Talk:Ulster Special Constabulary

Reputation

never losing their reputation amongst Republicans for brutality and partisanship,

I've just done some minor cleanups and the above chunk was a little orphaned. It's unsupported as it stands, but rather than sticking a citation tag on it I thought it would probably benefit from being taken out and written up into a full section on the force's activities and reputation. I don't have the knowledge to do it, but some coverage would be useful for the article. Tom Harris 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, well I dont think it would be hard to cite sources to back it up as a statement of fact. The question is why is what republicans think of the B-Specials or the reputation of the B-specials amongst republicans remarkable in the current version of the article? I dont think it is. Fluffy999 21:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose it is, unless as part of the police it's important that they enjoyed a poor reputation amongst part of the population they were serving. The current text is strong on their history, mergers and structure, but perhaps could be a bit stronger on their activities and their place within a broader historical Northern Ireland? As I said, I'm not a specialist; I'm impressed by the work you've done on similar articles, so I'll defer to your judgement :-) Tom Harris 19:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it was just a bit of prior POVism that went unnoticed until you came along. Many of the articles in the Northern Ireland sphere are prone to vandalism etc. Considering the service of the USC they deserve more detail as you said. Thanks for your nice comments :) Fluffy999 19:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not be responding to messages left on my talkpage or on pages for articles I have worked on. Will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. Thank you. Fluffy999 13:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I would dearly love to track down the source of the Anderson quotation: I have trawled through all the books referenced, and even a few others not referenced (such as Anderson's biography and various histories of Ulster). Is it from Government correspondence, and if so, where can it be found? JustinLA 10:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Tweaking

I've tweaked the article slightly to make just a couple of sentences read better and I've also included a link to the Hunt Report. I'll try to look in again soon to add more of the much needed citations.

GDD1000 (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added some fresh information with citations and tweaked what seems to be POV in a couple of cases.The Thunderer (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

By inserting Discipline, whilst good, was based on goodwill and administration was poor[..]They had however done a good job, despite the criticisms made against them????? You inserted only more POV. Freedscouser (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Point of view

Ok, I don't know much about wikipedia guidelines but I do know about neutral point of view, and looking in the article I can see that thethunderer has recently altered the article to the point where it has become severely slanted.

Am I alone here?Freedscouser (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would very much agree with you on this the way it is worded now is as if Catholics were queueing up yo join but were afraid due to intimidation. Far to much weight is being used here and on other articles on the book wrote by an ex UDR member which in my opinion is far from neutral. The same would be said if an IRA member wrote a book about the UDR and it was being used as gospel. Time to start to balance out these articles. BigDunc^Talk 11:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made a couple of small edits this needs a lot of work due to as I stated above the amount of weight given to an ex UDR members book. BigDunc^Talk 12:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You two have got this wrong. "The Thin Green Line" by Doherty bears out what Potter says. The important factors to note here are this:

1. Nationalists policiticians of the day did not want Catholics joining in with anything involved with the state.
2. Unionist politicians did not want Catholics joining in state institutions.
3. Some Catholics did join the USC.
4. The IRA threatened Catholic members of the USC.
5. The USC became Protestant only by dint of these FACTS.
6. Scarman and Hunt both commented that, generally, the B Specials did a good job but were deployed badly, were insufficiently trained and on occasion, badly led.

As far as I can see the objection here isn't about what the B Specials were or weren't, what they did or didn't do but largely to keep the synthesis pointing towards a deliberate anti-Catholic policy by the USC itself. That isn't the evidence which is emerging. The two books I've use so far agree and while you two might argue that Potter is ex Royal Artillery and ex-UDR, Doherty isn't, nor is he ex-RUC or B Specials. Other evidence will be available along these lines and I will find it and when I do I will include it. I don't care if it shows the B Men as brutal Protestant thugs or as impartial policemen. Whatever the evidence is it will be included. It's time to stop the politcal gerrymandering of these articles to achieve a Pro Protestant or Pro Nationalst POV. It's time for straight facts. If you don't like them then include more evidence which suits your POV and let the reader judge from factual evidence what the performance of the USC was. If you want to include evidence from books by IRA men then do so. If they're published then they are sources, and that gos for the Potter book too - it's not up to you or me to decide whose books are relevant. The Thunderer (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded the section on Recruitment again. Maninly because this interminable item from the BBC in 1969 was used again. What was speculated by the BBC in 1969 isn't relevant to the 1920's and to me looks slanted. It's enough to point out that Nationalist and Unionist institutions were against Catholics joining - let's use real and relevant facts here gentlemen please and don't exclude any because they hurt your own POV. That goes for me too.The Thunderer (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote

Thunderer could you give me the exact quote that backs up this assertion regarding Catholic members of the force, ...there were some in the force, even in Londonderry. Thanks BigDunc^Talk 17:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll look it up for you when I get home Dunc. About half an hour. I don't think it's an exact quote but it's very close.The Thunderer (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the exact quote from p82, the Thin Green Line, it is referring to the increase in RUC force establishment needed to cope with the rising violence of the 12th of July period, 1969 and refers to "outbreaks of violence in Belfast and Londonderry", an Orange Hall being "attacked" by a "Nationalist mob" in Dungiven (one man died but the paragraph doesn't say how) and Specials firing shots over a crowd's head as they were leaving a dance and the increase in tension following these incidents:

"Another increase in force establishment was announced but the immmediate need for more manpower could only be met by mobilzing still more Specials, which led to further Nationalist criticism. One of their constant shibboleths was that the Ulster Special Constabulary was a sectarian organisation that allowed no Catholics in its ranks. This was not true: although most Specials were Protestant there were some Catholics in the force, including some in Londonderry."

Armed with that quote would you have any suggestions as to the wording? The Thunderer (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing a referenced quote

Thunderer you have changed a referenced quote please undo this edit as I have no intention of getting in to an edit war with you. BigDunc^Talk 13:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You have misread the sentence. The word "Specials" was in twice and looked grammatically incorrect, the sentence still reads the same.

As for your request for a quote at your "citeref". Yes I do have a quote and will include it later when I am at home and able to quote the correct page from the book. It isn't a problem.The Thunderer (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There you are old chap. Citations provided, item reworded to conform with the citations and a further incident provided of when Specials were suspected of murdering Catholics. Plus some added information on attempts to recruit Catholics to police Catholic areas and why it didn't happen. Now you can't say fairer than that, can you? I'm doing your dirty work for you by poisoning my "own" well. (using the term "own" very loosely as it isn't my article - despite assertions to the contrary by some - ahem). The Thunderer (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And again I am reverted

I compromised and left in the text in on the USC article, but removed the links and I rearanged the paragraph so that it states that one quote says no Catholics and Scarmann says that it was hard for Catholics to join and then the rebuff from the RUC history. The Thunderer just reverts it again. And as I said last night as soon as I make an edit it is reverted now are we going to see your quick action that you applied to me applied to The Thunderer. Or am I just to be left feeling that it was victimisation.BigDunc^Talk 11:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You weren't reverted and the note beside the change makes it clear why the change was made. The way you had written it looked as if Doherty was disagreeing with Scarman, which isn't reflected in the quote I left at your request on the talk page. Your edit of this morning is intact but I changed the grammar so that it shows Doherty's information in contrast to Farrell's but Scarman's comments come last as they aren't related to the two authors quotes. If I'm guilty of anything it's a simple matter of not leaving a note on the talk page as to why I had changed the grammar. Anyone looking at my change of this morning and reading this will see immediately why I made it. The Thunderer (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So know it reads there were no catholics, yes there were, and it was hard for them to join and yes I was reverted as normal with any edit I make on one of your articles, a revert is ...any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.

No, it doesn't read there were no Catholics. It reads that Farrell alleges there were no Catholics (which needs changed slightly, because it wasn't just Farrell's assertion), then it goes on to say that is challenged by Doherty in his book and that there were SOME Catholics. Finally, in that paragraph, is the information that Scarman reported in 1969 that he felt it woould be unlikely that Catholic applications would be approved. It needs some information added to it which you had removed to restore the fact that it was almost totally Protestant to tie in with all three sources and make it read sensibly. The Thunderer (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It's changed now - if you would discuss these issues beforehand we wouldn't have problems like this, nor would we have to go back in and rewrite the same piece several times. It doesn't say anything different now to what it said in the first place without the Farrell quote so why you felt it necessary to qualify the fact that there were no Catholics by including it is beyond me. You've achieved nothing except pipelinks to Farrell and Doherty's pages. The Thunderer (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes to your version you haven't changed it back to the way I had it, it still reads no catholics yes there is and Scarman saying hard for catholics. The paragraph doesnt flow goes from one angle to another and back. So as I said Black Kite any edit I make is instantly reverted. IMO the fact that it is disputed is the reason I put in the ref from Farrell, and why Thunderer had to add extra links saying that the author of the RUC is history is catholic is just an attempt to say look a catholic is even saying it. The link to the authors article states in the first line who and what he is and there is no need to add it here too. BigDunc^Talk 13:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And now here he is changing a referenced quote from specials to others, come on please. BigDunc^Talk 13:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked him on the article talk page to undo his change to the referenced quote which so far he has not done. BigDunc^Talk 13:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have. The Thunderer (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not back to my version. You included the information on Farrell and I've kept it in. All I've done is change the synthesis so it doesn't look as if Doherty was calling Scarman's word into doubt, which he wasn't, nor was he doubting Farrell's word. Doherty's assertion is that there were some Catholics in the force which goes against the general assumption of the time (and since) that there weren't any, which even I wasn't aware of. Scarman's quote is important because he failed to see how any Catholics could get into the force. That's what my original version said. All you have done is add Doherty as evidence of what my version was already telling the reader. In the context which you have now introduced it is important that the reader be aware of Farrell and Doherty's pedigree because Farrell was PD who were calling for the disbandment of the Specials BEFORE Burntollet. Farrell could be Protestant for all I know, although unlikely to be so. Doherty on the other hand is a Derry Catholic, born and bred, yet he asserts that there were some Catholic members. It is most important from an encylopedic point of view to keep the subject matter balanced and neutral from personal POV. Your next move to introduce a section on "Controversy" would seem to indicate that you want to tell the reader all the bad points about the USC, now that's well poisoning again but I'm prepared to let it stay because I have loads of quotes from Doherty about how effective the Specials were, how good they were as a counter insurgency force and WHY (most importantly) all the complaints against them would be from Catholic Nationalists who refused to take part in the apparatus of the state and who wouldn't join the USC because their leaders told them not to and the IRA threatened them. So inevitably that section will finished up just as balanced as the rest of the article but richer for the content you have paved the way for. And no, I haven't changed the quote. I just changed the word for grammatical purposes. It's still obvious that it was Specials who were alleged to have carried out the attack. I'm actually helping you now. Have fun.The Thunderer (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What you were telling the reader is that there were catholic members I included a ref that disputed that, and as regards Doherty you added him not me. And I see your new word of the week is well poisoning very good word that but the specials well and truely did that themselves I didn't make up the facts about the murders they commited and lots and lots more along with the 2 incidents I mentioned. So should I remove this section and we can all look at them with the same rose colored spectacles that you wear. BigDunc^Talk 14:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What I was telling readers is in the page history:

There was a general assumption that the B Specials were Protestant only. This was not true. Although Protestants were in the overwhelming majority and it was difficult for Catholics to join, there were some in the force, even in Londonderry. I later qualified this by including the Scarman quote to illustrate how difficult it would be for Catholics to join. I don't have an issue with you putting in facts about murders committed by B Specials. I wouldn't dispute they happened but I do have a source which says there was an official policy against reprisals because of the outcry against reprisal actions in the South West. The fact of the matter is: you are trying to show the B Specials, as you did with the UDR, as a totally discredited force with no attempt to show any balance or reasoning. The facts however speak for themselves; that the USC was an effective counter insurgency force which generally performed impartially. It is correct to show instances when they didn't do their duties properly (or took the law into their own hands) just as it is equally correct to show when they did. It is not correct to try and paint them blacker than black because that is a Nationalist only POV but it would be admissable to say that the Nationalist opinion of them was very low and any reasoning for it, as well as including the propaganda against them by Republican groups because they were so effective. I have partially dealt with that by putting a statement under "Disbandment" which says Since disbandment the USC has assumed a place of "almost mythic proportions" [39] within Unionist folklore, whereas in the Nationalist community they are still reviled as the Protestant only, armed wing of the Unionist government "associated with the worst examples of unfair treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland by the police force". [40]

If your intention is to twist the synthesis on the article to make them look as if they were totally anti-Catholic with a policy against Catholics from the word go then forget it, that isn't going to happen. I trust we understand each other? Well poisoning is a very appropriate term to describe what you try to do to these articles and as long as it continues to be appropriate, I will use it. The Thunderer (talk)

Flavour of the article

Points for consideration

Gievn recent events I would like to submit some points as a possible concensus for material to be included in this article to avoid any further bickering over content.

The reader using this article for encyclopedic purposes must be made aware of:

1. Distrust between the Protestant/Unionist state of Northern Ireland and the Catholic/Nationalist Irish Free State and the influences brought to bear on both communites by political and community leaders as an extension of their policies.
2. The socio-political influences of the Irish Uprising, Tan War and Civil War.
3. That Catholics were viewed with suspicion by Protestant/Unionists - and why, and its effect upon recruitment and recruitment policies for the USC.
4. That Catholics were discouraged by church and political leaders from taking part in the apparatus of the state and that threats were issued by the IRA to deter them.
5. That propaganda was used against the USC and that some complaints and allegations made against them were mischievous.
6. Incidents in which Specials took the law into their own hands - proven as well as alleged.
7. Incidents in which the Specials acted improperly as uniformed servants of the community (opening fire in civil disturbances, undue use of force, acting as part of a mob - anything like that).
8. Occasions when the USC acted properly and impartially as servants of the community.
9. The success of the USC as a counter insurgency force.
10. The inherent differences between the Belfast constables and those in the rest of the Province.
11. Leadership, command and control issues, good and bad, whether USC or RUC.

The article should be presented as a verifiable record of this force of Special Constables which can be used for encyclopedic purposes.

It should not contain material which is deliberately slanted to make it look as if the raison d'etre of the force was to be anti-Catholic or pro-Protestant and to do that it is an absolute priority that the reader always be aware that Protestants were in support of the force and why, and that Catholics, especially Nationalists and Republicans were opposed to the force - and why.

Any editor with any knowledge of Irish affairs is likely to have an opinion or (in some cases) a natural prejudice in favour of one point of view or another. For once it would be nice to see those opinions and views set aside in favour of good, hard, verifiable facts and a non POV article.

If I've left anything out it isn't deliberate and can be added in by someone else as part of the article concensus.

May we have discussion on this? The Thunderer (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Attitudes and image

I have established this new section as I feel that the opinions from newspapers and other sources are partisan and are not reflecting the true circumstances of the formation of this police force or militia (whatever you want to call it). It is imperative that we keep the article in perspective and as it's likely to become quite large over time - now that it's getting attention - it is prudent to have a layout. If we can manage to keep POV material separate from the actual machinations of formation then we would be achieving something. The Thunderer (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)