunteers who fought within the 36th division would be proud of your comments, as for facts and figures , the ira has killed a lot more catholics than the loyalist paramilitaries ever did , but unlike your green tinted view (you're not american by any chance) this is an explanation of the original u.v.f and not the drug dealing gangsters of today, their deeds are well documented

I removed all the above comments from the "For God and Ulster" individual. This is a discussion page that is to be used to discuss ways improving this artical. Please direct any sectairian rantingas you may have to the various loyalist terrorist websites. Google them if you must. (213.190.156.154 (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Add some things

Added an image and some history. This article should be ten times longer :/ Fluffy999 06:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Added another image, article needs more detail. It doesnt compare to all the Sinn Fein/IRA articles- just appears to go from listing one atrocity to another. Will see if I can add some details Fluffy999 22:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the images will need to go- just noticed that you can only have 1 TV screenshot per article. An article on loyalist weaponry/importation might work- like the PIRA one. Will investigate. Fluffy999 16:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not be responding to messages left on my talkpage or on pages for articles I have worked on. Will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. Thank you. Fluffy999 13:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

C18 Link?

I've removed the link to Combat 18 in 'See Also'.

The only mention of C18 in Henry McDonald's 2000 history of the UVF is "..the UVF threatened another nazi group C18, which was also attempting to organise in the east of the city.....the organisation was not exactly true to its own militaristic name and offered no combat at all against the UVF threat" pg220.

Nick Lowles's history of C18 "White Riot" makes no mention of any links to the UVF. What loyalist connections C18 had where with the UDA or later the LVF. Whiteabbey 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the UVF did have some links with C18 according to Lowles see here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

Seems non of the external links works, is it only my problem? else, they should be delete. Dorit 19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Drug dealing activity

It seems a pretty obvious omission from the article.Irish Republican 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So put it in then! Logoistic 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

website

Why did you remove my link to the UVF homepage? Surely an article on the UVF should include links to their own website! Also someone reffered to the UVF as a 'Nazi' organization. I know who sided with the Nazis during WWII and that was the IRA. Many UVF members fought and died .in the British army agianst Hilter. I supose it's more of the same usual leftist rubbish of reffering to anone who they don't like as a 'Fascist' or a 'Nazi'.

The link was dead as I stated, feel free to insert a link that works. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The link to The UVF The Ulster People's Army does work so please do no delete it! Herut

Doesn't work on Firefox, so I've removed it per WP:EL. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work in IE either, but strangely it does work in Safari. Any ideas why? Vilĉjo 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The UVF are leftist, at least their political representatives the PUP are. Hachimanchu (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Reverted copy back to undo page vandalism Rascilon 23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UVFcrest.jpg

Image:UVFcrest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag error

The link that claims that the Ulster's took responsiblity for the McGurk bombing is simply a list of the deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.21.16 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Added second reference, a member of the UVF was convicted for the bombings.--Padraig (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing citations

I have marked statements in the section on the UVF's activity in the 1980s and 90s with citation needed. This is mainly because it makes some rather sweeping statements without providing any references. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence that the arms imported were bought from South Africa and plenty that they were bought from a Lebanese arms dealer. As for Ulster Resistance being involved with the UVF and UDA, it seems to me very unlikely given the state of the relationship between these groups at the time. I have also added further clarification that Michael Stone was a UDA member and not in the UVF. IrishPete (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not difficult to source, I'll do it later. It's well documented that a substantial cache of arms was imported and split three ways between UR, the UDA and the UWF. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't done it - please provide the citations for your statements.

Non-sourced allegation

The parts of the article regarding 1970s collusion between the security forces and the UVF aren't supported by the inflammatory propaganda offered in the link. If it is true, shouldn't we cite to a semi-credible source? I don't dispute the allegation, but their is no evidence presented. 24.33.149.118 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

CAIN?

As far as Ican work out, the CAIN database is on who died, not who killed as is quoted on this page. Otherwise 1799 civilians killed people, and I'm pretty sure it means "were killed". Therefore, the line "The UVF has killed more people than any other loyalist paramilitary organisation. According to the University of Ulster's Sutton database, the UVF was responsible for 426 killings during the Troubles, between 1969 and 2001" is completely inaccurate and misleading. 86.165.132.184 (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added a citation to the Cain site as evidence of the total no. of people *known to have been killed by the UVF and groups allied to it. But finding a citation for the "80% Catholic" casualty rate (although I believe this to be correct), may not be so straightforward. Billsmith60 (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC).

Here are the figures from the Cain site (crosstabulation):

UVF: RC 276, Prot 105, Not NI 45, total 426.

PAF: RC 37, Prot 0, Not NI 0, total 37.

PAG: RC 5, Prot 0, Not NI 0, total 5.

RHC: RC 5, Prot 5, Not NI 3, total 13.

Totals: RC 323, Prot. 110, Not NI 48.

323 is 67% of 481, hence more than 2/3 were local Roman Catholics (i.e. from N. Ireland). Billsmith60 (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Deaths

20 out of 426? Is this not a reflection of the level of intelligence of the members? Perhaps a note of the low-level of proffesionalism in relation to the opposing IRA is recquired? I recall 2 UVF members accidentally blowing themselves up outside a post-office which they were planning on destroying. Moustan 86.10.97.187 (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Miami Showband Massacre

The article says that the Miami Showband's van was stopped outside Newry by a fake British Army checkpoint. Wasn't that a UDR checkpoint? Also is it not true that the two men killed were also suspected of having had a part in the Dublin/Monaghan bombings the previous year? It's strange that whenever collusion is alleged between the UDR and UVF there is the spectre of British Intelligence lurking in the background.--jeanne (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The UDR was a regiment of the British Army. Mooretwin (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, but as I recall the uniforms of the UDR were slightly different from that of the regular Army. Correct me if I'm mistaken.--jeanne (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how their uniforms are relevant! (Not aware of any difference, either - although happy to be educated.) Mooretwin (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some Editor can enlighten us as to the difference. Anyway, it wouldn't have made much difference to the occupants of the Showband van. To them, the checkpoint would have appeared to have been a British Army checkpoint. Sorry, I made such a fuss.--jeanne (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Area of Operations

As noted in the UDA Talk page, where do we draw the line with this? If you include the Republic of Ireland, you *must also include Great Britain, as the UVF was active in parts of England (Liverpool) and central Scotland. This included several paramilitary-type actions which led to members being jailed. I suggest that the infobox say "N. Ireland" only. Billsmith60 (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Different UVF brigades

The article mentions the Mid-Ulster Brigade. There was also the Belfast Brigade. But weren't there other brigades operating across the North? I believe there was a Shankill Brigade, and there was a group in the Tyrone/Fermanagh area. Were they a brigade with its own commander? The UVF were pretty active in the Omagh area in the mid-1970s. The article needs to list all the UVF brigades and their areas of operation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the Mid-Ulster brigade, Belfast brigade, East Antrim brigade, and North Down brigade named in books and/or news articles. The Mid-Ulster brigade seemed to cover the biggest area (north Armagh, southwest Antrim, east Tyrone, southeast Derry). I assume the UVF's structure was similar to that of the Provisional IRA (see here). It's possible that UVF groups outside those areas weren't attached to brigades. ~Asarlaí 16:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, those geographical areas were more correctly "battalions", not brigades, as outside Belfast no area had more than one battalion (I believe). And as the UVF's commander-in-chief holds the rank of brigadier-general, local commanders (like Billy Wright up to 1996) were colonels, the equivalent to battalion or regimental commanders. Billsmith60 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move (July 2011)

User:BoutYeBigLad has moved the page to "Ulster Volunteer Force (1966)" and "Ulster Volunteer Force" is now a disambiguation page. Ther was no consensus for any of this. I ask that an administrator revert the changes a.s.a.p. ~Asarlaí 13:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have made this request. There is no need for a UVF/Ulster Volunteer Force disambiguation page, really, as the 1912 incarnation was called the Ulster Volunteers. Billsmith60 (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not undiscussed. Please see point 2 in the table of contents - it is clearly ambiguous and was discussed before but people were too lazy to ever make the change. The original 1912/1913 were also known as the UVF or Ulster Volunteer Force (e.g. http://www.uvf.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=47, http://www.uvf.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=46&limit=1&limitstart=2 etc. etc. and thousands of other sources if you look) but not linked at all. The article on 1912/13 has been left at Ulster Volunteers, but it is wrong to let the more recent incarnation hijack "Ulster Volunteer Force" without some sort of disambig and qualifier, especially given that the earlier group in many ways are more significant given their role in giving Ulster Unionist self-determination recognition. BoutYeBigLad (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC) (I also reckon that all the IRA articles should be disambiguated, but there they have done the opposite and made the original IRA one dominant)

I agree with Asarlai. There was no consensus for the page move and suggest that the page be moved back to its original title of Ulster Volunteer Force.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a good move and should stay - it is much clearer and "Ulster Volunteer Force" should also stay as a distinct disambiguation page - clarity should be what prevails in any encyclopaedia. Neither UVF is a "primary topic" (the Wikipedia criteria for disambiguation). I would argue that the original Ulster Volunteer Force is even more historically significant than this one since is the original which led to the creation of Northern Ireland in the first place - perhaps a few people should read some books like "Carson's Army: the Ulster Volunteer Force, 1910-22": http://books.google.com/books?id=4D1oAAAAMAAJ&q=ulster+volunteer+force&dq=ulster+volunteer+force&hl=en&ei=GDQ3Tt_iPIys8QPdnJDrAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCg.

The current naming of "Ulster Volunteers" for the original UVF is not an obvious choice of naming as, to me, if I were looking for info on the original UVF I'd type "UVF" or "Ulster Volunteer Force". There are also several commemorations to the WWI UVF soldiers on the Somme right to this day - ambiguous article naming like what was here only increases ignorance around these events.

To recap over what has happened here previously: Originally someone had put the 2 Ulster Volunteer Forces into the same article. I proposed to split it out into Ulster Volunteer Force (1912) and Ulster Volunteer Force (1966). 3-1 in favour over 2 years (with the 1 anon objector being completely ignorant of the facts). It was left for years before anyone bothered to do the move, but when someone did they only made a half-assed job of it by not making it a disambig as agreed. They moved out other material into Ulster Volunteer Force (1912) and left the newer one simply at Ulster Volunteer Force. However, then someone moved Ulster Volunteer Force (1912) to Ulster Volunteers for the sole reason that the UVF was first formed in 1913 out of the 1912 Ulster Volunteers. Ulster Volunteer Force (1913) is a redirect to Ulster Volunteers. This recent change corrects all this mess and completes the original move properly.

No one has given any real logical reasoning why a clearer name should not stay either. Billsmith60 is frankly wrong as the 1912 Ulster Volunteers and 1913-1920s UVF were separate organisations as well.

Jonto (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The 1912 organisation *was called the Ulster Volunteers; there is no disputing that. And while I see that there is a need for a disambiguation page, that the "main" UVF should blink to an article entitled "Ulster Volunteer Force (1966)" is incorrect (despite the BBC saying so http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11313364). That organisation was formed in 1965 - according to the PUP, its political arm (http://progressiveunionistparty.org/articles/principles-of-loyalism/); and I recall an interview with Gusty Spence, its first military commander, that confirms it was 1965. So why don't the admin, people restore things to where they were and clear up the terrible mess user User:BoutYeBigLad has created *before* a new disambig. page is established and agreed. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your approach. It's also bias/PoV to suggest that this is the "main" UVF - all we can do is disambiguate, so am glad you agree to that (I think that the Irish Republican Army article is also biased/"PoVed" as it suggests that the original IRA is the "main" IRA - the opposite to what you are suggesting here for the other side of the fence). BoutYeBigLad made both a structural improvement and improvement in clarity/NPOV compared to before; moving things back will actually make them structurally WORSE as it will lose the disambiguation page. This article was ALWAYS a mess as the two Ulster Volunteer Forces where never clearly discussed separately as they should have been - this was made into a bigger mess when the article on the original UVF was separated out and the agreed approach to have a disambiguation page was not initially followed (BoutYeBigLad corrected that and was more in line with the original consensus).

The point about exact dates (if there actually ever was an exact date in the first place) is minor and can be easily adjusted. There is no need to undo a structural improvement when that same structure is the one that is needed. You'd be better taking up your issue with exact dates with every single Wikipedia article on the modern UVF first as they all say 1966. After then this article can easily be moved to Ulster Volunteer Force (1965), Ulster Volunteer Force (1960s) or Ulster Volunteer Force (1960s-present). I don't think that the exact date of formation is very clear (it's likely to have formed over a period of several months and not at an instant - even the article you link to isn't clear on who formed it and exactly when) so perhaps the latter suggestion may be best - i.e. I would favour moving this article to Ulster Volunteer Force (1960s-present) (cf Irish Republican Army (1922–1969) ). Jonto (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need for any date to be added to the title of this article. Ulster Volunteer Force worked fine until this undiscussed move. Dates should be avoided as part of article titles unless they are necessary to a reader's understanding of the subject. This is not the case here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of the pertinent points as to the need for unambiguous clarity here. Almost every other year I hear some media story in NI in outrage at some Somme commemoration or another with WWI UVF involvement - it's ambiguous article titles like what was here that are a factor in causing this ignorance.

The article did not "work fine" either - half of the articles on NI issues are in an absolutely dire state at the moment - the fact that no one changes them is probably less to do with that they are clear and correct and more to do with people have no time for the typical edit warring that occurs on NI articles. Jonto (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Folks, notwithstanding the substantive points about the need for a disambig. page, etc., surely this is primarily about Wiki's policies and procedures, and driving a horse and cart through them appearing to be condoned! The key word in all this is "undiscussed", as Jeanne notes. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like some people care more about Wikipedia bureaucracy and procedures more than they do about factual accuracy and clarity of information. What has happened is entirely in line with WP:BOLD and is the correct spirit if accuracy is to be gained anywhere. Again, this was discussed, so if would be helpful to talk constructively here about the topic at hand rather than ranting about Wikipedia protocol. Jonto (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it *wasn't discussed, friend; that's the point! An editor made wholesale changes to an article then started discussing it. So far there is a majority *against those sweeping changes which, in no way, adhere to Wiki's procedures on being "bold". My use of "driving horses and carts" is entirely appropriate. Let's have the article restored to where it was, in accordance with the majority wishes of those who have expresed an opinion, and we can surely discuss the disambig. page., etc. Billsmith60 (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's drop the 1966 from the title as it doesn't need to be there.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we should re-cap what has actually happened so far. This article was renamed Ulster Volunteer Force (1966) and Ulster Volunteer Force was made a disambiguation page. The effect of this so-called bold move is to by-pass BRD, because the move cannot be reversed without an RM. However, no Ulster Volunteer Force (1913) article was created, so the parenthesis in this article title now disambiguates it from an article that doesn't exist! This is against naming principles and disambiguation principles. Personally, I think Ulster Volunteer Force (1966) is an awful name. It gives the impression that the organisation was a flash-in-the-pan affair in the mid-twentieth century, before the Troubles began. But I wouldn't oppose it if there was any kind of consensus at all for keeping it. There should be an RM opened at once to move this article back, and in the interim Ulster Volunteer Force should be made a redirect to this page. If that RM fails - and not until then - there should be an immediate discussion (not a bold move) either to move Ulster Volunteers to Ulster Volunteer Force (1913) or to split it into Ulster Volunteer Force (1913) and an article on the 1912 body. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we drop the "undiscussed" stick please. Although not recent, it was discussed at Talk:Ulster Volunteer Force (1966)#Disambiguation Page? where there was no opposition. I'm not keen on the current title since it favours the generally accepted idea that the UVF was formed in 1966, although Gusty Spence doesn't agree with this and his version of the "formation" does tend to get coverage if not always acceptance. That said I'm struggling to come up with a better title (other than a move back to Ulster Volunteer Force) since "1960s" isn't that good either since Spence's account doesn't give a formation date IIRC, from memory it was more of an implication of a secret continuation of the original UVF. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pushing it a bit to say a thing was discussed on the basis of some comments five or six years ago! If we made a habit of changing articles without notifying anybody because changes were "discussed" in 2005 it would lead to a lot of grief on a lot of articles. Scolaire (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no opposition from me because I was on holiday at the time and had limited access to a PC and Wikipedia. Had I not been away, there would have been strenuous protests on my part at this bold move. I do not see why we need dates at all for Spence's organistion seeing as most people would not necessarily associate it with a particular year whereas they would with the original UVF. Why not leave the 1966 UVF as plain unadorned Ulster Volunteer Force while we add 1913 to the article on the original group?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Because that would give primacy to the 1966 organisation. Mooretwin (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Like it or not, the primary meaning of Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) is the current organization. The current organization is also the one that has used the name for the longest; much, much longer than the 'original'. ~Asarlaí 14:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's merely your opinion. Mooretwin (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The current organization has used the name UVF for at least 45 years. For nearly 40 years, it has been consistently in the news and consistently referd to as the UVF (without any disambiguation). The same can't be said of the 1913 organization. ~Asarlaí 21:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually Jeanne there was no opposition from you because the last post in the discussion was over a year before you created your account, unless you're admitting this isn't your first account? ;) 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside any arguments about how the move was brought about, I support the current title of this article as necessary to distinguish it from the original UVF organisation. Mooretwin (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

ONIH, this is certainly my first account. I have never edited at Wikipedia before 2 April 2008. I assumed the discussion was made after the move this summer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

So who's going to open the RM, then? I will if nobody else wants to. Scolaire (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not au fait with Wikipedia policies on this sort of thing, but to me "Ulster Volunteer Force (1966)" means an organisation that existed in that year alone. It also seems completely silly to have a disambiguation page when there is a sum total of two organisations that have existed by the name "Ulster Volunteer Force"; we now have more pages than there were organisations! All each article needs is a note at the top with a link to the other.

In my view, such as it's worth anything, we should have the "modern" organisation at "Ulster Volunteer Force" and the "historic" organisation at "Ulster Volunteers". It's a slightly artificial distinction, but then all the alternatives are equally artificial (if not more so).

</two cents>

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Ulster Volunteer Force (1966) → Ulster Volunteer Force – There is no need for parenthetical disambiguation as there is no other article with the same name. An article on an earlier organisation with the same name is at Ulster Volunteers, and there has been no attempt to move it. The status quo ante (this article was unilaterally moved three weeks ago) never previously seemed to present a problem. Additionally, the single year (1966) is confusing in the context of an organisation that is still in existence today. A return to the status quo ante need not preclude a proper discussion of long-term changes to both articles. Scolaire (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support The addition of 1966 could possibly lead some readers unfamiliar with the history of Northern Ireland to think this organisation existed solely in that year. Ulster Volunteer Force is an adequate title and should never have been moved sans prior discussion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons stated. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
• Support for the reasons given by myself (and others) in the section above. ~Asarlaí 20:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - seems sensible, but would have a hat note at the top of the article pointing to the 1912/3 organisation --RA (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. --Scolaire (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - pending a general agreement on how to name the two articles. Mooretwin (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mooretwin. We should hash this one out first. JonChapple^Talk 22:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - my views have been given at length in this page. And will an administrator warn user "BoutYeBigLad" - who appeared out of nowhere and hasn't been seen (thankfully) for a month - about his future conduct in creating this shambles in the first place? Billsmith60 (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so there is no need for a disambiguator. This is also a very poorly chosen disambiguator. Kauffner (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - says who? Mooretwin (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
    • 6425 views a month for this page, compared to 1480 for Ulster Volunteers. If the earlier organization is usually known as "Ulster Volunteers", the margin for UVF is even larger than these numbers suggest. Kauffner (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - as has been said, the single year lends to confusion. I think it's worth noting that there are 2 discussions going on here: the first focusing on whether we should move this article back, the second on what we should call the two UVF-related articles. Lets stick to the first discussion, then address the definitive naming of the UVF articles later. Maethordaer (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - The parenthetical "1966" is, as Kauffner notes, a rather poor choice of disambiguator. The current title gives the impression that this article is about an organization that existed only in 1966 or that it is about one particular year in the history of the UVF (compare with Spanish Civil War, 1937). It may be the case that additional discussion about both articles is needed – on this point, it is my understanding that the pre-move naming reflected WP:PRIMARYTOPIC – but, in the meantime, that should not deter us from freeing this article of its confusing and misleading parenthetical disambiguator. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I don't find this title confusing, but discussion shows that it is clearly the primary topic for the undisambiguated name. The hatnote link to the Ulster Volunteers means that any small number of editors who end up here can easily find that article. Warofdreams talk 11:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Second sentence of the lead

I know there's an ideological link and an unbroken tradition of sorts between the 1913 UVF and this one, but still the second sentence looks kinda clunky to me:

• The current incarnation was formed in early 1966 and named after the original...but there are no links to the original organisation of that name.

Surely "It was formed in early 1966" is all that's needed? And then, in a separate sentence, "It was named after the UVF of 1913, with whom its founders had a strong ideological affinity", or something of that sort? Scolaire (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. Although I don't think the "ideological affinity" part is strictly neccessary – "It was formed in early 1966 and named for the UVF of 1913..." would do. If it's named after it, it's safe to assume that the modern UVF admired the old one. JonChapple^Talk 06:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I have noticed for some time that the Mid-Ulster Brigade is referred to in this. Why is it there? As a comparator, the Provisional IRA page lists the command as "IRA Army Council" and does not mention South Armagh or any other area.

The MBU was only one of a number of brigades; listing its leaders in the infobox is not appropriate. The MBU had its own command structure, of course, but it was neither a separate entity within the UVF nor independent of the Belfast leadership.

For instance, Robin Jackon remained loyal to the "Eagle" (popular name for the UVF HQ) in 1996/97, while also keeping in with Bily Wright. And it was the central leadership in Belfast that stood down the MUB in 1997, leading it to break away and form the LVF. Brigades or battalions naturally had freedom of operation within their own areas but were under the control of the central leadership, even if nominally so on occasions. I recommend that all references to the MBU, or any brigade, be removed from the infobox

The leadership of the UVF was the Brigade Staff, comprising the CoS or "brigadier-general", his no. 2 - a full colonel, and a number of others of lieutenant-colonel rank. Battalion commanders, also of lieutenant-colonel rank, made up the full complement of the Brigade Staff. When I get time, I will add in a section on the leadership. For now, though, views on the substantive point about the infobox are welcome. [And Gusty Spence appearing there as leader 1966-78 is also incorrect but can be discussed separately]. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade has its own article. As a unit of the IRA it was notable enough to have its own page, same as the MUB is notable enough to warrant its own article. As regards the "Eagle", why not add this to the article along with the source? I think it's informative. Regarding the Brigade Staff leadership, is it prudent to give the name of the Brigadier-General, seeing as he's a living person? If we list his name (we both know who I'm talking about), the sources have to be impeccable. As for the infobox, I added the info on the MUB before I craeted an article on them.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm speaking from a position of almost total ignorance, but it does seem strange to have the leaders of one brigade in an infobox on the whole force, especially when the brigade isn't even mentioned in the lead. I would suggest taking the MUB and its leaders out of the infobox, and instead summarising the 1970s and post-ceasefire content - where the brigade is dealt with - in a new paragraph in the lead. Scolaire (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Gun over the Bomb

Thanks to One Night In Hackney for clarifying the reference. The point remains, though, that the author has made a highly dubious claim about the IRA which affects the wording of the text relating to the UVF. The reality is (God, that sounds like Gerry Adams!!) that the Provies used the bomb and gun to equal effect *given that guns were easier to obtain and far more plentiful than bombs, which had to be assembled, and which they used plentifully and indiscriminately. I'd, therefore, suggest dropping the words: "Like the IRA" [before] Both the UVF and UDA preferred the gun over the bomb", otherwise the article is incorrect. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really incorrect, just a matter of perspective. Depends how they arrived at the conclusion, but it's not an unreasonable one. In terms of total incidents, the number of shots fired by the IRA in the early-mid 1970s probably outnumber the number of bombs. Or if it's from an idelogical perspective, they preferred the gun over the bomb as it's more of a legitimate military tactic. Operationally the choice of weapon would be affected the circumstances of the target, for example if they'd indentified a weakness in a target's routine where he visited a shop at the same time each week, then a shooting may be the best option. In contrast, if there was no such weakness but he didn't check his car properly for bombs, then an under car bomb may have been the preferred option. Equally there were constraints on the UDA and UVF operations. The UDA were certainly lacking in competent bomb makers, and while they had some they didn't have anywhere near the same number as the IRA. And again you've got to look at things from a loyalist operational perspective, what was the best weapon for the job, and were bombs available if needed? I think the whole sentence is a bit of an over simplification of things to be honest, and I'd remove the whole thing. It's one thing to say "Most of the UVF attacks were gun attacks" but it's a different thing to say the gun was the preferred weapon, when in reality it was the one most available and most suitable for the job. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Using the gun over the bomb eliminated the risk of "own goals", which had cost the UVF dearly in the Miami Showband massacre and the bombing of Conway's pub. There was only one skilled bomb-maker in the UVF and that was Billy Hanna. Once he was shot for having been an alleged informer, the UVF no longer had the capacity to carry out another Dublin and Monaghan.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote is taken from page 160 of Native vs. Settler: Ethnic conflict in Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland, and South Africa. The chapter is about loyalist paramilitaries and a lot of it can be red on Google Books. What the writer means is that most loyalist attacks wer gun attacks: "The loyalists also preferred the gun over the bomb. Most of their victims were shot to death, or during the 1973–75 period stabbed and beaten to death. Relatively few of their 900 plus victims died in or from explosions".

As Billsmith sayd, the words "like the IRA" should be removed as this isn't what the book says. The sentense is "The loyalists also preferred the gun over the bomb" but it should really be "Also, the loyalists preferred the gun over the bomb". The paragraf before it doesn't mention the IRA preferring gun attacks.

~Asarlaí 14:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Then to whom do you think the "also" is in reference? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it isn't in reference to enyone. The word also doesn't seem to be being used in the comparativ sense. He isn't saying "Tom went to the shop. I also went to the shop" but rather "I went to the pub. I also went to the shop". Check it on Google Books for yourself. ~Asarlaí 15:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

While it's true that far more people died at the hands of UVF guns rather than bombs, let us not forget the devastating forementioned Dublin and Monaghan car bombings which caused the greatest loss of life in a single day during the Troubles' history and McGurk's pub bombing in 1971 (this killed 15 people). They also bombed Dublin twice in 1972 and 1973, and Kay's Tavern in Dundalk.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The word "also" clearly refers to someone, otherwise it would simply read "The loyalists preferred the gun over the bomb" without needing the word also...

You need to read the earlier parts of the book, particularly p. 56, about the IRA's guerrilla war aspect of its campaign, then notice it talks about the same guerrilla war aspect on page 160. But, really, read it all, not just selected bits. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 15:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to talk about (and oversimplify) IRA tactics in a section on the UVF page about UVF "aims and strategy". However, if you think it's needed then add it back in. ~Asarlaí 15:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

civilians

Have merged "civilians" and "civilian political activist". The fact that out of 400 odd victims, 11 were "political activists" is not important here. It is not okay to kill political activists. Furthermore, it is a pretty average number - no doubt eleven of the victimes were darts players, thirty five football amateurs etc etc. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Civilian is the generic term for a non-combatant. If we said so-and-so was a civilian political activist, we'd have describe another as a civilian community worker, and so on.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Strongly object to the introduction of the partisan concept of "non-combatant". Civilians are those persons not in the military. That includes police and terrorists. Mooretwin (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr. WM

I notice that a certain "Mr.WM" has been added to the list of Chiefs of Staff, naming him as the CoS from 2009-2011. There isn't a single source to back up this addition. What do other editors think about this?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

After a search on Google I have found nothing that says "Mr. F" retired as CoS in 2009, therefore I have removed "Mr WM" from the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

New section

This page has been edited. Republican jacobite (a known UVF sympathizer) should not re-edit this page, as I will keep re-editing it since the edits have been sourced properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForceRecon84 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you are a bit confused Repulicanjacobite hasn't edited this page for a while and had noting to do with the incorrect figures you added. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC

I added the CORRECT figures from three sources 1: "The Irish War" book, 2: the book "Lost Lives" and 3: the bokk The IRA- A History. Those are all perfectly good sources CAIN is known as an incomplete source unlike the others.

I never said there was anything wrong with the sources. But you added the numbers to a sentence that was sourced to CAIN making it appear that they were the source. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the sources, except for the rather big problem which is they don't say anything like what has been claimed. Page 311 of Geraghty can be see here and unsurprisingly it doesn't source the text as claimed, in fact a quick look at the chapter title will hammer that point home. And I own the print version too, and I've even checked every page in the index that mentions the UVF. There's no point addressing the other sources in the absence of page numbers, but without them and/or direct quotes that text isn't going in the article. I own both of the other books being talked about by the way.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:24, 21 March 201

That is a blatant lie. I own both books and they do indeed say that. You are obviously a UVF sympathizer who is trying to fool people who read this article. This is despicable, and one reason why Waikipedia is not allowed for college essay reference...because of bias people like you. I will continue to edit this section untill you are banned from this site!

Just so you know. Threatening an edit war is more likely to lead to your blocking than anyone else. Also I very much doubt that One Night In Hackney is a UVF sympathizer. Usually people tend to think that he is a supporter of Republicanism but I'm not sure that he is that either. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well as a former US Spec Ops Marine, with service in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am certainly no supporter of terrorisim, even though I am Irish Catholic. So I am not "pro-IRA" The book I used was not the Irish war it was the "Long War" by Brendan O'Brien- who goes into some length about the tit for tat killings between the IRA and UVF/UDA I have quoted him in my revision. I apologize for the mix up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.85.177 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Section a mess

The Post-Ceasefire activities section is a bit of a mess at the moment with events out of chronological order, murder used instead of killing, sentences that all begin with On such and such date.... It really needs to be cleaned up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Notable" Victims

I have reverted Dcolt's POV reversion of my removal of golfer Rory McIlroy's uncle as being a notable victim of the UVF. Had it been Rory McIlroy himself, then it would be a 'notable' victim. Hundreds, if not thousands, of 'notable' people in NI have lost relatives to terrorism: are all of these relatives 'notable' simply beacause they are related to someone who is well known? Billsmith60 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, with the addition of the fact that at the time of the death (1972) Rory McIlroy wasn't even born, and wouldn't be for another 17 years. It's ludicrous to include him in this section, as it basically implies they never killed anyone "important" (for want of a better word") at all. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Civilian political activists

I have reintroduced the row showing "Civilian Political Activists" killed by the UVF. This information was removed solely on the basis of an emotional decision by one editor who found it distasteful. It is the job of Wikipedia to share information impartially regardless of whether or not it suits our personal tastes - WP:NOTCENSORED.

The source used was Sutton, far from perfect, but one that is free and a useful reference. It is also, like Lost Lives, thoroughly impartial. More importantly, the edit introduced serious errors into what are, essentially, innately impartial statistics. To give two examples: Ronald Trainor, a member of the IRSP, has now been claimed as also a member of the INLA by that organisation although Sutton still lists him primarily as a "Civilian Political Activist". Too, Maire Drumm is listed as an activist due to her role as Sinn Fein vice-president although she was also leader of the paramilitary Cumann na mBan (Women's Group). Due to this emotionally-driven edit these two examples were classed as "Civilian". If applied to the INLA or IPLO page someone like George Seawright, the bigoted DUP councillor now claimed as a member of the UVF, would also be classed as a civilian. Both Sutton and Lost Lives break down paramilitary killings in this manner, probably for the simple reason that it aids analysis. Shipyard Special (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Polity/province

Mabuska, why the insistence on the term 'province'? This is unionist terminology. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed elsewhere before and no editor has agreed with you so why do you keep insisting? It has nothing to do with unionist terminology. Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom. That is its de facto and de jure status. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, Snappy agrees with me and successfully re-installed 'polity' at Frank Aiken. If the UK has provinces, what are the others? Gob Lofa (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't mean he is right, especially considering he confuses it with the province of Ulster. Countries do not need to be entirely divided into provinces to have one. Just like Wales is officially a principality, but the whole of the UK isn't divided up into principalities. The only reason why Ireland is entirely divided into provinces is because that is the English term used for the Irish cuige (over-kingdom), which Ireland was divided up by. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

He's not confusing it, he's pointing out that Ulster is one of the provinces of Ireland and Northern Ireland isn't. You know it's a biased term, without any legal basis. What's your objection to the neutral 'polity'? Gob Lofa (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No-one here (or even at that other article) is saying that NI is a province of Ireland so yes he is confusing it. There is nothing biased about the term considering that that is what Northern Ireland's de facto and de jure status is. Just like Nevada is de facto and de jure a state of the USA. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

From Northern Ireland: "Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann[7] [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ( listen); Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann or Norlin Airlan) is a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the northeast of the island of Ireland. It is variously described as a country, province, or region of the United Kingdom, amongst other terms." No mention of de jure or de facto there. It's just one term among many, which in this case is used mostly by unionists. You didn't answer my question. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You know well that Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, and your claims of only used by unionists are pointless. Considering many nationalists, especially republicans, deny/denied the existence of Northern Ireland, with many unable to even say its name (Sinn Fein etc.), why on earth would they acknowledge what it is? On that basis its clear why the term is used more by unionists than nationalists, because one section accepted the creation of NI, whereas the other didn't.

Regardless of that, as ever, let me ask you Gob Lofa, where are your reliable academic sources to back up your view? Opinion does not carry much weight on Wikipedia. In the meantime:

S.J. Connolly (2007), Oxford Companion to Irish History. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-923483-7. Page 410:

Northern Ireland, a province created by the *Government of Ireland Act of 1920, made up of the six Ulster counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry, and Tyrone, and retained within the United Kingdom after the rest of Ireland achieved dominion status by the *Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921.

Mabuska ^(talk) 10:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska, understand I'm not using Wikipedia as a reference in the article to back up my position, I'm showing you that the polity's article itself does not insist it be described as a province. If you really believe it should, ought you not start there rather than here? Gob Lofa (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have provided reliable academic evidence, you have not. What happens or is agreed in other articles does not apply to other articles unless explicitly agreed upon by the community at a central discussion such as IMOS or the like. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you prefer lots of little fights instead of fewer but bigger ones. It's a unionist term, Mabuska (see [3]). I'm not against its use, but not in Wikipedia's voice. Even the BBC says it's just part of a province. [4] Gob Lofa (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary. Your use of the term has been objected to elsewhere, so by going to other articles to make similar edits can come across as on purposely seeking conflict when you know the term will be objected too. But whatever the reality of the situation is, there no consensus for your edit. You can always open an RfC for more input if you wish, otherwise this discussion has finished. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Your Google books source does not back up your claim that it is a unionist term, but that unionists "may refer" to it a such. There is a difference. Also please use co.uk links for your VPN provides link to foreign country extensions, which do not always show up when viewed, needing the extension changed to co.uk. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"Foreign" is a relative term, Mabuska. S. Dunn; H. Dawson (2000), An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press, One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change. Whyte; G. FitzGerald (1991), Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford: Oxford University Press, One problem must be adverted to in writing about Northern Ireland. This is the question of what name to give to the various geographical entities. These names can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences. ... some refer to Northern Ireland as a 'province'. That usage can arouse irritation particularly among nationalists, who claim the title 'province' should be properly reserved to the four historic provinces of Ireland-Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connacht. If I want to a label to apply to Northern Ireland I shall call it a 'region'. Unionists should find that title as acceptable as 'province': Northern Ireland appears as a region in the regional statistics of the United Kingdom published by the British government. Murphy (1979), A Place Apart, London: Penguin Books, Next - what noun is appropriate to Northern Ireland? 'Province' won't do since one-third of the province is on the wrong side of the border. 'State' implies more self-determination than Northern Ireland has ever had and 'country' or 'nation' are blatantly absurd. 'Colony' has overtones that would be resented by both communities and 'statelet' sounds too patronizing, though outsiders might consider it more precise than anything else; so one is left with the unsatisfactory word 'region'." (Hat-tip to Snappy.) Gob Lofa (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

And? Most of them are simply the editors own personal viewpoint, and all your proving is that some people find it controversial, but then many people find Northern Ireland itself controversial and refuse to call it by its proper name, for example the majority nationalist/republican party in Northern Ireland, SF, never use the term, yet we still call it Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. You have provided nothing to back a change to polity, and you don't have consensus for that term or for a change from what has been used. Province at least has WP:COMMONNAME on its side (as does state/country/region), polity however has nothing. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to point out not all Northern Irish Catholics object to the word province: It's an extraordinary thing, this tiny little province of Northern Ireland, where carnage happened. And I was part of it. I grew up in it.. Liam Neeson. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Now all of these can't be classified as unionist usages of the term province, especially the NY Times and the University of Oslo...

• University of Oslo - This course examines the development of Northern Ireland, from the province was established in 1921, until today... gained an overview over Northern Irish history since the forming of the province in 1921;
• New york Times - DUBLIN — The fragile provincial government in Northern Ireland teetered on the brink on Wednesday... Peter Robinson, leader of the pro-British Democratic Unionist Party and first minister of the province, threatened to withdraw his party from the Northern Ireland Assembly, the provincial Parliament, within 24 hours...
• The Origins of the Present Troubles in Northern Ireland, by Caroline Kennedy-Pipe.
• The Industrial Archaeology of Northern Ireland, by William Alan McCutcheon.
• The Northern Ireland Peace Process and the International Context, by Benjamin Williams
• Culture, Northern Ireland, and the Second World War, by Guy Woodward
• ITV News - Northern Ireland is facing its biggest political crisis in more than a decade, with the government likely to be asked to suspend the province's power-sharing administration after a murder that police said was linked to the disbanded IRA.
• American Policy and Northern Ireland: A Saga of Peacebuilding, by Joseph E. Thompson
• NI Hospice - Tesco's Northern Ireland has given Northern Ireland Children's Hospice the opportunity to collect province-wide in all their stores over one weekend
• Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, London - Belfast, 17 April 2015: Northern Ireland's Justice Minister is misleading the Province over public support for abortion, says the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) www.spuc.org.uk the United Kingdom's main pro-life group.
• Economist - The province's coalition government has been badly weakened following a murder in Belfast
• Property News - Templeton Robinson Top 20 Years During Historic Period For Province
• NI Jobfiner - Kennedy Recruitment: Library Assistant - Province Wide
• Queen Mary University of London - Although civil partnerships exist, they were introduced at the behest of the Westminster government which had direct rule over the province at the time.
• Northern Ireland - The Divided Province
• Troubled Geographies: A Spatial History of Religion and Society in Ireland
• Financial Times - Once again it seemed the issues that separate the province’s leaders
• Political Studies Association.ac.uk - After a summer of renewed violence in Northern Ireland, you would be forgiven for thinking that there was little to unite citizens and politicians alike across the Nationalist-Unionist divide. Turning away from the more conventional issues which tend to dominate this fraught political landscape, there is one thing that Nationalist and Unionist politicians alike can agree on - continued restrictions on the provision of abortion services in the province.

And for a hint of officialness seeing as NI is part of the UK...

• Tourism in Northern Ireland and Its Economic Impact and Benefits: Third..., by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
• Department of Finance and Personnel - NI Civil Service Province Wide Courier Service
• The 1st Battalion of The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders who were made the "Province Reserve Battalion" for Northern Ireland.
• Official Commonwealth website - The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) consists of a group of islands off the western coast of Europe. The largest, Great Britain, comprises three countries: England, Scotland and Wales. Ireland, to the west, consists of the UK’s province of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. There are several offshore islands and island groups, the largest lying off Scotland - See more at: http://thecommonwealth.org/our-member-countries/united-kingdom#sthash.DCoNRq8X.dpuf

The term is only controversial for a minority from the Irish nationalist community and their supporters. Those that adhere to neutral or non-political viewpoints on NI's status seem to have no problem using province. And there are many more examples out there from outside NI usages of province in reference NI. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So I suggest Gob Lofa that you adhere to WP:NPOV and desist from trying to enforce your own personal viewpoint on NI's status. Yes there are things on Wikipedia we may not like but we just have to accept. You have no consensus for what is a politically motivated edit that falls under WP:UNDUE and you will not change my mind to accept your partisan view. With no agreement, and this going nowhere, discussion over. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"Foreign" is still cracking me up. Why do you believe 'polity' isn't neutral? Gob Lofa (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska? Gob Lofa (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Will you tell me why? Gob Lofa (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mabuska? Gob Lofa (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Snappy, why are you taking a position here in direct contradiction to your position at Frank Aiken? Gob Lofa (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible double invasion of the Bogside

Mabuska, do you have any evidence for your assertion that the people fighting the police during the Battle of the Bogside were not resident in the area? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that they all where residents to make your groundless claim? If you can't produce the goods then don't expect other editors to when all they are doing is restoring to the stable version. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Mabuska, this is a little breathtaking, even for you. It says in the introduction to the BOTB article that they were residents, and it's sourced. If you can prove they came from Donegal, this would be remarkable. Can you? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

What odds it was you who added that information into the BOTB article? It wouldn't be the first time you've quoted your own edits as some form of justification. Regardless of what that article says it is not this article and you can't use Wikipedia as a source, so you need to provide a source for your claims. Provide a reliable and verifiable source and the issue is sorted. It is as easy as that. Simply breath-taking that after all this time you still fail to grasp the basics of Wikipedia. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It's sourced in the lede of the BOTB article, like I told you. Do you have a source that says those fighting the supremacists weren't residents? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought not. Please be more careful in future. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

As already explained that is another article, not this one so whatever is there has no bearing. Is it really that hard to add a source into this article? Also be more careful with your imflammatory and highly biased POV statements. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact the reality is probably that you know rightly the first source doesn't state residents at all and the second one is a highly biased source. If you can find reliable neutral 3rd party sources for your claims then as stated no problem with the edit. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no question to answer. You want to make a change that is contested. You have been asked to provide 3rd party reliable evidence to back yourself up. You haven't. I have nothing to answer, you do. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting Gob Lofa... Mabuska ^(talk) 21:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you believe they weren't residents? Unfold for us the conspiracy theories that drive you. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I reverted per my statement made on 21:57, 5 June 2016. Source is highly biased and unlike your claims in the edit summary is not what was requested. I requested "3rd party reliable evidence", not a source of clear bias like the one you pilfered from BOTB. Not all people involved on either side came from the city. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ulster Volunteer Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110426121606/http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/sarmagh.html to http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/sarmagh.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218015532/http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/documents/uploads/Twentieth%20Report.pdf to http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/documents/uploads/Twentieth%20Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218162439/http://www.nio.gov.uk/report_of_the_independent_international_commission_on_decommissioning.pdf to http://www.nio.gov.uk/report_of_the_independent_international_commission_on_decommissioning.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/the-untouchable-informers-facing-exposure-at-last-13401237.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050328085847/http://www.belfastsomme.com/uvf.htm to http://www.belfastsomme.com/uvf.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123001001/http://www.belfastsomme.com/ycv.htm to http://www.belfastsomme.com/ycv.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

UVF and Protestant fundamentalism

I am not comfortable labelling the UVF a Protestant fundamentalist organisation. Very few, if any, of the members would even practice the Protestant faith or even darken the halls of a church outside of funerals and weddings. It is a paramilitary unionist paramilitary group which sees itself as defending its community from ‘the other side’ which happens to be Roman Catholics in a dispute between Irish and British territorial claims. Even if we can find a source that describes it as Protestant fundamentalist, is it wise to use it? The definition of Protestant fundamentalism is a firm belief in the core beliefs of Christianity - virgin birth, Jesus saves, Jesus rose from the dead, belief in the Trinity, Jesus is son of God, etc. In political modern terms it is often used (interchangeably with Bible bashers) to describe people who have a strict literal interpretation of the Bible and live a strict Christian life, etc. To suggest the UVF members are fundamentalist Christians is absurd. Not even the UVF claim to be fundamentalists.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

In the context here you can't define the use of religion by church attendence or your own summary of what you thin religion is about. Fundamentalism is about belief and social context not a set of criteria you are setting for church attendence and general life style issues. The religious context is a critical aspect of understanding the troubles and your reversion of a long standing text after it was reinstated fails to show this to readers -----Snowded ^TALK 14:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

We have an article section that defines Christian/Protestant fundamentalism on this page: Fundamentalism#Christian. As you can see it is indeed about things such as the infallibility of scripture and other core Christian beliefs. I suggest your definition is based on original research. We have lots of long standing original research in articles unfortunately, some of which is garbage. When spotted it is best deleted, especially if it is demonstrably false.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Christian scripture instructs attendance of church to worship and living a Christian life - so yes the UVF members (if they believed in the infallibility of scripture/the Bible which is fundamentalism by definition) would all be regularly attending Church, trying not to sin, preaching salvation and the gospels, volunteering for Charity work as this is what the Bible teaches. So they cannot be Protestant fundamentalists since they do not do these things. Instead of loving thy neighbour and thy enemy the UVF hate and kill thy enemy. It is silly to call them fundamentalists.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

To address your other point about the religious aspect to the troubles: well yes, originally Roman Catholic Britain was instructed by the Pope to govern and convert then pagan Ireland to Catholicism and the Catholic British throne invaded/interfered in Ireland. Then came the Protestant reformation and there was the plantation of Ulster which involved land grabs from Catholics with Protestant settlers (mostly from Scotland) settling Ireland to bring Ireland religiously inline with Britain in an attempt to make Ireland stay loyal to Protestant Britain and the Protestant Royal family. That is a very very rough summary. Then there was centuries of discrimination, fighting and hatred that grew between Protestant Unionist and Catholic Republican communities and of course the partition of Ireland all of which led to The Troubles. Yes, there is a major religious contribution (deeply intertwined with politics) to The Troubles but this history does not by default make the UVF organisation or membership ‘Bible bashing’ born again Christians.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The Provisional IRA also killed people and come from a catholic background. The simiple fact is that the religious background of the Protestant paramiligaries is fundamentalist, not main stream protestantism. If loving thy neighbour and not killing people is an essential feature of designating anyting as not Christian then you have got a lot of articles to change on wikipedia. We don't require consistency of practice with theory to designate a religious background. I also find it rather iromic that you are requireing justification of works to justify protestantism :-) Please self-revert until there is some consensus for the change -----Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that the UVF is a Protestant fundamentalist organisation, thanks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Why don’t we, as a compromise, just call the UVF ideology ‘Protestant extremism’ which is more accurate and I imagine there would be an abundance of sources supporting this description.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Happy with that if there are sources -----Snowded ^TALK 02:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Great! :-) I have actually found dozens of sources - I can list them all here if you like. To me this source is reliable: "1,264 people have been killed by Catholic extremists, referred to in the paper as 'Republican paramilitary groups', and 613 were killed by Protestant extremists called 'Loyalist paramilitary groups', whereas 264 people were killed by the security forces." If this is not sufficient we can find and use another. Thoughts?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)