Talk:Ulster Special Constabulary/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

That is your opinion. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You have just deleted material which is properly sourced and referenced. This is another instance of edit warring. I suggest you get a 3rd opinion. Failing that I shall seek protection for this article too and that is not productive. The Thunderer (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you get a third opinion, because to date "I feel that the opinions from newspapers and other sources are partisan and are not reflecting the true circumstances of the formation" is not good enough. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop me expanding the article and introducing formatting to keep the various sections clear and concise. Why are you trying to prevent me from doing so and why are you deleting material which has an inline citation? The Thunderer (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Get a decent source and you migh stand a chance, one that is both WP:V and WP:RS. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This has now been reported at ANI. I will not countenance another edit war. The Thunderer (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've suggest ArbCom, might as well go to the top of the house. Okay, checkuser shows no evidence of abusive sock-puppetry, I suggest otherwise. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. The Thunderer (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm accusing you of abusive sock-puppetry. Now your comments and your edits support this accusation. Your a self confessed sock, and ArbCom should address it. Now I've done with you for the moment, lets see were ANI suggest. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been dealt with. Your continued pursuance of this wild goose chase gets no one anywhere.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock and I honestly think you should consider civility before saying things like that please. The Thunderer (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors should be reminded that they should debate the issues, not the editors. Not only is making such accusations entirely not conducive to resolving disputes and building consensus, but it suggests (correctly or incorrectly) that the factual basis for one's stand is weak and hence isn't even conducive to maintaining one's own position in a debate. If one's argument is strong and based in fact (or an earnest effort to determine facts, as I realise with many of these things the facts themselves are quite hazy and unclear due to the political and partisan issues involved and their translation into the sources available) and in Wikipedia policies/guidelines, one doesn't need to create offense or throw allegations around - the argument should then stand on its own merits. Orderinchaos 10:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The facts themselves are quite clear to be honest. It's when elements of partisan attitudes get introduced that things start to become hazy. I think it's enough to note the facts without introducing all this guff. The Thunderer (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Should this section not be expanded from a few comments made in the 1920's to include more viewpoints up to the 70's? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be perfectly appropriate. The Thunderer (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

History section

I have placed material from a section titled “Attitudes and Images” into the history section. Reading the history section, one would not have considered there was any tension or fears about the establishment of this force. I have included both Irish and English newspaper reports to illustrate there was concern not just in Ireland. By not including this information in the “History” section, we lose context. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Additons 1/11/08 Onwards

The article is being improved using material from Hezlett (listed in the bibliography). Every attempt will be made to keep the material non POV. Would all editors note that Hezlett was not a B Special, nor was he (or any of his family) in any political party, and he was not from the British Army. I invite assistance and discussion on any points which any editor may find relevant. I would appreciate proof-reading and grammar assistance.Thunderer (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

He was however a part of the British military and the book " The "B" Specials, a History of the Ulster Special Constabulary (1972) was later dismissed as merely a defence of policing in the province." --Domer48_'fenian' 12:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I intend to us Arming the Protestants: Formation of the Ulster Special Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, 1920-27 by Michael Farrell, ISBN-10: 0861047052. Any comments welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

He was in the establishment. My intention is to keep this article simple and free of the usual POV pushing, tit-for-tat bickering which normally goes on. Watch my editing style and see what I mean. All help welcome.Thunderer (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, so Hezlett is probably not the best book to use, having been dismissed as merely a defence of policing in the province, according to the Telegraph? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from and to that extent I agree. It is up to me to use the salient facts from the book in a way to enhance this article (it's not a rewrite) but to keep out anything which I think is any kind of a defence of the policing or establishment. There is much in his book to be ignored but he did have access to the records of the USC as he was invited by them to write the book (obviously because he would have been known to produce a favourable image). It's the extra facts I'm looking for which will, to some extent, improve the factuial reliablity of the article. I'm happy to discuss anything which you find unpalatable on an ongoing basis.Thunderer (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This would have to be referenced, as it is obvious he is not talking about himself. It should also be noted that the book has been dismissed as merely a defence of policing in the province, according to the Telegraph

"When reading Hezlett it should be noted that, although he was not connected to the USC, politics, the British Army, or any of the "loyal" orders, he was an establishment figure, being a Vice Admiral in the Royal Navy. Predictably, in the world of Irish politics and inter-communal strife, he will be regarded in much the same way as the USC in that his writing will be favoured by supporters of the establishment but condemned by those who oppose it."

I would suggest in a situation like this, additional secondary sources would need to be used to support the information. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it needs to be referenced. You can ref it if you want but I don't see the statement as opinion or controversy. I think a statement like that takes away the heat from the article and shows that there is no attempt at slanting or synthesising it to affect the readers' opinion. It's also much more beneficial to you and I if we avoid putting in anything in the form of opinions (qualified or not) which try to re-inforce the views of either community in Ireland. If we keep the article generically aligned to the fact that there are always two schools of thought in Ireland and that they are diametrically opposed then we help the reader understand the issues of all Irish articles better. That's why I'm deliberately staying away from anything which enhances the reputation of the USC and I hope you refrain from putting in anything which is detrimental to their image. Pull me up if you think I'm straying towards POV.Thunderer (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant attributed, as its important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue, which they clearly do. Since the author’s perspective is clearly sympathetic to the USC, this also should be noted.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be POV to express is that way but if we leave it noted that he was an establishment figure who would have been favoured by other members of the same establishment and opposed by those who weren't. I think that sums up the Irish question reasonably without expressing support for or condemning either side. Just a straightforward narrative which notes the issues, as it does, but concentrates on the force itself (in the context of the decades that it was employed during). I have given a ref to Hezlett's foreword which includes the statement that he was a Vice Admiral in the Royal Navy.Thunderer (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly tell us who wrote the forward? Is it not important that we say that the book has been dismissed as merely a defence of policing? Who commissioned Hezlet to write a history of the Ulster Special Constabulary? I think these questions are reasonable, and on a contentious issue, were information is likely to be challenged by contradictory opinions, may need more context to qualify the nature of the source. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hezlett wrote the foreword himself - sorry, I should have said that. I think that the "defence of policing" allegation would vary depending on who was writing an article. Hezlett wrote the book at the request of the USC Commandants so obviously they weren't expecting a hatchet job. I'm not after his opinion though, I only want the facts. I'm deliberately avoiding putting anything in which is opinion. If I find it interesting enough to include his opinion I'll make sure it is attributed to him. BTW I've been supplied with scans of some very interesting original documents from the Socialist Workers Party and the Trade Union movement in NI. Very crude, typed flyers from the early 70's concerning internment. Would you like copies?Thunderer (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it now until tomorrow because of the time and because of the number of changes I've made. I'd be obliged for your opinion on anything which you feel isn't correct or badly worded.Thunderer (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hezlett wrote the foreword himself? I'm really soory but I don't understand. If you read what I placed above you migh see my confusion? I'll place it here again, just to be helpful:

"When reading Hezlett it should be noted that, although he was not connected to the USC, politics, the British Army, or any of the "loyal" orders, he was an establishment figure, being a Vice Admiral in the Royal Navy. Predictably, in the world of Irish politics and inter-communal strife, he will be regarded in much the same way as the USC in that his writing will be favoured by supporters of the establishment but condemned by those who oppose it."

Is Hezlet speaking of himself in the third person? --Domer48_'fenian' 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he speaks in the first person. I have reworded it to suit the purpose of the statement. Would you like to call in the mentors at this point for a little guidance for both of us? Thunderer (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you place the text here as it appears in the book for us to review? I still have a concern as to the reliability of the book in such a contentious area. I base this on the Telegraph first obviously, but also the views expressed by the author and the fact that it was the USC who commissioned the book. This is a view you share yourself when you say of the USC commission, “obviously they weren't expecting a hatchet job.” So if you could just provide an exact quote from the book that will obviously help. --Domer48_'fenian' 00:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Jaysus that's a lot of typing at this time of the night but here goes:

When I was approached by the ex-District Commandants of the Ulster Special Constabulary to write their history, I was already engaged on another book on a very different subject. I decided to change horses in mid-stream and comply with their request because I believed that the B Specials were the victims of political circumstances following a mendacious propaganda campaign. I thought it important that the truth should be written in the hope that the record could be set straight. My position is therefore of an advocate whose purpose is to put his clients' case. This does not mean that this book is counter-propaganda; it is what I believe to be a true history in which I have been guided by the extract from Polybius quoted on page v. I made it absolutely clear to the ex-District Commandants that I would only undertake the book on the condition that everything in it was my work alone, and it would not necessarily be a reflection of their own views. With a subject that is bound to cause controversy it is as well to declare my position. I am an Ulsterman and proud of it. Having said that I would add that I am a United Kingdom Ulsterman who has spent his entire working life outside the Province in the service of the Crown, as did my father and grandfather. We all however, unlike so many people of the North of Ireland, returned to live in the Province. For three generations we have not been members of a political party or of the Orange Order, Royal Black Institution, Apprentice Boys or any similar body, mainly because of the servicemans's dislike of politics. I describe my nationality as 'British first' and 'Irish second' in the same way as someone on the other side of the Irish Sea could be 'British' and 'Scottish'.

How'd I do?Thunderer (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My own 2p worth. Whatever the reliability of this book, Michael Farrell's book is not RS. He admits the bias of his books himself in the preamble. He is not a neutral observer, he was described by Terrence O'Neill as an "extreme catholic", for example.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as the book is just being used to establish facts and not to introduce elements of "The B Specials were a shower of anti-catholic gits". If you've reviewed any of my recent changes you'll see I'm staying well clear of that sort of nonsense.Thunderer (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree then that Hezlett is not a neutral reliable third party source. I think if we look at the text provided and the text in the article, it is clear that the text dose not directly support the information as it is presented. For example: “Predictably, in the world of Irish politics and inter-communal strife, he will be regarded in much the same way as the USC in that his writing will be favoured by supporters of the establishment but condemned by those who oppose it.”

TU would you like to expand on Michael Farrell's book, and quote from it were he admits the bias of his books him self in the preamble. Would you like to start another section, and I will not add any text by Farrell until we resolve any concerns you may have. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Google books doesn't have a preview of the Orange State, but his admission of bias is, I think, on page 12 of it.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the text provided gives enough context for the statement I have included. You're never going to find a neutral author amongst the Irish but as long as the books are used just to establish dates and salient facts then there is no harm done. Problems will only arise if we start to include opinion from these authors and particularly opinions which either laud or damn this gendarmerie. Thunderer (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the word "moderate" to describe Catholics who joined this paramilitary group. It is against every Wiki NP:POV policy. Please do not re-insert it. Sarah777 (talk) 13:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a quote as per ref. Complain to Sir Arthur Hezlett next time you have your Ouija board out - reverted with reason given.Thunderer (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My complaint is not with Hazlett; it is with the sloppy (?) editing that allowed his propaganda appear as part of the article text rather than as a quotation. I've fixed it now. Sarah777 (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Your anti-Hezlett opinion is noted but you should be aware by now that such text in italics is a quote. Talk about sloppy editing - what about sloppy reading. Specsavers is good I hear. In future please discuss changes such as this on the article talk page first of all then you won't embarrass yourself again by making untoward assumptions about the Imperialist anti-Irish British writers.Thunderer (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer; the word "moderate", which I removed as a weasel was restored by you claiming it was part of a Hazlett quote. The sentence containing the word was not in italics or in quotation marks. Until now. Sarah777 (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

“Predictably, in the world of Irish politics and inter-communal strife, he will be regarded in much the same way as the USC in that his writing will be favoured by supporters of the establishment but condemned by those who oppose it.” Is not the views of the author, but your own. Now on "establish dates and salient facts" I would draw your attention to this text you added:

“ Because of these differences which were (and still are) well aired in the media of the time, there was a general unwillingness of Catholics in the North of Ireland to take part in the organisation of the USC. The political and church personalities of the time discouraged involvement and as a result the USC became overwhelmingly Protestant from its inception, although a number of Catholics did join. ”

This is disputed by various sources, and devoid of context? Then there is this.

“ The units were organised on military lines up to company level. Platoons had two officers, a Head Constable, four sergeants and sixty special constables. ”

Is it not true that they were organised on UVF lines?

“ The Belfast units were constructed differently to those in the counties. The districts were based on the existing RIC divisions. The constables drew pistols and truncheons before going on patrol and were considerable efforts made to use them only in Protestant areas. This did free regular policemen who were generally more acceptable to residents of all areas. ”

Who were the regular policemen, since they replaced the RIC? As you can see, omission and contradiction. Is this not just Hezlett’s opinions, and did you not quote him as saying “it would not necessarily be a reflection of their own [USC] views," or anyone else’s for that matter? I have suggested above and below that if supported by secondary or third party sources it should remain, however if it is challenged by a number of sources it should be removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuation

The UVF were organised on British military lines, so was the Special Constabulary except in Belfast. The UVF were largely subsumed into the C1 category. In this context though it wouldn't matter how they were organised because if they had all been on police lines it wouldn't have mattered as there was a command structure. The USC was a reserve force but not called as sych because the RIC already had a "Reserve" category. So "regular" in this context means the regular police force. They are well referred to as the RIC and RUC throughout the article. I'm starting to get the feeling now that we're just arguing for the sake of it. If my editing isn't clear then I'll change it but the facts are there. There may be omissions but that'll be my fault because I'm not including everything Hezlett wrote. Nothing's being omitted intentionally and if you feel something needs to be added to qualify something then let's see if we can do so (that's you and I, not my imaginary colleagues). As long as it doesn't degenerate into A -v- B. Thunderer (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is my intension to remove the above mentioned text per our policy on WP:OR, as the comments and opinions of editors should not appear in Article text. I will however allow the oppertunity to address this issue, but bearing in mind it is a couple of days since I raised the issue. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Farrell

TU is this the text you mention: Italics added by me.

“ This book attempts to fill the gap in the literature on Northern Ireland, by telling the story of the establishment of the Northern state and its sub history up to 1975. It is an attempt to supply a historical and political perspective to the current struggle which should remove much of the misunderstanding and confusion about what is happening here.

It is not a, impartial book (I don believe such a thing exists): it is written from an anti-imperialist and socialist stand-point. But as far as possible I have let events speak for themselves.

”

I don't think it is an "admission of bias" but pointing to an established fact. The book was described by Literary Review as “By far the most valuable account of the roots of war in Northern Ireland.” In The Times, Robert Fisk, said it was “A detailed well-sourced history.” Could you possibly draw my attention to negative reviews? Would you agree, that if the information is supported by secondary or third party sources it should be included? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That all depends. If that information is in substance a criticism of the Ulster Special Constabulary then no, it shouldn't be included. What we want here is a non-POV article which notes the Protestant/Catholic sentiments but doesn't explore them.Thunderer (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Who is this "we" you speak of Thunderer? Sarah777 (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that important to you Sarah? Is this a hint of Imperialist Anti-Irish British POV tag-teaming paranoia we see? Do you think I have a team of Orangemen standing by to slant all the articles LOL. Thunderer (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah. Just that as you seemed to take an quirky esoteric view of how the article should develop I was curious whether you were using the Royal "we" or whether you were referring to a group of people with quirky preferences for this article. Sarah777 (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If Farrell is support by independent secondary or third party sources I think it should be included even if the information is in substance a criticism of the Ulster Special Constabulary. Would you not agree? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Could editors please remain civil, and remember the 1RR rule as it has now been breached. This will result in sanctions and possibly page protection depriving everyone the oppertunity to edit the article. Thanks--Domer48_'fenian' 13:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You're too nice to report him Domer! Let's wait for Rock to clip him around the ear:) Sarah777 (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ach report my arse the two of you LOL. Domer, I know you too well. You're gagging to get something in here which is POV aren't you? Now, I'm not going to agree to that, no matter how cleverly you disguise the wording. To raise this article a class we have to concentrate on the facts of the unit itself, not the opinions of people who write about it. I'm actually not convinced that some of the material I had included earlier (some weeks ago) should stay so I may self revert. I would dearly like to see a clinical and straightforward refernce piece and I'd be delighted if you could help me do it.Thunderer (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I intend to use the Farrell book, as no reasonable argument has been put forward. I would add that Farrell has been quoted by respected academics that have specialised in this subject, and I intend to use them also. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop

I’m going to walk away from the article for the rest of day, as it is not productive at the minute. Please try to remain civil, and the revert warring will have to stop. Read over WP:TPG and come back with a bit more positive and constructive proposals. The issue of what is and is not a reliable source will have to be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If any Farrell quotes are used which suggest that the USC in any shape or form was anti-Catholic/Nationalist then that is POV. To raise the status of the article it has to remain free of all POV. Edit in facts, not Farrell or Hezlett or Doherty, or anyone else's opinion. This article must NOT turn into a collection of Loyalist -v- Republican views of the USC. As for the 1RR rule, the history is evident. Sarah reverted something which was referenced and by doing so she removed part of a quote. It's fixed now so it wasn't an edit war. If however she had discussed the matter here before doing so there would have been no need for the reversions. That's the lesson. Discuss (as you and I are doing) before deleting. If you're walking away for the moment then that's fine. There's going to be nothing done by me on this article which might provoke any kind of reaction from you. You may not agree with some of my points but as long as you continue to discuss then we'll find a way forward. I may not do much on it myself today because I have domestic tasks to perform.Thunderer (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed something that appeared in the text as part of the article - with nothing to indicate it was a quote - I'd clip your ears myself if I knew where to find you! Sarah777 (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I could see the piece was reffed properly. None of us is perfect however so if you see something like that which you think I may have inadvertantly dropped in I'd really appreciate it if you'd bear in mind that I'm trying as hard as I can to keep the article free of POV. If you draw it to my attention then I can quickly examine it. I also appreciate other editors like you reading through what I've written because, while it may seem ok at the time, sometimes a fresh eye can see that the grammar or synthesis isn't in keeping with the non POV approach. As for clipping my ear, where would you find 40 fit men to help you at this time of the day? ;) Thunderer (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Never had a problem finding fit men :) Sarah777 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You never found me - and I looked gorgeous in uniform ;) Thunderer (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

I hope editors will reflect on yesterday and agree to move forward in a more constructive vein. If editors agree to use the WP:TPG mentioned above it will allow for productive editing.

I have some concerns to date which will have to be addressed. The first is, not to attribute motives to my intensions, such as "I know you too well. You're gagging to get something in here which is POV aren't you?...I'm not going to agree to that, no matter how cleverly you disguise the wording." This is contary to both WP:TPG, commenting on the editor and not the edits, and against our policy of WP:AGF.

The other concer I have is your view of certain types of information. Such as "If any Farrell quotes are used which suggest that the USC in any shape or form was anti-Catholic/Nationalist then that is POV." Farrell meets both our policy of WP:V and WP:RS. To exclude negative information on the USC runs contary to a balanced article. I will be using Farrell as a source, and will support the information with secondary and third party references. The information will illustrate that the force was anti-Catholic/Nationalist as to suggest otherwise would distort the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I would not agree to such a move. This should not be a forum for political or personal comment by authors. Nor is it the right place to note all these criticisms of the USC. The article should stick to the bare facts, be as concise and readable as possible and have no POV comments. I'll give you a for instance - for instance, let's say you put in that there were 100 B Men at Burntollet. I will immediately counter that by saying there were only 2 and one was an observer, the other lived nearby. I have a ref for that. That then becomes a set of allegations and counter allegations which detracts from the article. If you want to use Farrell to damn the USC then I can use Hezlett to praise them and counter whatever Farrell says. If you introduce another author I will introduce Doherty. Tit-for-tat according the wiki guidelines and the only real casualty is the article. I would suggest a modicum of common sense. Use whatever facts Farrell gives to show timeline features but leave out his criticisms of the force as I have left out Hezlett's praise of them. The Protestant/Catholic issue is already well noted. End of! Thunderer (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Not the constructive approch I was hoping for, rather negative, but I will assume good faith and overlook your suggested intensions. While editing I will look for balance and be aware that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints. I will therefor use the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to be aware that it's not your views I'm challenging. I'm opposed to your interpretation of wikipedia guidleines with regards to unit histories, whether they be police, army, navy or whatever. In my considered opinion there is way for you to get this information across on other articles without it being used here where it will only serve to include POV which shouldn't be in a unit history. If I was opposed to your views I wouldn't have e-mailed you to offer documents which might be of assistance to you. An e-mail which, like all the others I send you, you haven't replied to. Courtesy isn't just for the talk pages, it should be applied in general and dialogue, on and off the pages, serves as a means of getting to understand the other editor better. I've said it before that I would enjoy sitting down to a drink with you to debate various aspects of Irish history because we could both learn from each other and I think in real conversation we'd get to appreciate each other's views better. In the meantime I am going to continue to press you and admins to prevent the inclusion of any material which praises or damns this police force. It needs to be clinical while noting the facts. Thunderer (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have a concern about a specific edit I make, please use WP:3O, Reliable sources noticeboard or article RFC. Like I have said above I will use the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. I hope that addresses your concerns. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have concerns about every edit you make because you always introduce material which is POV and which supports an Irish Republican viewpoint. Prove me wrong - don't be putting in material which isn't relevant to a unit history. Start up an article called "Irish Nationalist views of the Ulster Special Constabulary" and link it as a sub page. That's the correct way to do it as per Milhist. Thunderer (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Per my previous comment. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Formation

"The 10,000 strong Royal Irish Constabulary were armed with pistols and rifles and were a paramilitary force/gendarmerie of a type not seen elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This was in account of the peculiar circumstances in Ireland at that time and in particular because of the frequent outbreaks of civil disturbance against the government."

This sentence will have to be addressed. The Irish War of Independance could not be described as "peculiar circumstances" or a "civil disturbance against the government?"

The use of Hezlett will have to be considered as wholly unreliable, based on the following:

In April 1920, Captain Sir Basil Brooke, future Prime Minister of Northern Ireland,[6] "organised "Fermanagh Vigilance", a vigilante group to provide defence against incursions by the IRA.[7] Other groups were formed throughout the province to patrol and defend various areas. [8] This worried the government in Dublin as sectarian rioting between Protestants and Catholics was commonplace in the major cities of Belfast and Londonderry and they did not want to see groups of armed vigilantes taking tha law into their own hands.[9] There was an immediate and illicit supply of arms available to these Protestant organisations; those which had belonged to the pre-war Ulster Volunteer Force.[10]"

This is total POV. There is absolutely no mention of the mass expulsion of Nationalists from the ship yards, the burning of their homes and forced from their communities. I can do one of two things, clarify the information, which will mean contradicting it, or completely remove it and replace it with a reference which is both WP:V and WP:RS, by respected academics. This book by Hezlett has been dismissed and is still being used here to reference very controversial information. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No need to mention that cruft. There's nothing which needs to be addressed along those lines except for those who want to push POV, Irish Republican style. You want to put stories in about riots in the shipyards - start an article on it. This one is about the Special Constabulary. Anyway, this article covers the period to 1970 - you shouldn't be editing it.Thunderer (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You have removed a template without reason, the template was a "refimprove" one, why would you do that? Please replace the template and help with the referencing. There is no such policy as "cruft" and please remaine civil. The is nothing preventing me from editing this article, so please lets work together on it --Domer48_'fenian' 20:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer, I'm starting to detect WP:OWN in your approach to this article. Please restore the template. And your over-reliance on the Hazlett propaganda piece and removal of any attempt to put his writing in context is not consistent with WP:NPOV Sarah777 (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No Sarah - I'm not editing the article at the minute because mediation is going on which Domer is involved in. I strongly and respectfully ask that he refrain from editing, along with me, until we've sorted out the issues under mediation. That's all - it's not POV - I promise. Nor is there any propaganda. I've put a disclaimer in on Hezlett. Thunderer (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this article subject to some mediation process? Sarah777 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No Sarah it’s not, but it is an ideal opportunity for us to work together. This comment was not helpful, reflecting the observation you make above, likewise the edit summary on this article or the comments. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to move forward with my suggestions above. The section I have outlined is not an accurate reflection of the period, so I intend to re-write it using sources which are both WP:V and WP:RS, and to support this information with secondary and third party sources. Could editors put forward any issues in particular they feel need to be included? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have sought an outside opinion hereon the Reliable sources/Noticeboard on the Hezlett book, and since there is a question as to it’s accuracy I intend to add counter-statements cited to other books. The web page http://www.royalulsterconstabulary.org/history3.htm which, as a "self-published" sources, means that they are reliable for some types of statements but not for others (see WP:SELFPUB). This would certainly mean they can not used to support information which is challenged by sources which are both WP:V and WP:RS. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like some suggestions for addressing this issue, and will leave it for a bit longer. However, it has been left now since the 6 November. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started to work through the article, and will be removing additional unsourced comment. I will be expanding some of the sections and will clarify some of the information which has been attributed. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section

The lead is completely misleading, not supported by any references or the article. I’ve provided two quotes from which clearly contradict the opinions contained in the lead. Feed back from editors would be very welcome, and suggestions would also be helpful. Should Editors need any additional references which may be needed for clarity please feel free to ask, thanks.

“In its anxiety to re-establish a militant basis for resistance to republicanism which could operate independently of the British, the Unionist leadership had been obliged to concede a portion of its power to the orange section of the working class. Having done so, it strove to confer institutional and official status on the arangement. Popular Protestant practices of workplace exclusivism became linked to efforts by Carson and Craig to reconstitute the UVF and secure British government approval and funds for it and UULA-based constabularies in Belfast. One Unionist argument in trying to persuade the British to finance the constabularies was that, unless such organisations were officially sanctioned, wild and enraged protestants would take the law into their own hands. Since ‘the younger and wilder the better’ was in some areas a criterion for membership, this was ironic.”

“The formation of the state had been anticipated by the formation of one of its most critical apparatuses — an Independent paramilitary force whose populist flavour of Protestant self-assertiveness was not to be diminished by its new status The official endorsement of this spirit was to shape both state formation and Catholic attitudes to it.” Northern Irelan 1921 / 2001 Political Forces and Social Classes, Paul Bew, Peter Gibbon, Henry Patterson, Serif (London 2002) , ISBN 1 897959 38 9, pg.19

“The strategy of class alliance pursued by the Unionist middle class together with the diplomatic strategies of the British government were responsible for the establishment of a Northern Ireland state with a sectarian-populist flavour…It was not simply the establishment of a sectarian Protestant force, the B Specials, as an integral part of the security system of the new state which is worthy of note, although this was remarkable enough, but the issues of control which logically followed. It is indeed most unusual to find a regional government in possession of a paramilitary police force over which the central government had so little direct influence, and even more remarkable to find that efforts to establish a certain professionalism in the force were constantly blocked.” Northern Ireland 1921 / 2001 Political Forces and Social Classes, Paul Bew, Peter Gibbon, Henry Patterson, Serif (London 2002) , ISBN 1 897959 38 9, pg.19

I hope this reference illustrates the issue, and explains why the need for the citation tags. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would really like to make a start on this and I'm looking for suggestions for intrested editors. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 10:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed the issue above, but will be putting together a re-write to reflect the sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Image Removal

I have removed fair use violations from this article because they are only fair use in the articles about the people in the pictures. BigDunc^Talk 20:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Protected

For a day - discuss changes here please. Black Kite 11:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Black Kite for that. To date, the only discussion on the changes were this, this and this. Hardly discussion in anyone's book. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Partisan referencing

A series of large-scale edits have been made to this article, referenced, but almost all with partisan sources (mainly Farrell). An example (although not from Farrell) is this addition (my emphasis):

The B-Specials were according to Constantine Fitzgibbon recruited from the Ulster Volunteer Force as well as from the “extremist Protestant riff-raff.” They were he says the armed wing of the Orange Order, which controlled the Northern State, and were he suggests the nearest thing to Nazi Storm Troopers that the British ever produced, conducted themselves in much the same way as the Sturmabteilung did once Hitler had come to power. The Specials he says immediately launched an intensive persecution of the Catholic minority and that it was comparable to the “persecution of the Jews by the S.A. in 1933 and 1934” resulting in a state approaching civil war that would last from 1920 to 1923. During this period he wrote, casualties, mostly Roman Catholics, estimated at some 300 and that there were cases of B-Specials “clubbing men to death and similar atrocities.”

Partisan edits are against the spirit of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Can other editors look at recent edits and provide their comments, please? Mooretwin (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed this extreme and provocative analysis from the article, but unfortunately it was immediately put back in on the apparent grounds that it is referenced. By this logic, absolutely anything should be permissible in an article, provided there is a reference. I'm afraid I don't accept that logic. Mooretwin (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The way to proceed is to find equally well-referenced statements from others, not to remove things. Constantine Fitzgibbon isn't an obviously partisan writer, he was educated in the UK and served in the British Army in WWII. David Underdown (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's one way to proceed. The other way is to replace it with a more balanced, yet critical assessment. Comparisons with the Nazis are not reasonable by any standard. Mooretwin (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David, I myself was just going to ignore it because of the accusations, but you are quite correct. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstood reference to Charles Craig quotation

A recent edit has added the following text:

• The Unionists had originally been opposed to Partition but their change of position was outlined by Charles Craig, brother of James Craig on the 29 March 1920, saying that they profoundly distrusted both the Labour Party and Mr. Asquith, and that if they or a combination of both were ever in government the chances of remaining part of the UK would be very small, and therefore they saw their safety in a parliament of their own.

The quoted intervention by Craig in the House of Commons, however, was referring to home rule, and not to partition. Therefore the above passage is mistaken.

I pointed this out, but Domer48 has restored it - effectively restoring erroneous material. Perhaps he might have second thoughts? Mooretwin (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing erroneous at all about it. Both context and reference support the text. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've already explained above, the reference does not support the text. The reference is to Hansard extracts of Craig's famous speech in relation to the paradox of accepting a home rule parliament for NI, having been previously opposed to home rule for Ireland as a whole. Did you actually read the text that you were referencing? Mooretwin (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The full quote from Craig is apparently "we prefer to have a Parliament although we do not want one of our own". The source I am looking at then goes on to say (the author that is) "Thus a Northern parliament, intended as one of two pillars of an all-Ireland Home Rule settlement, was embraced, if reluctantly, by Ulster Protestants as the latest means of maintaining their position within the United Kingdom". This does not suggest a real change in position. Also "Partition" may be somewhat misleading when, and correct me if I'm wrong, this is talking about the creation of the separate divisions of "Southern Ireland" and "Northern Ireland". O Fenian (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, O Fenian. Maybe he'll listen to you. Mooretwin (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could outline your actual problem with the text Mooretwin? Is it the implication that Unionist had fundamentally changed their position that I have identified? Would re-wording it be acceptable? O Fenian (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll quote Michael Farrell on James Craig's comments. "The Bill caused some heart-searching by the Ulster Unionist Council. It proposed to give them Home Rule which they had never sought, but they soon concluded that a separate Northern administration would strengthen their position." Now how dose his take on it differ to the above wording? They were opposed and then they changed their mind. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear me. The text says they were opposed to partition and changed their mind. The quote refers to them being opposed to home rule and changing their mind! I'm not getting the confusion - the misunderstanding seems very clear to me. Mooretwin (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear me, how you can accept a source when it suits you! Check the source used in the article. I gave you the wrong one by mistake above. Here is the correct quotes from the correct source.

“The Unionists had come to accept that some degree of self-government for the rest of Ireland was inevitable and were concentrating on securing Partition —the division of Ireland, with Ulster, or some part of it, remaining part of the United Kingdom.” Arming the Protestants: The Formation of the Ulster Special Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary 1920-27, Michael Farrell, Pluto Press (London/Sydney 1983), ISBN 0 86104 705 2, Pg. 8

“By 1919 the Unionist leaders were bending their energies towards securing Partition and their prospects seemed good.” Arming the Protestants: The Formation of the Ulster Special Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary 1920-27, Michael Farrell, Pluto Press (London/Sydney 1983), ISBN 0 86104 705 2, Pg. 8

It appears that I did get the wording right per the source I used. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the above makes no sense at all. The article text refers to Charles Craig outlining their change of position (re. partition), yet Charles Craig was outlining their change of position re. home rule. HAve you actually read the Craig speech? You'll have to remove the reference to Charles Craig if you are talking about partition. Mooretwin (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Take it up with Michael Farrell, the source. Better still provide a reference which disputes Farrell. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're making absolutely no sense. The reference is to a speech by Charles Craig in Parliament. Farrell's got nothing to do with it. Please just remove the Craig reference and stop acting dumb. Mooretwin (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please come back when you have something constructive to say and offer this article. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I should have thought that seeking to remove errors was constructive. Refusing to fix them, surely, is obstructive? Mooretwin (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The more relevant information from the debate are Carson's (as opposed to Craig, who was much less important) comments here. Specifically "Let me say this. I am offered by this Bill a Parliament for the six counties. Ought I to try and kill a Bill that contains that proposal with the Act of 1914 upon the Statute Book? In other words, if I help to kill this Bill, I bring into force automatically the Act of 1914. What a nice statesman and leader I would be when the Act of 1914 or something worse was being set up! If I saw no hope from the other side in the course of this Debate, what a nice leader I would be to go up to Belfast and call the people there together, and say, "Look here, you made a Covenant; go and get your rifles again, and come out and drill and fight." For what? For the six counties that are offered in a Bill which I could have got without fighting at all. No one but a lunatic would undertake such a performance", which is explained in this book on pages 67 and 68. Carson didn't want partition, but faced with that or a Dublin parliament or having to invoke the Covenant, he picked the option which he thought was best. O Fenian (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, O Fenian, every schoolboy student of Irish history knows that, but what we have here is a reference to Charles Craig's speech about the paradox of supporting home rule for the 6, having opposed it for the 32, yet it is being used to support a statement about unionists supporting partition, having previously opposed it. I'm giving Domer the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he is just being awkward rather than not understanding the error, but - either way - he's refusing to amend the text. Could you perhaps explain it to him instead? Mooretwin (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Which was largely my point. Why are we using a reference to the less important Craig, when we should be going by what Carson and secondary sources have said? O Fenian (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well only Domer can answer that. But surely the first question is what point is Domer attempting to make? If it is about partition, then the Craig reference has to go. If it is about home rule, then he needs to change the first part of the sentence. Mooretwin (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I see Domer48 has at last recognised his error and amended the text so that it makes sense. It seems that he forgot to acknowledge this here, though. Mooretwin (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fitzgibbon's insinuation

Domer has added in some more text from his latest library book (Fitzgibbon), which is mere insinuation. See bold text below:

• This view [[that the Specials handed in their weapons without exception] is not shared by Fitzgibbon who says that some, but very far from all, obeyed these instructions to hand in their guns. He also points out that a surprisingly large number of new gun licences were issued in the year following their disarming.

Fitzgibbon is simply insinuating here. Presumably he is implying that gun licences were issued to former Specials for guns which they ought to have handed in: but he doesn't actually say that - he merely insinuates it. Is referenced insinuation acceptable for an encyclopaedia? Mooretwin (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that NPOV guidelines advise that insinuation is to be avoided. The statement disagreeing with the conclusion that all the weapons weren't handed in is sufficient: nothing is added by the inclusion of the second sentence. Therefore it ought to go. Mooretwin (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Does he give any figures that could be used instead? Does he state that a large number of Specials applied for licences? If all he does is insinuate it might be best to leave it out. Perhaps Domer48 could supply an exact quote from the source? Firearms possession (legally that is) among at least one section of the population is documented to be rather high. O Fenian (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Fitzgibbon insinuating anything here at all. I see Potter saying "the B Specials had to surrender their weapons and uniforms, and he says, all were handed in without exception.[91]" I see Fitzgibbon saying they did not. He says that some, but very far from all, obeyed these instructions. Is Potter insinuating that all were handed in without exception. It's a simple case of WP:NPOV IMO. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. Read the emboldened bit. No-one's suggesting that the preceding sentence is insinutation. No-one's objecting to the preceding sentence: only the emboldened sentence. Mooretwin (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

This article needs a massive clean up if it's going to be legible to anyone.

That's mainly as a result of having been ravaged by POV warring. Anyone else interested in cleaning it up? The model in the end should be clear, coherent and NPOV. It should also be a bit shorter.

Anyone? Jdorney (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Make some suggestions here. First point out what you think is wrong and why? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok.

• First of all the lede is not informative. If you were from Mars it would not tell you who the USC acutally were.

• Second, the background section is incredibly long-winded. It contains a whole heap of information on general Irish history at the the time and the reader will still have no idea what the specific background to the formation of the USC was. So it needs to be condensed and re-written (without most of the general history stuff), with a specific focus to the background of the USC's formation.

• The Formation section seems to have a lot of content but it's presented in a most incoherent way. Again, re-write. With a Criticism of the USC to be included in the following section "Opposition". Also de-pov the latter, give the two sides, don't argue with the sources.

• The Structure and Recruitment sections seem ok.

• The uniforms, weapons, equipment section is too long. This is specialist info and should be condensed.

• Virtually the entire rest of the article, comprised of the history of the USC's deployment needs to be re-written. If necessary sub-aticles can be created about their role in 1920-22, the Border Campaign, 1969 etc. Basically, this section is too long, too confusing and the wording has been changed so many times it's become incoherent to the average reader. Condense and re-write.

• The Cameron and Scarman reports should be summarized, not listed in full.

• Disbandment section is ok size-wise. But there are too many quotation, interpretations and attributions given. Again, highly confusing. What we need are the bare facts and then, afterwards, a summary of disputed interpretations (which there certainly are). Jdorney (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally agree with your observations. Mooretwin (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer, thoughts? In good faith I won't proceed until you respond. Jdorney (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, In the absence of objections, I'm proceeding. Jdorney (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've made a start. The background section is stil to long though. More to come. Jdorney (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted some of major blanking, edit summaries will not do for such major edits. Suggestions of POV should be supported with evidence and not just opinoins. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I flagged what I was going to do for over a week and expalined it at every point. Your opinion was actively sought. Blanket reverts are threfore not helpful. If you ahve a problem with the eidts done so far (not finished yet). Then let's discuss them. Jdorney (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been using this article as a source for references for a paper I'm writing. To date I've found it very useful untill the removal of very helpful inforation. Having gone to the trouble of checking the references I found them to be correct. The above outline of suggested changes are not inline with the changes made. --Boneyarddog (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has claimed that any sources are "incorrect" (whatever that would mean). The issue is the appropriateness of the sources and how the article is written: not the sources themselves. Mooretwin (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad editors agree that the sources are WP:V and WP:RS. I've yet to see any policy based reason for the removal of "very useful" information. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little suspicious of suck-puppetry here. Who is boneyarddog? No previous contributions and writes in the same manner as Domer? But re his comments, I think I outlined very lcearly what I was going to do and then did it. Re sourced material, I didn't suggested that it was not correctly cited, what I did suggest was that it used in a amanner that was not clear, was not neutral and not informative.

Domer, do you really thing (for example), a whole paragraph of Constantine Fitzgibbon calling the USC Nazis is helpful? I don't. For some reason, you've also deleted the additions made to the lede and removed the 'work in progress tag'. Could you explain why?

For the time being, I'm going to continue editing in a sand-box, so the work is not disrupted, but this article is not pov, not well rwitten, not informative as it stands. Jdorney (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I had already raised issues about Fitzgibbons' Nazi stuff, but it was like talking to a brick wall. Mooretwin (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll treat the accusations here with the contempt, which they deserve, and point out that WP:Canvassing is an obvious problem [1] [2] [3] [4]. I suggest it should stop. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Good idea to do your edits in a sandbox Jdorney, but lay off the sock accusations they are not helpful myself and Domer have probably been checkusered more times than any editor who edits Irish articles. Lets AGF with Boneyarddog. BigDunc 15:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree Dunc! Having been warned enough times [5] [6] [7] by three admin's about their personal attacks, you'd think they would learn. It will of course be ignored, just look at the list being canvassed. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my language guys, but bullshit. You botuh know and I know what's going on here. I'm going to work on the sandbox version for now. Jdorney (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet again a talk page is being turned into a battleground. I will not be feeding into this type of conduct, and I will ignore discussions that take the same turn. Read talk page guidlines!--Domer48_'fenian' 21:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to get involved in a futile personal argument, but I will say for the record that I tried discussing changes at every stage here on talk with no response. I deliberaetely waited for ten days before starting to edit. The first input from two other editors was simply to revert everything. With, I will also add, no explanations and no suggestions about how to imporve the page. Who, in that case, is turing the page into a battleground? Jdorney (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is a total mess. It lurches from history to equipment, stumbles back to history, veers off to controversies before coming back to history. Support JD's proposals. Sandboxing it seems the best approach. The uniforms, weapons, equipment section seems OK to me. This would be unnecessary for a normal police force, but the Specials weren't. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 22:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest little spat

Whilst I have no opinion on the main part of the article, the version of the lede to which Domer48 and the sock reverted is clearly not encyclopedic. "The Ulster Special Constabulary (USC) (commonly called the "B-Specials" or "B Men") was a reserve police force in Northern Ireland viewed with great mistrust by nationalists who claimed, with some proven justification, that the force was anti-Catholic." Not NPOV, and not sourced at all!. There clearly needs to be some reference to the distrust of the USC by the Catholic population but to make it the whole of the lede is just ridiculous. The version I've reverted is more NPOV (in the lead) but probably needs more discussion. Black Kite 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think a sock is being used request a CU and dont bite the newcomers. BigDunc 19:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That would assume it was actually a newcomer, which it clearly isn't. WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact. You seem to be very sure it would pass a checkuser, though. Now, are you giong to source that lead paragraph? Black Kite 19:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't a clue if it would pass also I don't like the insinuation that it is something to do with me. Thought more of you Black Kite than to throw a spurious accusation my way. BigDunc 19:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if you thought it was an accusation - it wasn't well worded - I just thought it was such an utterly obvious sock, with a revert on a Troubles article three minutes after account creation, and a pretty good Wiki knowledge, that it didn't need a CU. Anyway, that lead para is better now (though I still think the alternative version is better and contains more info - is there any way of merging them in some way?) Black Kite 19:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, I have added more from the version that was reverted. BigDunc 19:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like the link to the CU posted here, so at least we know who is being accused of what! --Domer48_'fenian' 19:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No point in a CU. If it's a sock of a regular editor, they'll certainly have ensured that it's CU-proof. If it isn't, there's not a problem. I haven't blocked the account - yet. Black Kite 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well since you now intend to do nothing, should you not strike or redactor your comments to remove the accusation and bad faith assumption? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• No. If the new account had been reverting in the other direction, I am pretty sure the footwear accusation would have been levelled very quickly. Black Kite 23:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't offer excuses for your conduct! --Domer48_'fenian' 12:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Disbandment section

I was pointed towards this section by User:Jdorney. I have to agree with him that using Fitzgibbon as a source for the lead (and indeed, practically the whole section) is not providing a balanced section (and indeed, most of what Fitzgibbon says is not actually about the disbandment of the USC, so it's also irrelevant). I suggest these two paragraphs are removed from this section; whilst a reference to Fitzgibbon may be relevant, WP:UNDUE says we should not give such weight to a single person's point of view. Black Kite 01:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I poined this out months ago, but was left to fight a lone battle against Domer48 (who authored this section), and gave up in the end. Mooretwin (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fitzgibbon is a perfectly WP:RS. Could editors explain what they mean by balance? For example, do they mean something like the Nazi SS while they killed thousands, they were great family men and loved pets? Likewise the suggestion of WP:UNDUE? Provide sources which challenge Fitzgibbon or offer alternative views. It sounds at the moment like its just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT at the moment. Provide a rational to support the opinions being offered here. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What is preferred is academic history - Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science" - rather than popular stuff. So Fitzgibbon is not really what's wanted in a controversial and likely-to-be-disputed article. Neither, I suspect, is Admiral Hezlet. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Provide sources which challenge Fitzgibbon or offer alternative views. In the absence of opposing views by WP:RS how or who is disputing Fitzgibbon. If there is no dispute how can it be likely to be controversial and likely-to-be-disputed. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a dispute about using Fitzgibbon here and now, or so it seems to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A dispute based on what? Is Fitzgibbon not a verifiable and Reliable source? Has his findings been disputed and by whom? We can hardly give WP:UNDUE weight if the information is supported by multiple sources and challenged by none. Now having been canvassed for your support just like Black Kite in opening this tread I see no dispute using Fitzgibbon only a case of I don't like it. So once again, provide sources which challenge Fitzgibbon or offer alternative views. In the absence of opposing views by Reliable sources how can there be a dispute? Lets start off with a source that is disputing Fitzgibbon and then we can move onto WP:UNDUE. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing is an obvious problem [8] [9] [10] [11]. I suggest it should stop. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem is not Fitzgibbon's obvious POV, but the fact he's extensively quoted in the "disbandment" section when his quotes are nothing to do with disbandment. Looks to me as though it's just been chosen as a random section to stuff the material in. Also, many of his quoted "findings" are nothing of the sort - they're just his opinions. Such a contentious article shouldn't be an opinion piece. The phrase "and that there were cases of B-Specials “clubbing men to death and similar atrocities." also needs to be sourced with a more reliable source. Black Kite 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Were not interested in what editors think is Fitzgibbon's "obvious POV." Now if it is an issue, provide a Reliable source which mentions Fitzgibbon's POV if he has one. Fitzgibbon is a reliable source so it does not need to be cited to a more reliable source! Unless there is a source which contradicts or challenges Fitzgibbon. Now there is a tag on this section which says "The neutrality of this section is disputed." Please address the issue of neutrality. Fitzgibbon outlines the circumstances that lead to the "Disbandment" and not one source has been provided to dispute it. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll say it again, since you haven't answered the question - most of those two paragraphs are utterly irrelevant to the disbandment, and Fitzgibbon's claims are very extreme - they are also merely his opinions, not historical fact. This is an encyclopedia - we deal with facts here. I can't see massive problems with much of the rest of the article; this paragraph, however, is clearly problematic. The NPOV tag is very obvious - Fitzgibbon's opinions are purely sourcing the first two paragraphs and his opinions are clearly not neutral. That's not saying that none of his work is unreliable per se, merely that one person's opinion should not be sourcing such accusations per WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. Black Kite 21:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No Black Kite your ignoring the question. Were is the sources to support your OPINION of Fitzgibbon. Were are your sources which challenge Fitzgibbon. So an ex-British Army Officer and noted author is clearly not neutral in your opinion. Now address the issues, and start to back them them up. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Only one sentence from the first two paragraphs is about disbandment, and even that isn't really saying anything. The first two paragraphs should be removed, condensed, and worked into another section ensuring they are given the appropriate weight. Probably best placed in the controversy section. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Tidy-up re-write

Watching you like a hawk JD; your first edit get's the thumbs-up. Sarah777 (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, does your approval cover only the lede or everything previously done? Jdorney (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

TBH, I haven't gone into the history; I'm taking it from where it was an hour ago! Sarah777 (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well there's more to come. Jdorney (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I know - that's why I'm watching you:) Sarah777 (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm content, too, although I'd suggest a slight change to the last paragraph of the lead. Instead of saying the Specials were disbanded "after the Hunt Report, which advised ...", it would (in my opinion) be better to say that they were disbanded "following the acceptance by the Northern Ireland Government of the Hunt Report, which advised ...". Mooretwin (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, Mooretwin, go ahead. Jdorney (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Next, I intend the replace the current background section with this version. The principle reason this needs to be re-written is clarity. Currently there is a whole load of not very clear stuff on the political background to partition. I've cut out all teh stuff on partiition being nine ofr six counties. This should be in another article but it's not directly relevant here.

The version I'm proposing is shorter and I hope clearer. It contains the three main reasons for the formation of the USC.

• Unionists wish to control their own security forces and confirm partition.
• The need for more manpower with rising violence and RIC/BA resources deployed elsewhere.
• The desire of Craig et al to get control over teh loyalist groups on the ground.

Aditionally, there is also a factual mistake in the current version, it was Craig who proposed the formation of the USC to the British Govt, not Carson. I've also cut out Carson's speech at July 12, 1920 as not being directly relevant. If anyone disagrees with this edit, can we please discuss it here first before any aedit war? Thanks, Jdorney (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The proposed version does not provide any additional clarity in fact removes it. Please put forward what you consider to be not very clear stuff on the political background to partition. Each article is a stand alone and the background section currently offers important information on the circumstances which lead to the formation of the USC. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer, the changes I've put forward are in the section I've linked. I'll respectfully disagree with your assessment and ask other editors for their opinions before I proceed. I'll also add that the proposed version has significant information not currently contained in the article - sepcifically the july 1920 riots, craig's proposals to government and loyd george's response. Jdorney (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney's proposals seem sensible. I see no need for an essay about 6 or 9 counties in this article. Mooretwin (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A load of editors canvassed onto the article does not mean that you edit the article and use edit summaries like this. Were is the agreement? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer, a number of editors were asked for their opinion. We are not gaming the system here. Some of us want to improve the content. I suggest you join the discussion. Jdorney (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Please you were canvassing british admin's and editors [12] [13] [14] [15] onto this article despite told to stop and you still continued canvassing and just being plain disruptive [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. So its a case of editing by numbers now. That's fine with me, I'll still edit according to policy regardless. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

British, Irish and everyone else were asked. Please Accept Good Faith, and we'll get on with the editing, thank you. Jdorney (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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 [22] [23] [24] [25] onto this article despite the fact they continued canvassing and just being plain disruptive [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] 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?

File:Mural - Battle of the bogside 2004 SMC.jpg

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)