Talk:Ulster Defence Association

Drugs trade

ĄThe user at 65.95.27.101 added the sentence fragment "Which is untrue" after the statement that the UDA has been suspected of drug trade involvement (end of first paragraph). If the UDA has apologized for its involvement in the drug trade, why does this user assert the falsity of the original article?

In Colin Crawford's "Inside the UDA," which I have added to the list of Other Sources, he explicitly states that many UDA members were involved in drug trade and criminal activity, but this was not a systematic or systemic fact of the UDA. As with any organization exercising vigilante power, Crawford explains that there were of course individuals who used that power for self-gain through the drug trade. In addition it is true that much of the UDA's weaponry was bought with money stolen from banks. I think the section on Criminality is biased and incomplete, and does need to be rewritten using cited facts.

Inconsistencies

Para 1 says the UDA was made illegal in 1992, while Para 3 says 1991.

Also, since it mentions the fact that they are banned both in the UK and ROI, were they legal until the early 90s in both countries, or just the UK? Ben Bulben 17:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

DUP & UDA

Whilst I am no fan of the DUP and their brand of Bible bashing No Surrender Unionism I feel it is wrong to try and link them directly to the UDA.

Despite their staunch attitudes they are a democratic party that are openly opposed to all paramilitary organisations (Apart from the Third Force in the 80's or course).

It is also true that many loyalist paramilitaries were stirred up by "The Big Man's" (Ian Paisley Snr) bible bashing rhetoric, but to try and say that the DUP are associated with the UDA is misleading and even though it galls me unfair to the DUP.

The political groups properly associated with the UDA are well known.

In 1978 the UDA demonstrated an interest in politics and set up the New Ulster Political Research Group. This was replaced in 1981 by the Ulster Loyalist Democratic Party (ULDP) which advocated independence for Northern Ireland. In 1989 the party renamed itself the Ulster Democratic Party.

Disagreement over the Belfast Agreement between the UDP leadership and the UDA, and within the UDP itself lead to the pary being dissolved in November 2001. Its role has largely been taken over by the Ulster Political Research Group not the DUP. --Strangelyb 08:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This article contains some cheap, biased shots - the linking of the South African arms importation with the DUP being the most ridiculous. Any statement to this effect must be supported by evidence / decent references.

There was a South African arms dealer involved in a deal with the UDA, Ulster Resistance and UVF, however I can't see any mention of the DUP and that sounds frankly ludicrous. http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Douglas_Bernhart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.134.167 (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just one thing

I notice that on this page that there is no reference to Andy Tyrie who led the organisation from 1973 until 1988. Similarly the part the UDA played in the strike of May 1974 is very much underplayed, as they were the main reason the strike worked as well as it did (I was there at the time and remember it- in fact I doubt very much that anyone who was there could forget the sight of the barricades and the memories of the blackouts) Again there are a few factual errors in this piece- namely the link with the neo-Nazi and fascist groups. This had widely been reported but was in fact untrue, at least until the 1990s- if it was ever true at all. An interesting example of this was that when the National Front sent a delegation to Belfast to meet the UDA, Andy Tyrie sent Louis Scott- one of the few non-white UDA members- to greet them. The UDA was a working class organisation, set up originally to defend the Protestant working class people of Belfast who, at that time, suffered the same ridiculous levels of poverty (thanks to Northern Ireland's Parliament passing laws restricting rent levels, making it unprofitable for landlords to invest in their property) as the Roman Catholics in the next street. As such it had a class agenda rather than a racial one at its beginning (one of the reasons it was able to co-ordinate a strike in the first place was the fact that many of the original founders were involved in the trades Union movement)- the reason for contacting neo-fascist organisations was that they might be useful for the supply of funds and arms- other than that they were treated with disdain.

The U.D.A. was not exclusively Protestant.

The Ulster Defence Association was not an exclusively Protestant organisation. There was, in fact a contingent of anti-Sinn Féin/I.R.A. Catholics, who were very fiercely pro-British. - (Aidan Work 08:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC))

WHAT? OK you find me names, why would member of Northern Ireland's RC community support an organization which indiscriminately murdered close too 200 unarmed Catholic civillians simply because they were Catholic???

^^^^^^^^^^^ Makes a fair and intellegent point, any Catholic who were to join the UDA and kill their fellow man, would more than likely not be welcomed into the N. Ireland Catholic community, and for being Catholic not be welcomed in the proddy community (as you know most communities in N. Ireland were and still divided by religion.)

---

That could be said for any paramilitay/terrorist organisation in Northern Ireland, and indeed anywhere in the World. The actual facts of the article don't support it though, so it's simply hear say, bar one or two known names on both sides.

Leaving aside alleged Catholic membership it was definately NOT exclusively Protestant in the sense that it didn't have any secularists, atheists, agnostics etc. The "Protestant people" they purported to be defending are essentially ethnically defined with religious belief as a high correlate and historical feature, but not necessarily strictly Protestant. Not dissimilar to the way in which Milosevic was supporting an Orthodox "ethnos" while he himself was actually an atheist. Unfortunately in Northern Ireland we don't have an ethnic label like "Serb" that does not have religious connotations.80.229.27.11 (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

citations needed

This paragraph needs some sort of citation.
The UDA/UFF's official political position during the Troubles was that if the Provisional IRA called off its campaign of violence, then the UDA would do the same. However, if the British government announced that it was withdrawing from Northern Ireland, then the UDA would act as "the IRA in reverse". Presumably this meant attacking British or Irish government or security force targets.

In fact, this whole article needs extensive citation.

a & an

In this instance I believe the grammar correction is itself incorrect. I quote from Wikipedia's A, an article.

"An An is the older form, now used before words starting with a vowel sound, regardless of whether the word begins with a vowel letter. Examples: a light-water reactor; an LWR; a HEPA filter (because HEPA is pronounced as a word rather than as letters); a hypothesis; an hour. In some circumstances, an is used before any noun starting with h, such as an hotel.

More examples: "a boy, a European, a j, a picture, a store, a table, a bottle, a window, a phone, a hyphen, a one-horse town" and "a united country, a usurper, a eulogy, a ewe, a U-boat" and "an entry, an f, an hour, an orange, an ape, an odor, an idea, an eagle, an honor, an umbrella, an unbeliever" and "a hotel, a house, a hill, a hymn, a honeycomb". [1]

"Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage is more descriptive than prescriptive, but it advises: You choose the article that suits your own pronunciation. Theodore Bernstein gives the straight vowel-sound-vs.-consonant-sound explanation but allows that you should indeed say "an hotel" if you think hotel is pronounced otel." [2]" [[1]]

Ulster is similar to an umbrella or an unbeliever therefore "an" rather than a united country or a usurper which has a defined U sound which indicates "a" as the prefix. --Strangelyb 09:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I've added a citations tag to the top of the page as there seems to be a large number of "citation needed" tags in the article. Presumably, once the POV issues are sorted out, these tags will disappear, as will the citations tag at the top of the article.

May as well add this here rather than a new section. Direct link citations for the following are tricky due to the CAIN setup, but they can be sourced from this link:

• "The UDA was involved in some killings in the early 1970s, but most of its murders were carried out since the late 1980s." - If that was changed to UFF then yes, otherwise no. (Organisation and Year for the 2 variables)
• "Nevertheless, the UDA killed only two known republican paramiltaries in the conflict" (Organisation and Status Summmary for the 2 variables)
• "The majority of their victims were Roman Catholics with no political or paramilitary connections" - possibly remove political (Organisation and Status Summmary for the 2 variables)

Any objections to me removed those three citation tags? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And there's more:

• They have been involved in several feuds with the Ulster Volunteer Force, which led to many murders. - obviously many is a totally irrelevant word, so I'll replace it with the CAIN figure.

One thing I've just noticed is that the article only uses the CAIN figures for the UDA, it doesn't include the UFF figures at all even though we don't have a seperate UFF article as both "UFF" and "Ulster Freedom Fighters" link here. So, are we better off having a UDA/UFF combined total or just adding the UFF figures to the article as well? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem with any of the above. I hadn't seen that crosstab on CAIN before, very useful. Regarding combining the UDA/UFF figures, are we sure they have always been one and the same? Don't know enough about it myself. At some point in their history that may have been sufficiently different to warrent seperate articles. But probably not. Combine both figures here I would say, making it clear in the article that is what has been done. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The UFF were basically a sub-organisation within the UDA. Certainly in the 70s the UDA had a huge membership (approx 30,000 at one time allegedly) and was generally mostly involved in more defensive activites. Certain people within the UDA realised that an organisation that size wasn't streamlined enough for carrying out major attacks or murders, and the UFF was formed from people within UDA ranks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See the things where it mentions the UDAs history and there are no citations, I'm sure there must be sources for it on, for example, BBC news but using BBCs on-site search (appalling) or google using site:news.bbc.co.uk, I couldn't find anything, but I'm sure they should be easy enough to find in theory. Anyway, some of this stuff has been tagged since febuary. I think we should probably remove a lot of it by this stage if we can't find a source. I'm sure no one will dispute there have been a lot of loyalist feuds recently as well as drug dealing. There must be reliable news stories out there somewhere... -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 18:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Main activities

I've just spotted something in the lead I'm less than happy with - Its main activities were the killing of Roman Catholic civilians and to a lesser extent, Irish nationalist politicians - that's just woefully wrong. Certainly in its earlier years the UDA's main activities were more of a street based defensive force, albeit it with some other activities as well. This isn't really mentioned much in the article either. I'm not really aware of how significant (if at all) this role was as the years progressed, so I'm not overly comfortable adding too much to the article about it. Obviously the lead needs to provide a short summary of the article which it does at present, but this does need looking at in my opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. The actual figures are stated later on in the article. Also, all the paramilitary organisations detail how many deaths they were responsible for, except the PIRA page. This should be changed for consistancy I think. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with removing it, but it still leaves the main article problem which I don't feel capable of solving. Apart from the 1974 strike there's actually very little about the UDA's activities other than the murders, so it paints a slightly unbalanced picture of the organisation in my opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to remove "Republic of Ireland" from the area of activities. The UDA undertook a small number of operations there but it's misleading to say that it was active there. The UVF article has the same information. If going down that line, you've to add Great Britain, too, as both loyalist organisations were active there and undertok paramilitary-type actions. Billsmith60 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC).

POV & citations etc

I've been asked for input here regarding citations and "combined/seperate figures". I assume this latter refers to the UDA splinter group which has carried out murders, assassinations and other acts of terrorism. I would suggest that it be treated separately as other splinter groups of, for example, the Provisional IRA, are treated separately. The UFF is often seen as a more brutal or 'hardened' off-shoot. The Sutton 'Database of Deaths' lists them individually also. I don't think the article should be split, unless it becomes very sizeable.

The POV issues I have noticed in the article are as follows:

• Intro: "The Ulster Defence Association (UDA) is a loyalist paramilitary organisation in Northern Ireland, outlawed as a terrorist group in the UK and Republic of Ireland," — the term "terrorist" - Wikipedia is not consistant with regard to this word. Recently a Northern Ireland-related category concerning terrorist organisations became the only category to be renamed to a more PC, but less accurate, term. With this article, this organisation is attributed as being a terrorist group, whereas other articles, even within the NI-related sphere alone, are not consistant in this matter. My personal opinion is that they are all terrorist groups as they fit the definition. However, there should probably be some consistency, lest Wikipedia be regarded as pro-Republican for example. The groups and the members of them are either terrorists or they're not.

• Intro: "Its main activities were the killing of Roman Catholic civilians and to a lesser extent, Irish nationalist politicians." — this sentence is terribly POV. The couple of sentences which follow it merely make a bad thing even worse. The whole intro should be re-worded.

• Origin and development: "The Ulster Defence Union was formed in 1893 following a rally at the Ulster Hall where a manifesto was first published by the Ulster Defense Union led by Col. Robert Saunderson MP." This needs a citation. Who says that it was formed after a rally? Was it formed at the Ulster Hall, or was that just where this apparent rally took place? What was the rally about? Does this history of the UDU lead on to relevance regarding the UDA?

• Para2: "comprised of six hundred members from which an executive committee of forty would eventually form the Ulster Unionist Council which in turn became the Ulster Unionist Party." Who says? Where is this article in The Times? Do we know that the UUC became the UUP?

• Para3: "At its peak of strength it held around forty thousand members, mostly part-time." 40,000 at its peak? How do we know? I believe we need another authoritative source, by the way, as I suspect The Gaurdian to have a certain amount of bias in relation to Northern Ireland.

• Para3: "the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) (a cover name for the UDA) committed a large number of murders" Three things here - how do we know that the UFF is a 'cover name' for the UDA? How do we know that the UFF committed a large number of murders? Is "murder" non-POV?

• Para4: "In the 1970s the group favoured Northern Ireland independence, but they have retreated from this position." How do we know the group favoured independence? What form did this independence take (the word is ambiguous to someone with no knowledge, or scant knowledge of Northern Ireland)? How do we know they have "retreated" from their previous position? Is "retreated" a non-POV word?

• Para4: "The UDA was involved in the successful Ulster Workers Council Strike in 1974, which brought down the Sunningdale Agreement - an agreement which some loyalists and Unionists thought conceded too much to nationalist demands." This sentence should be re-written to indicate more strongly what is meant by "success". How exactly did the strike "bring down" the Sunningdale Agreement? Who says that "some" loyalists and Unionists thought the Sunningdale Agreement conceded "too much" to nationalist demands? Is the phrase "conceded too much" non-POV?

• Para5: "The UDA/UFF's official political position during the Troubles was that if the Provisional Irish Republican Army called off its campaign of violence, then the UDA would do the same." How do we know that this was the UDA's position? Is it correct to label the UDA and the UFF together as "UDA/UFF"?

I'll leave it there for the time being, but there is more possible POV and weasel wording throughout. -- Mal 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Origin and development - not got a clue about that, can't find a source for it anywhere.
• Para2 - as above.
• Para3 - the 40,000 figure can be sourced from several other places - here, here and here. Loyalists by Peter Taylor gives a figure of over 50,000 on page 83. The UFF/UDA relationship can also be sourced by Taylor, pages 115-6. The "large number of murders" is problematic, but I think large is as equally problematic as murder. I propose changing "committed a large number of murders" to "killed (insert figure from CAIN) people"
• Para4 - Not capable of addressing the first point, but I'll take a stab at Sunningdale. The strike has its own chapter in Loyalists, pages 127-137. Bryan Faulkner (the architect of Sunningdale) resigned (along with the executive) after a particularly contentious TV address by PM Harold Wilson. The strike had already paralysed most of Northern Ireland, then Wilson stated:

Yet people who benefit from this now viciously defy Westminister, purporting to act as though they were an elected government, spending their lives sponging on Westminister and British democracy and then systematically assault democratic methods. Who do these people think they are?

• Para5 - that can definitely be sourced, although I'd need to read through Loyalists to find you an exact cite as I can't find the page right now. For all intents and purposes UDA and UFF are one and the same in that context. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

goolcaptain; I've edited the main passage because it stated that 'The UDA was formed/armed by the Heath Goverment to wage war on the Catholic people of Northen Ireland' which just BEGGARS BELIEF! The UDA was formed because the IRA was murdering Unionists and was seen as a bulwark against them, striking back in kind. Anything else is Irish Nationalist self-delusion, unwilling to accept that Loyalist groups are an inevitable reaction to IRA violence rather than some form of nefarious conspiracy by the British establishment.

Aside from that the article is quite good.

UFF vs. UDA

For this article to be more helpful to people (like myself) coming to it from a position of ignorance, wanting to learn what these organizations are, it would be nice if the distinction between the UDA and the UFF was made clearer. Are they the same thing? If so, why the second name? Is/was the UFF a smaller operation within the larger UDA, formed for carrying out more secretive operations, as my impression has it? Is "UFF" just used to take credit for certain attacks or something? Or can the two terms be used interchangeably in all circumstances? Are all members of the UDA by definition members of the UFF too? Vice versa? If not, what IS the difference, organizationally? I'm very confused on this point, and I'm not alone. 216.231.46.147 21:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Here's an example, from the first paragraph: the UDA is initially described as a "paramilitary organization", but then further down the UFF is described as its "military wing". Do paramilitary organizations have NON-military wings? 216.231.46.147 21:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "cain" :
  • [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html CAIN project]
  • http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/uorgan.htm Cain web Service: Abstracts on Organisations]

DumZiBoT (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Freedom Fighters

It is terribly misleading to group these two organisations together. Of course, they were two branches of the same tree, but the UFF operated on its own for long periods in the 1980s and 90s, particularly when Johnny Adair was active. I'm not saying that the UFF should be a separate article, but the use of the term UDA/UFF is almost as misleading as the term 'Sinn Fein/IRA' as used by the DUP! Jamezcd (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've got a photograph, which might be useful in this article.

[2]

Giko (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I see there have been frequent attempts to add disputed content into the article. The Guardian article does not source the conclusion being made, and it also contains a number of inaccuracies. Padraig O'Seanachain is not described as 'oglach' in Tirghra, and the previous IRA activities of Danny Cassidy and Alan Lundy are described in the book's text. However neither of them were necessarily IRA Volunteers at the time of their murders, which is the key point. The Irish Echo article also contains a number of inaccuracies. The murder of James Sloan and James McCann was not by the UDA, it was by a loyalist group without a name in collusion with the MRF, this is admitted to by someone involved in the follow-up attack (John Black in Killing For Britain). The idea that the UDA/UKFF would murder a prestigious target such as two IRA Volunteers and make no claim of responsibility is an outlandish one, which is why it was not done by them. CAIN attribute it to a non-specific loyalist group, John Black admits it wasn't the UDA, so we are only left with Holland's plucked from thin air ideas as to who was responsible. I welcome further discussion here. O Fenian (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my request for discussion of the proposed edit here, as it is unacceptable in its current form and it is more unacceptable to keep making it while ignoring this discussion. O Fenian (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I've corrected errors there re the original leadership. Smallwoods came later. And it's incorrect to say that McMichael was leader of the UFF until his death. He was a UDA briigadier and hence "a leader" of the UFF, but Tyrie said on TV years ago that the UFF never had a single leader. This was true, since it operated a brigade structure without an overall command like the UVF had. I think he should be removed from there, as it's misleading. Problem is that it's referenced but did the cited works really claim that McMichael was *The leader of the UFF? I doubt it. Billsmith60 (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is really very little media and scholarly coverage on the UFF, since it was just a cover name given to the hard-liners within the UDA who carried out the violence such as bombings, assassinations and random killings. These men were allowed to command various areas such as John White and Davy Payne in the Shankill and McMichael in the South Belfast/Lisburn area; yet they remained under the UDA umbrella. The UFF was obviously not allowed a single over-all leader as the UDA leadership would have been worried lest the UFF seek to become a separate group entirely and take all the hard men with them. I think John McMichael's name should be removed seeing, as Billsmith correctly points out, the UFF did not have a single, over-all commander.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, the Shankill Road Brigade of the UFF became the UDA/UFF's infamous 2nd Battalion, C.Company that Johnny Adair would later command.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Unification/Reunification

In what way is a United Ireland a "reunification" please? As I understand it, the ideology of a United Ireland is that of united the Republic of Ireland with Northern Ireland outside of the United Kingdom. "Reunifying" implies that the Republic of Ireland would rejoin the Union, which is not something that is particularly desired by Republicans. The article being directed to by the wikilink is clearly titled "United Ireland" and not "Reunited Ireland". Please explain the revert to my edit. Thanks. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with that interpretation of the phrase. Ireland used to be united and now it isn't, thus it would be reunified. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was only united as a kingdom and a lordship of the British monarch, and later as an integral part of the UK. Thus the ambiguity with "reunited". --86.12.24.209 (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Combat 18

Big Dunc: read any articles cited more carefully before reverting my work: see 2nd last section (Links to British Fascism): "and Combat 18 is no longer wanted by the UDA. Combat 18's links have not been only with the UDA, however, and in fact, with losing the UDA connection, their connection to the UVF undoubtedly became all the more important. It is significant therefore that the recently demoted UVF commander of the Village had links with Combat 18." Billsmith60 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong the article you are using is from 2004 and doesn't say all links are severed, here is one from the BBC in 2006 which claims links are still there. So I will be removing again when 24 hr period is up unless you want to self revert. BigDunc 13:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again! Where did Vincent Kearney get his info.: from some of the Wikipedia article, probably! How you can accept that bald statement without qualification is beyond me. The logic of what he's saying is that the Combat 18 links must have been restored since 2004. Please amend the text accordingly, then, thanks. Billsmith60 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume you have evidence that Vincent Kearney, the BBC Northern Ireland home affairs correspondent plagiarises his reports from wikipedia. Also as of 2001 links were there according to the site you were using here at most we had a little window when no one reported on the links between the facist groups.BigDunc 16:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is Wikipedia's major weakness: accepting journalists as impeccable sources. They are largely lazy and selfish and use other people's work all the time, esp. Wiki like I believe Kearney did on this occasion. You'll note that he did not substantiate his bald statement. In the absence of other sources, I refer to the press but would prefer not to. Billsmith60 (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you care to have a look at BBC NI/ Mr Kearney's history of the UDA http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8442746.stm and tell me that much of this is not plagiarised from the Wiki article?

For instance: BBC - "The following day, the UDA announced that it had stood down the UFF, and said all UFF weapons were being put "beyond use", but stressed this did not mean they would be decommissioned."

Wiki- On 11 November 2007 the UDA announced that the Ulster Freedom Fighters would be stood down from midnight of the same day,[37] with its weapons "being put beyond use" although it stressed that these would not be decommissioned

Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure lazy reporters have taken chunks of articles but you are making a serious accusation against a BBC Journalist that he is plagiarising his work. BigDunc 15:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing against Mr Kearney but will rest my case on the evidence above. Thanks, Billsmith60 (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't recommend becoming a prosecution lawyer any time soon. If you had looked at the original source you will see exactly who is plagiarising whom. There has been some slack journalism at the BBC in the past which I have complained about and received a personal apology from the BBC, when this report copied and pasted a significant amount of text from an article I'd written, and this was subsequently repeated in two related news reports in 2009. I believe this was due to the BBC not writing fresh copy but recycling parts of earlier reports which makes logical sense, thus it stands to reason that this article would recycle the earlier report which was plagiarised by a Wikipedia editor in the first place. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the part on the Neo-Nazi links (and the repartition/ethnic cleansing plan), with citations from Black Sun and Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA. There are more sources out there but I trust these will do for now. ~Asarlaí 07:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Covername/military wing/flag of convenience/nom du guerre

I've temporarily removed the synthesised claim that many considered the UFF a "military wing". Getting several sources and adding them together does not equal "many", especially when one author was even cited twice. Crimes of Loyalty is even inconsistent in the UDA/UFF relationship, going with the "flag of convenience" label instead. Many sources describe the UDA/UFF relationship in different ways, the majority of them listed in the section title. Only presenting one view using synthesis isn't accpeptable, anyone got any ideas on the best way of doing it? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

But wasn't the UFF just a cover name for the UDA hard men who carried out all the sectarian attacks in the early 1970s, with John White devising the name Ulster Freedom Fighters in 1973? It was used so that the UDA could avoid being proscribed, yet claim credit for their killings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well it was, but all of the labels in the section heading can be reliably sourced. In addition some sources also use more than one of the labels, alternating between military wing and covername or another label. So any ideas on the best way of presenting the "relationship"? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, the main problem here is chronological. Killing squads in the UDA began their campaign of murdering Catholics before the UFF name was created in 1973, yet the members of the UDA killing squads were also UFF members (but only after 1973 since the name didn't exist before then). I had this problem when I created the article on Davy Payne. I had to describe him as second-in-command of the Shankill UFF brigade, yet he allegedly began executing innocent Catholics in early 1972 as a member of the UDA. I suppose the best way of presenting the relationship would be the way the murals in Loyalist Belfast do: UDA/UFF. I cannot think of any other way.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There's definitely a case to be made for that in the early 1970s when the UFF were "formed", as back then the UDA had a large membership and it was a minority of the membership that were involved in "retaliatory" activity. However over the years the distinction between the UDA and UFF became virtually non-existent, as is evident by the British government's actions in 1992. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem back then too was that the UDA leadership was finding it hard to control the hardliners in such an unwieldy organisation. The UFF served as a type of sieve where the hard men could go and carry out their missions, yet still remain under the UDA umbrella as the last thing the UDA leaders wanted was a rival organisation complete with its own commander, who just happened to have all the heavies and enforcers with him such as Davy Payne and John White.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The UFF was never "formed", as such, being simply a flag of convenience for the murderous activities of the UDA in an attempt to take the heat off that organisation. The UDA had been murdering Catholics long before the UFF name was first used in June 1973. In Dillon's "Political Murder in Northern Ireland", a UFF spokesman (possibly John White) said in an interview that the UFF had been responsible for "most of" the murders committed in the upper Shankill area since sectarian murder took on a dimension all of its own in spring 1972. Military wing is misleading, as UDA members were involved in thousands of attacks on Catholics and Catholic property without the UFF name being used. Flag of convenience or cover name is clearly the correct term when there is no difference between the UDA and UFF. Billsmith60 (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What you say is true, however the UDA almost always used the cover name UFF when carrying out it's attacks against Catholics from June 1973 onwards. The UFF claimed responsibility for the Paddy Wilson-Irene Andrews double-murder in June 1973 and it also claimed responsibilty for the attempted murder of Bernadette Devlin McAliskey in 1981. My problem is when one is a member of the UFF yet began his killing campaign in the Spring of 1972 as a member of the UDA such as Davy Payne. The name UFF obviously served a triple purpose for the UDA: To keep the British government and RUC at bay; terrorise the nationalist community; and maintain the "Hey, we're the good guys, we help the community, it's the UVF who are the hard lads" image to the law-abiding Loyalists who saw the UDA as defenders of their community. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Tables

I notice here and the UVF page are tables with civilians killed, paramilitaries killed etc, but none on the RIRA or PIRA pages, in the interests of balance they should be added, but I'm not quite sure how to navigate the reference page citedHachimanchu (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

IP 85.211.119.221

This IP has removed the following, claiming that it is not supported by the source:

However, most of its victims were civilians according to the Sutton Index of Deaths.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/crosstabs.html |title=Sutton Index of Deaths: Crosstabulations |publisher=[[Conflict Archive on the Internet]] (CAIN) |accessdate=2011-03-15}} - choose "organisation" as First Variable and "status" as Second Variable</ref>

Now... if you follow that link and follow my instructions, you'll be shown a table. If you have a calculator handy, you'll find that 197 of the UDA/UFF's 260 victims were civilian. ~Asarlaí 01:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The matter has been sorted. ~Asarlaí 14:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

UDA is a Protestant organization.

Someone needs to state clearly that the UDA is composed of Protestants in the first sentence, and change many of the vague, confusing uses of "them" and "they." One shouldn't have to click outside of the article to read "UDA IS A PROTESTANT ORGANIZATION." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledragons (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't exclusively composed of Protestants. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, how about "almost exclusively Protestant except for a couple of rare, extreme situations where the exceptions prove the rule." Just as long as the word "Protestant" shows up there. Doubledragons (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)