Jump to content

Talk:Ulster Volunteer Force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maethordaer (talk | contribs) at 21:11, 2 September 2011 (→‎Requested move: Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2005 Comments: Bias

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

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

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

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

Aughavey 1 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation Page?

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

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

Jonto 01:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Dublin/Monaghan bombings collusion

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

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

Demiurge 10:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Add some things

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

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)[reply]

Some of the images will need to go- just noticed that you can only have 1 TV screenshot per article. An article on loyalist weaponry/importation might work- like the PIRA one. Will investigate. Fluffy999 16:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be responding to messages left on my talkpage or on pages for articles I have worked on. Will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. Thank you. Fluffy999 13:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C18 Link?

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

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

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

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

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

Drug dealing activity

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

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

website

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

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

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

Doesn't work on Firefox, so I've removed it per WP:EL. One Night In Hackney303 17:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work in IE either, but strangely it does work in Safari. Any ideas why? Vilĉjo 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vandalism

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

Fair use rationale for Image:UVFcrest.jpg

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

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

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

Tag error

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

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

Missing citations

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

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

Non-sourced allegation

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

CAIN?

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

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

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)[reply]

Deaths

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

Miami Showband Massacre

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

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

Yes, I'm aware of that, but as I recall the uniforms of the UDR were slightly different from that of the regular Army. Correct me if I'm mistaken.--jeanne (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how their uniforms are relevant! (Not aware of any difference, either - although happy to be educated.) Mooretwin (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps some Editor can enlighten us as to the difference. Anyway, it wouldn't have made much difference to the occupants of the Showband van. To them, the checkpoint would have appeared to have been a British Army checkpoint. Sorry, I made such a fuss.--jeanne (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Area of Operations

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

Different UVF brigades

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

I've seen the Mid-Ulster brigade, Belfast brigade, East Antrim brigade, and North Down brigade named in books and/or news articles. The Mid-Ulster brigade seemed to cover the biggest area (north Armagh, southwest Antrim, east Tyrone, southeast Derry). I assume the UVF's structure was similar to that of the Provisional IRA (see here). It's possible that UVF groups outside those areas weren't attached to brigades. ~Asarlaí 16:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those geographical areas were more correctly "battalions", not brigades, as outside Belfast no area had more than one battalion (I believe). And as the UVF's commander-in-chief holds the rank of brigadier-general, local commanders (like Billy Wright up to 1996) were colonels, the equivalent to battalion or regimental commanders. Billsmith60 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed page move (July 2011)

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

Hi, I have made this request. There is no need for a UVF/Ulster Volunteer Force disambiguation page, really, as the 1912 incarnation was called the Ulster Volunteers. Billsmith60 (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not undiscussed. Please see point 2 in the table of contents - it is clearly ambiguous and was discussed before but people were too lazy to ever make the change. The original 1912/1913 were also known as the UVF or Ulster Volunteer Force (e.g. http://www.uvf.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=47, http://www.uvf.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=46&limit=1&limitstart=2 etc. etc. and thousands of other sources if you look) but not linked at all. The article on 1912/13 has been left at Ulster Volunteers, but it is wrong to let the more recent incarnation hijack "Ulster Volunteer Force" without some sort of disambig and qualifier, especially given that the earlier group in many ways are more significant given their role in giving Ulster Unionist self-determination recognition. BoutYeBigLad (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC) (I also reckon that all the IRA articles should be disambiguated, but there they have done the opposite and made the original IRA one dominant)[reply]
I agree with Asarlai. There was no consensus for the page move and suggest that the page be moved back to its original title of Ulster Volunteer Force.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The 1912 organisation *was called the Ulster Volunteers; there is no disputing that. And while I see that there is a need for a disambiguation page, that the "main" UVF should blink to an article entitled "Ulster Volunteer Force (1966)" is incorrect (despite the BBC saying so http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11313364). That organisation was formed in 1965 - according to the PUP, its political arm (http://progressiveunionistparty.org/articles/principles-of-loyalism/); and I recall an interview with Gusty Spence, its first military commander, that confirms it was 1965. So why don't the admin, people restore things to where they were and clear up the terrible mess user User:BoutYeBigLad has created *before* a new disambig. page is established and agreed. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your approach. It's also bias/PoV to suggest that this is the "main" UVF - all we can do is disambiguate, so am glad you agree to that (I think that the Irish Republican Army article is also biased/"PoVed" as it suggests that the original IRA is the "main" IRA - the opposite to what you are suggesting here for the other side of the fence). BoutYeBigLad made both a structural improvement and improvement in clarity/NPOV compared to before; moving things back will actually make them structurally WORSE as it will lose the disambiguation page. This article was ALWAYS a mess as the two Ulster Volunteer Forces where never clearly discussed separately as they should have been - this was made into a bigger mess when the article on the original UVF was separated out and the agreed approach to have a disambiguation page was not initially followed (BoutYeBigLad corrected that and was more in line with the original consensus).
The point about exact dates (if there actually ever was an exact date in the first place) is minor and can be easily adjusted. There is no need to undo a structural improvement when that same structure is the one that is needed. You'd be better taking up your issue with exact dates with every single Wikipedia article on the modern UVF first as they all say 1966. After then this article can easily be moved to Ulster Volunteer Force (1965), Ulster Volunteer Force (1960s) or Ulster Volunteer Force (1960s-present). I don't think that the exact date of formation is very clear (it's likely to have formed over a period of several months and not at an instant - even the article you link to isn't clear on who formed it and exactly when) so perhaps the latter suggestion may be best - i.e. I would favour moving this article to Ulster Volunteer Force (1960s-present) (cf Irish Republican Army (1922–1969) ). Jonto (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no need for any date to be added to the title of this article. Ulster Volunteer Force worked fine until this undiscussed move. Dates should be avoided as part of article titles unless they are necessary to a reader's understanding of the subject. This is not the case here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed any of the pertinent points as to the need for unambiguous clarity here. Almost every other year I hear some media story in NI in outrage at some Somme commemoration or another with WWI UVF involvement - it's ambiguous article titles like what was here that are a factor in causing this ignorance.
The article did not "work fine" either - half of the articles on NI issues are in an absolutely dire state at the moment - the fact that no one changes them is probably less to do with that they are clear and correct and more to do with people have no time for the typical edit warring that occurs on NI articles. Jonto (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, notwithstanding the substantive points about the need for a disambig. page, etc., surely this is primarily about Wiki's policies and procedures, and driving a horse and cart through them appearing to be condoned! The key word in all this is "undiscussed", as Jeanne notes. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds to me like some people care more about Wikipedia bureaucracy and procedures more than they do about factual accuracy and clarity of information. What has happened is entirely in line with WP:BOLD and is the correct spirit if accuracy is to be gained anywhere. Again, this was discussed, so if would be helpful to talk constructively here about the topic at hand rather than ranting about Wikipedia protocol. Jonto (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it *wasn't discussed, friend; that's the point! An editor made wholesale changes to an article then started discussing it. So far there is a majority *against those sweeping changes which, in no way, adhere to Wiki's procedures on being "bold". My use of "driving horses and carts" is entirely appropriate. Let's have the article restored to where it was, in accordance with the majority wishes of those who have expresed an opinion, and we can surely discuss the disambig. page., etc. Billsmith60 (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's drop the 1966 from the title as it doesn't need to be there.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should re-cap what has actually happened so far. This article was renamed Ulster Volunteer Force (1966) and Ulster Volunteer Force was made a disambiguation page. The effect of this so-called bold move is to by-pass BRD, because the move cannot be reversed without an RM. However, no Ulster Volunteer Force (1913) article was created, so the parenthesis in this article title now disambiguates it from an article that doesn't exist! This is against naming principles and disambiguation principles. Personally, I think Ulster Volunteer Force (1966) is an awful name. It gives the impression that the organisation was a flash-in-the-pan affair in the mid-twentieth century, before the Troubles began. But I wouldn't oppose it if there was any kind of consensus at all for keeping it. There should be an RM opened at once to move this article back, and in the interim Ulster Volunteer Force should be made a redirect to this page. If that RM fails - and not until then - there should be an immediate discussion (not a bold move) either to move Ulster Volunteers to Ulster Volunteer Force (1913) or to split it into Ulster Volunteer Force (1913) and an article on the 1912 body. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think it's pushing it a bit to say a thing was discussed on the basis of some comments five or six years ago! If we made a habit of changing articles without notifying anybody because changes were "discussed" in 2005 it would lead to a lot of grief on a lot of articles. Scolaire (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no opposition from me because I was on holiday at the time and had limited access to a PC and Wikipedia. Had I not been away, there would have been strenuous protests on my part at this bold move. I do not see why we need dates at all for Spence's organistion seeing as most people would not necessarily associate it with a particular year whereas they would with the original UVF. Why not leave the 1966 UVF as plain unadorned Ulster Volunteer Force while we add 1913 to the article on the original group?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because that would give primacy to the 1966 organisation. Mooretwin (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or not, the primary meaning of Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) is the current organization. The current organization is also the one that has used the name for the longest; much, much longer than the 'original'. ~Asarlaí 14:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's merely your opinion. Mooretwin (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current organization has used the name UVF for at least 45 years. For nearly 40 years, it has been consistently in the news and consistently referd to as the UVF (without any disambiguation). The same can't be said of the 1913 organization. ~Asarlaí 21:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Jeanne there was no opposition from you because the last post in the discussion was over a year before you created your account, unless you're admitting this isn't your first account? ;) 2 lines of K303 14:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside any arguments about how the move was brought about, I support the current title of this article as necessary to distinguish it from the original UVF organisation. Mooretwin (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ONIH, this is certainly my first account. I have never edited at Wikipedia before 2 April 2008. I assumed the discussion was made after the move this summer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not au fait with Wikipedia policies on this sort of thing, but to me "Ulster Volunteer Force (1966)" means an organisation that existed in that year alone. It also seems completely silly to have a disambiguation page when there is a sum total of two organisations that have existed by the name "Ulster Volunteer Force"; we now have more pages than there were organisations! All each article needs is a note at the top with a link to the other.
In my view, such as it's worth anything, we should have the "modern" organisation at "Ulster Volunteer Force" and the "historic" organisation at "Ulster Volunteers". It's a slightly artificial distinction, but then all the alternatives are equally artificial (if not more so).
</two cents>
Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Requested move

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulster_Volunteer_Force&oldid=448104282"