This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ulster Volunteer Force article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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.*
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...?
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)
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.)
The UVF are terrorists... Plain and simple... Not "defenders" just psychopats... murders...
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.
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)
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))
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)
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)
Seems non of the external links works, is it only my problem? else, they should be delete. Dorit 19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems a pretty obvious omission from the article. Irish Republican 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
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 to The UVF The Ulster People's Army does work so please do no delete it! Herut
The UVF are leftist, at least their political representatives the PUP are. Hachimanchu ( talk) 01:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Reverted copy back to undo page vandalism Rascilon 23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
You still haven't done it - please provide the citations for your statements.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 K 303 13:28, 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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.
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 K 303 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!
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)
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)
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 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)
Mabuska, why the insistence on the term 'province'? This is unionist terminology. Gob Lofa ( talk) 13:05, 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:
Mabuska (talk) 10:22, 8 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)
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...
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;
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...
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.
Tesco's Northern Ireland has given Northern Ireland Children's Hospice the opportunity to collect province-wide in all their stores over one weekend
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.
The province's coalition government has been badly weakened following a murder in Belfast
Templeton Robinson Top 20 Years During Historic Period For Province
Library Assistant - Province Wide
Although civil partnerships exist, they were introduced at the behest of the Westminster government which had direct rule over the province at the time.
Once again it seemed the issues that separate the province’s leaders
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...
NI Civil Service Province Wide Courier Service
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/the-untouchable-informers-facing-exposure-at-last-13401237.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It seems a bit inaccurate to describe the United Kingdom as belligerents of the UVF when declassified documents from the 1980s show that the thatcher administration was giving them material and intelligence support. This was obviously not known by the public or the majority of the British Army however characterising them as belligerents gives the impression that they weren’t actively supporting their cause with money weapons and intelligence 31.94.2.169 ( talk) 06:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
PianoDan (
talk)
20:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Traditionally, this article refers to the UVF as being a Protestant extremist group in its "Ideology" tag, while the charge of "Anti-Catholicism" is leveled at the UDA in its own article. Based on the contrasting focuses of the two groups--the UVF stuck in a sort of elitist framework nostalgic for the old Volunteers, and the UDA in a more working-class-Protestant framework--I believe it is more accurate to only level the charge of "Anti-Catholicism" at the UDA, which showed a more active antipathy towards the Catholic population with its "expelled, nullified, or interned" policy; the UVF, meanwhile, is certainly guilty of Protestant extremism, and attacks against Catholic civilians, but is to be found absent of any formally or explicitly anti-Catholic policy. ConnallES ( talk) 12:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ulster Volunteer Force article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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.*
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...?
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)
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.)
The UVF are terrorists... Plain and simple... Not "defenders" just psychopats... murders...
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.
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)
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))
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)
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)
Seems non of the external links works, is it only my problem? else, they should be delete. Dorit 19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems a pretty obvious omission from the article. Irish Republican 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
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 to The UVF The Ulster People's Army does work so please do no delete it! Herut
The UVF are leftist, at least their political representatives the PUP are. Hachimanchu ( talk) 01:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Reverted copy back to undo page vandalism Rascilon 23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
You still haven't done it - please provide the citations for your statements.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 K 303 13:28, 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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 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.
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 K 303 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!
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)
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)
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 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)
Mabuska, why the insistence on the term 'province'? This is unionist terminology. Gob Lofa ( talk) 13:05, 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:
Mabuska (talk) 10:22, 8 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)
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...
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;
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...
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.
Tesco's Northern Ireland has given Northern Ireland Children's Hospice the opportunity to collect province-wide in all their stores over one weekend
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.
The province's coalition government has been badly weakened following a murder in Belfast
Templeton Robinson Top 20 Years During Historic Period For Province
Library Assistant - Province Wide
Although civil partnerships exist, they were introduced at the behest of the Westminster government which had direct rule over the province at the time.
Once again it seemed the issues that separate the province’s leaders
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...
NI Civil Service Province Wide Courier Service
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/the-untouchable-informers-facing-exposure-at-last-13401237.htmlWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It seems a bit inaccurate to describe the United Kingdom as belligerents of the UVF when declassified documents from the 1980s show that the thatcher administration was giving them material and intelligence support. This was obviously not known by the public or the majority of the British Army however characterising them as belligerents gives the impression that they weren’t actively supporting their cause with money weapons and intelligence 31.94.2.169 ( talk) 06:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
PianoDan (
talk)
20:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Traditionally, this article refers to the UVF as being a Protestant extremist group in its "Ideology" tag, while the charge of "Anti-Catholicism" is leveled at the UDA in its own article. Based on the contrasting focuses of the two groups--the UVF stuck in a sort of elitist framework nostalgic for the old Volunteers, and the UDA in a more working-class-Protestant framework--I believe it is more accurate to only level the charge of "Anti-Catholicism" at the UDA, which showed a more active antipathy towards the Catholic population with its "expelled, nullified, or interned" policy; the UVF, meanwhile, is certainly guilty of Protestant extremism, and attacks against Catholic civilians, but is to be found absent of any formally or explicitly anti-Catholic policy. ConnallES ( talk) 12:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)