Talk:Ulster Special Constabulary

1RR

As of now, I'm enforcing the 1 revert per day rule on this article, as it is clearly subject to the remedies in the Troubles arbitration case. I'm going to ignore all the reverting from yesterday.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good. Black Kite 19:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but does Black Kite even know what 1RR is? They have just indef blocked an editor with whom they are in dispute with accusing them of being a sock. Black Kite (talk | contribs) blocked Boneyarddog (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive editing: New account reverting on 1RR article; blocked as an obvious sock; may be unblocked with suitable evidence that it isn't CU will likely be useless, so not used.) So Admin's can now block editors for being a sock without any evidence, but the editor must first prove that they are not a sock before they can be unblocked. Very selective use of Admin tools in my opinion. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• The evidence was that it was an obvious sock; of course there is a very small chance that it might not be, but then nothing is ever 100% sure. I took advice on it from other admins; I was advised that blocking such an obvious sock was the best course of action, especially if 1RR was being enforced on an article which they had suddenly become active on. I'm quite happy to do that. To claim I am "in dispute with" the sock is frankly ludicrous - I reverted its original copntribution because it was a sock, not because I disagreed with its contributions. The fact that this afterwards led to me noticing some problems with the article is utterly irrelevant. Also, I notice you're now checking my logged actions contribs as well as my on-wiki ones. Black Kite 21:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well you took advice off wiki. That is were most of this crap goes on. Now you were canvassed onto the article, and reverted the new account to the version of the editor who has been going around canvassing editors. 1RR does not mean 0RR so stop being ludicrous. You have no evidence that this editor is a sock, so to say "The evidence was that it was an obvious sock" is ludicrous, you've provided no evidence at all. Has the new editor been editing any articles as an IP if so, what were they? Saying that you reverted because it was a sock, not because I disagreed with its contributions is ludicrous because in your edit summery you say "The version I've just reverted is clearly POV, though." Now drop the pretense because its ludicrous to suggest that a load of British Admin's don't have a bias and POV with more evidence here than there is against this new indef blocked editor. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's because I'm British, of course, the Sarah777 argument. You know very well from a long history on the Troubles/BI articles that I don't have any biases in this area and have no problem blocking and sanctioning editors from both "sides" of the disputes. Yet as soon as I express a view you don't agree with, you come out with the British bias bollocks. Strange I never heard that whenever I've agreed with you, isn't it? Honestly Domer... Black Kite 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I should have put that the welcome wagons were being circled for the new editor. So we ignore canvassing of editor [1] [2] [3] [4] onto this article despite the fact they continued canvassing and just being plain disruptive [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] but we block an editor who we don't agree with. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Here Black Kite another obvious sock based on the evidence, are you going to indef block this account? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, that was a nice easy decision on a 1RR article, but it was vandalism anyway. Black Kite 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up

Obviously there are some content issues being worked out ... but if anyone feels up for a challenge the Reports on the 1969 deployments section is particularly unhelpful. I'm sure the issues are complex but wanted to give an outside opinion on what I see as a vexatious section that needs some help to communicate whatever it's trying to get across. -- Banjeboi 15:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll get round to it. I'm trying to work my way through the sections chronologically but am experiencing some difficulty due to persistent reverts. But yes, the 1969 section will be done in due course. Jdorney (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• JD, as you asked I've looked at the two versions and the original seems to contain relevant info that you remove and I'm not sure why. Also the use of "separatist" to describe SF ìs a bit POV - by nationalist lights it was the Unionists were the separatists. Ireland (the whole island) was an occupied country, not part of the UK, after the 1918 elections per nationalist pov.
• "appropriate the functions of the British administration in Ireland" - appropriate implies stealing, and the wording implies the British Government were somehow the "rightful owners" of these functions. We'd need a more neutral formulation between SF/British Govt and IRA/British forces (including Loyalist/Unionist ones). The article should not imply in any way the Irish claim to the whole island was less legitimate than either the British claim or the Unionist claim to part of it.
• "The Unionists began to focus their energies towards securing the division of Ireland with the six north-eastern counties - those with a Protestant majority - remaining part of the United Kingdom" - this drops the additional information in the other version which points that they were seeking the division of Ulster on sectarian headcount grounds - surely a very key point?
• Both versions make the point that the new force were intended to be comprised of armed loyalists and exclude Catholics/Nationalists but I think the original version explains that more clearly. You overly use/cite the actual words of Craig himself to describe what was happening whereas the other version, IMHO, gives better context and refrains from suggesting that Craigs words were a full and frank account.
• After all - he is hardly going to say publicly : "we need the UVF etc turned into a special police with British protection in order to ensure Unionist control of the areas we want to retain and we don't fully trust the RIC because there are too many Catholics in it."
• I'm not suggesting either version has the balance right glossing over some essential features and context of the USC recruit base isn't a good idea.

Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, thanks for your measured response Sarah.

• Separatist was the term used by SF at the time, so certainly wasn't pejorative at that time. If you feel it has that connotation now then 'nationalist' or 'republican' is fine by me.

• "Appropriate", was in the original but again, makes no difference to me. "Take over" would do the job.

• Discussion of the fine details of partition seems to me like a job for another article. Re sectarian headcount, well yes but nationalists wanted Tyrone and Fermanagh, with Catholic majorities, to be part of the south, unionists wanted them to keep NI viable. So there are sectarian headcounts on both sides.

• Re Craig, is it not fair to also give the unionist perspective though? While your summary is (imo) not too far off the mark, what unionists were arguing is that their "wild men" had to brought under regular control to prevent disorder and civil war.

Thoughts? Jdorney (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that re-drawing the border to include nationalists was a sectarian headcount in the same sense; the Irish people voted for independence for the whole country and wanted to include as many Irish people as possible. They would not, obviously, have excluded any county. The Unionists, as the original version makes clear, were very keen to exclude three of the counties of Ulster based on a sectarian headcount.

As for the words - if they were used in the original then maybe they didn't have the same nuance as today; "martyr" was used to describe dead nationalists regularly but in the past few decades it has regained its original religious implication as we have been discussing at Rock's page. Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well first re the wording, change away if you feel it's necessary. I have no problem with alternatives.

The partition and the sectarian headcount, we could discuss this further but wouldn't a full discussion of it be better on a different page? Like Partition of Ireland. This article is quite specificially about the USC.

Re Craig, again, shouldn't we represent the unionist view as well as the nationalist one? Jdorney (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course; but I just felt that you were leaving the summary to him - including his use of weasels like "loyal subjects" to mean "the UVF and their ilk". Of course I'd not use the latter phrasing either despite its accuracy - the must be a better way of explaining this :) Sarah777 (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so can we combine the two to produce a version acceptable to everyone? Jdorney (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors, I'm awaiting repsonses. Let's get this clean-up started. Jdorney (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Craig-Collins agreement

There would have been no need for the USC had this agreement been kept to, so just removing it (by Jdorney) doesn't help anyone. Collins kept up supplies to the IRA until August 1922, according to a recent source.86.42.196.211 (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

'Would have been' is speculation and is not what we do here. Collins involvement in the IRA's northern spring/summer campaign in 1922 is already covered in the article in the 'Border War' section. Jdorney (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, the three governments signed the agreement presumably in good faith, and so the expectation at the time was that it would work. Is there any proof that Collins wanted the arms to be used only to defend Catholics from the RUC/USC, or was the "campaign" (your word) designed to be offensive?86.42.196.211 (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the thing about that is that Collins never really let the cabinet in on what he was up to, so the documentation is not there. According to Robert Lynch, who wrote a book on the northern IRA in the period, it was in part to defend the Catholics, in another part to try to unite pro and anti-Treaty factions around a unifying issue - partition - and finally to try to cause the collapse of the Northern state. So, yes it was part offensive. Collins pov was that Craig did not keep his side of the bargain either by not preventing attacks on Catholics in Belfast and not re-instating the 7,000 or so Catholics who had been expelled from their jobs at the Belfast shipyards in 1920. As for the USC, it seems most unlikely Craig would have disbanded his government's only effective internal armed force at that delicate juncture and if he had, he would no doubt have been pilloried as a traitor by his own side. In any case it's not for us to apportion blame in wikipedia articles. Jdorney (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course not (apportioning blame), but the reason for the USC's existence has to be teased out, looking at it from the policy perspectives of 1922, as the historians quoted in the article have done. Perhaps everyone wanted the C-C agreement to collapse, but there it is on the record, drafted, approved by fellow-politicians, redrafted and signed. In hindsight the story surrounding the USC reflects badly on both sides anyway.86.42.198.30 (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well let's talk turkey, what is in the CC pact about the USc and what more should go in the article?Jdorney (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The were mentioned as "Special Police" in sections (3) 1 and (6). Nothing more need go in, as the CCA broke down, but it would be wrong to ignore it altogether. It acknowledged that the USC were seen to be part of the problem at that time (March 1922).

"(3) 1. Special police in mixed districts to be composed half of Catholics and half of Protestants, special agreements to be made where Catholics or Protestants are living in other districts. All specials not required for this force to be withdrawn to their homes and their arms handed in."

(6) I.R.A. activities to cease in the Six Counties, and thereupon the method of organising the special police in the Six Counties outside Belfast shall proceed as speedily as possible upon lines similar to those agreed for Belfast.86.42.207.168 (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Image

I've removed the image of the "Battle of the Bogside" because it does not show the B Specials and as such has no relevance to the page except as an advert for wall murals. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The image has more relevance than the comments of an abusive sock.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The image has no relevance to the police force in question. Its only purpose appears to be to highlight a wall mural. I am removing it again and referring the removal to someone else for adjudication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.161.228 (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Is the image in the 1969 Riots section relevant?

Mural depicting the Battle of the Bogside, where the USC was deployed to aid the RUC

Is the image in the 1969 Riots section relevant to the article? — SonofSetanta (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Remove - I believe not. It is only an image of a wall mural and as such does not have any relevance other that it says "B Specials". A picture of the B Specials in the riots would be relevant. — SonofSetanta (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a picture of a B Special wearing a gas mask. They did not wear these. Nor did they participate in the Battle of the Bogside. They were on duty elsewhere to allow the full-time police to take part. Plus the "policeman" in the foreground is wearing a bandiolier of bullets. This is something the B Specials did not do. The photograph is therefore not only not representative of the B Specials in the Battle of the Bogside it is a misleading representation of a B Special. On closer examination is appears the mural foreground is not a representation of a B Special at all. It is a youth holding a petrol bomb. This is not a depiction of the B Specials at all except that it shows the back of several police officers in the background and there is nothing to suggest they are B Specials at all. This is an even worse representation of the B Specials. If a picture is used here it should be specifically about the B Specials and not an advert for Loyalist or Republican wall art.SonofSetanta (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Remove - I think the image is only tangentially related: the image is related to a battle, and Ulster Special Constabulary did participate in the battle. But that is a bit remote. If there were some members of the Ulster Special Constabulary in the picture, it would be more relevant. If the picture were more benign or informative, that might outweigh the remote-ness, but the picture is a bit inflammatory, almost propagandistic, so the requirement for a direct connection is stronger. All things considered, readers will find this pic more confusing than beneficial. --Noleander (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - The B Specials didn't participate in the battle of the bogside? What planet did you come from? They performance was so disgracefully during the riots that they were disbanded the following year. It's a great image, blending art, fact and the Irish folklore of murals. BTW you don't start an RFC and then remove the image that is up for discussion on the same day, that is just stupid. Bjmullan (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Which editor said "The B Specials didn't participate in the battle of the bogside"? You may have misread a sentence above. --Noleander (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Noleander I did read it incorrectly. One of the downside of being dyslexic. Bjmullan (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Remove - I agree with Noleander. No link in picture with USC. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Image is representative of the event in question, an event which the USC was involved in.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The image is relevant to the section due to the involvement of the USC in the event. Mo ainm~Talk 15:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The B-Specials did not in fact participate. As is correctly stated in the Battle of the Bogside article, they were called up, to the consternation of residents, but they were not yet deployed when the British Army arrived on 14 August. Scolaire (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
• Remove. My comment above has not been disputed. IMO it invalidates the "keep" arguments. Scolaire (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• Remove as it is irrelevant (though any USC fans would probably say that petrol bombing justified their existence). I was alive at the time, read the papers and don't recall that tear gas was used at the first "Battle of the Bogside".Red Hurley (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaken there. CS gas was used for the first time in NI during the Battle of the Bogside. Scolaire (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, later, but not in the first battle.Red Hurley (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is, read the article. Scolaire (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Motion to close: The RfC has been open for fifteen days, and there has been no new post for six days. I think a decision should be taken, and the RfC closed. Scolaire (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I would only note that I received the notice of this RfC on my user page only in the last week, and that RfCs have been known to be open for longer than 15 days. Having said that, I myself tend to agree that the image in question is not sufficiently relevant to the article that it merits inclusion here. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

1922 and the USC / IRA memo

Any ideas on how best this interesting note might be included? It draws a line on that conflict in September 1922, and mentions an action by some specials against others. It was sent to Richard Mulcahy.Red Hurley (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)