Talk:Ulster Volunteer Force

message: Aughavey 29 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)
Just a note to say that whilst the article is based in truth it is also biased.  The conflict in Northern Ireland was ethnic-religious by the fact that largely, although by no means unanimously, the Catholic (Nationalist / Republican) people did not support the Northern Ireland state or its continuing links to the UK prefering to obtain reunification with the South of Ireland whilst the Protestant population were largely Unionist / Loyalist in out look wishing to retain Ireland (Northern Ireland after partition - the vast majority of Irish Protestants live in Ulster) within the UK.
The comment about the Ulster Defence Regiment helping with the Dublin bombing is also unsubstantiated.  The Barron report could not find any eveidence for this but did not rule out individual members of the security forces colluding with the UVF.*
*This has recently been proven TRUE, as of 22nd Jan 2007...."Police colluded with loyalists behind over a dozen murders in north Belfast, a report by the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland has confirmed.
Nuala O'Loan's report said UVF members in the area committed murders and other serious crimes while working as informers for Special Branch."
Aughavey 1 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
"These attacks were carried out in conjunction with the Ulster Protestant Volunteers, another paramilitary organisation, which had been established by the Reverend Ian Paisley. Many men were members of both groups."
This is entirely unsubstantiated.  From the University of Ulster CAIN website:-
Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV)
A Loyalist paramilitary style grouping which was established in the late 1960s. The UPV had close links with the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee (UCDC) which was established by Ian Paisley in 1966. The UPV took part in most of the counter demonstrations organised by Paisley against the Civil Rights marches of the late 1960s. The motto of the UPV was, 'For God and Ulster'.
Ulster Constitution Defence Committee (UCDC)
The UCDC was established in 1966 and was made up of a committee of 13 with Ian Paisley as the head of the committee. The UCDC was the means by which Paisley led the protest against the reforms of Terence O'Neill in the late 1960s. The UCDC was also the ruling body of the Loyalist paramilitary style grouping the Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV).
Aughavey 14:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005 Comments: Bias

message: I am new to Wiki, so bear with me as I figure out how to organize my comments and keep them separate from others'.  I wanted to say, after reading this article, and then going to the article about the IRA, this one seems extremely biased.  There is so much about the anti-Catholicism that it actually serves to stir people up, thinking only formed for purposes of religious hatred.  Contrast this article to the one about the IRA.  The one for the IRA, which was/is composed of Roman Catholics who were usually fighting against Protestants, is written in a much more objective style.  For example, the article on the IRA notes that the British gov. considers them a terrorist group, but supporters prefer "freedom fighters", "guerillas", etc.  For the Ulster article, it is simply said this group is terrorist.  Then it goes on and on about all the anti-Catholic rhetoric.  Whoever wrote this, is either Catholic and very anti-protestant, or...?  because there seems to be an angry undertone, as if this author takes personal offense.  It needs to be rewritten, if it is to be suitable for an encylopedia
Honeytrap
Hello,
Would this article not be better and more clear if it was made into a form of disambiguation page. The original "Ulster Volunteer Force" is in no way related to the current paramilitary/terrorist organisation that uses the name. Having them in the same article implies tat they are the same organisation. Comments please. 
Jonto 01:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation Page?

message: The UVF issued a statement in 1993 claiming they carried out the bombings alone.
The Barron report  says this: "However, while [Mr. Justice Barron] felt there was direct evidence that collusion was operating in Northern Ireland at that time, he also felt there was no evidence to suggest direct collusion in relation to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.". (That's not to say there was no collusion of course, especially given the incompetent Garda investigation and the various other confirmed cases of loyalist/security force collusion, but the word "alleged" is necessary as a disclaimer.)
:Demiurge 10:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think 'Death Squad' is a more accurate label. SCVirus 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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

text: To the "for god and for ulster" guy. This is an encyclopedia. Go away back to followfollow.com and take your bigoted, hate filled, loyalist pish with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.34.78  (talk • contribs)  on 01:30, 21 February 2006
i'm sure the southern irish volunteers who fought within the 36th division  would be proud of your comments, as for facts and figures , the ira has killed a lot more catholics than the loyalist paramilitaries ever did , but unlike your green tinted view (you're not american by any chance) this is an explanation of the original u.v.f and not the drug dealing gangsters of today, their deeds are well documented 
I removed all the above comments from the "For God
and Ulster" individual. This is a discussion page that is to be used to discuss ways improving this artical. Please direct any sectairian rantingas you may have to the various loyalist terrorist websites. Google them if you must. (213.190.156.154 (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dublin/Monaghan bombings collusion 

message: Added an image and some history.  This article should be ten times longer :/ Fluffy999 06:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the images will need to go- just noticed that you can only have 1 TV screenshot per article.  An article on loyalist weaponry/importation might work- like the PIRA one. Will investigate. Fluffy999 16:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not be responding to messages left on my talkpage or on pages for articles I have worked on.  Will no longer be contributing to wikipedia. Thank you. Fluffy999 13:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add some things

message: I've removed the link to Combat 18 in 'See Also'. 
The only mention of C18 in Henry McDonald's 2000 history of the UVF is "..the UVF threatened another nazi group C18, which was also attempting to organise in the east of the city.....the organisation was not exactly true to its own militaristic name and offered no combat at all against the UVF threat" pg220.
Nick Lowles's history of C18 "White Riot" makes no mention of any links to the UVF. What loyalist connections C18 had where with the UDA or later the LVF. Whiteabbey 18:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the UVF did have some links with C18 according to Lowles see here. One Night In Hackney303 07:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: C18 Link?

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

message: It seems a pretty obvious omission from the article.Irish Republican 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So put it in then! Logoistic 22:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Drug dealing activity

message: Why did you remove my link to the UVF homepage?
Surely an article on the UVF should include links to their own website!
Also someone reffered to the UVF as a 'Nazi' organization.
I know who sided with the Nazis during WWII and that was the IRA.
Many UVF members fought and died .in the British army agianst Hilter.
I supose it's more of the same usual leftist rubbish of reffering to anone who they don't like as a 'Fascist' or a 'Nazi'.
:The link was dead as I stated, feel free to insert a link that works. One Night In Hackney303 17:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't work on Firefox, so I've removed it per WP:EL. One Night In Hackney303 17:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't work in IE either, but strangely it does work in Safari. Any ideas why? Vilĉjo 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  website 

message: Reverted copy back to undo page vandalism Rascilon 23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: :Image:UVFcrest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:UVFcrest.jpg

message: The link that claims that the Ulster's took responsiblity for the McGurk bombing is simply a list of the deaths.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.21.16 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added second reference, a member of the UVF was convicted for the bombings.--Padraig (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag error

message: I have marked statements in the section on the UVF's activity in the 1980s and 90s with citation needed. This is mainly because it makes some rather sweeping statements without providing any references. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence that the arms imported were bought from South Africa and plenty that they were bought from a Lebanese arms dealer. As for Ulster Resistance being involved with the UVF and UDA, it seems to me very unlikely given the state of the relationship between these groups at the time. I have also added further clarification that Michael Stone was a UDA member and not in the UVF.
IrishPete (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not difficult to source, I'll do it later. It's well documented that a substantial cache of arms was imported and split three ways between UR, the UDA and the UWF. One Night In Hackney303 18:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing citations 

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

message: As far as Ican work out, the CAIN database is on who died, not who killed as is quoted on this page. Otherwise 1799 civilians killed people, and I'm pretty sure it means "were killed". Therefore, the line "The UVF has killed more people than any other loyalist paramilitary organisation. According to the University of Ulster's Sutton database, the UVF was responsible for 426 killings during the Troubles, between 1969 and 2001" is completely inaccurate and misleading. 86.165.132.184 (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a citation to the Cain site as evidence of the total no. of people *known to have been killed by the UVF and groups allied to it. But finding a citation for the "80% Catholic" casualty rate (although I believe this to be correct), may not be so straightforward. Billsmith60 (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAIN? 

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

message: The article says that the Miami Showband's van was stopped outside Newry by a fake British Army checkpoint. Wasn't that a UDR checkpoint? Also is it not true that the two men killed were also suspected of having had a part in the Dublin/Monaghan bombings the previous year? It's strange that whenever collusion is alleged between the UDR and UVF there is the spectre of British Intelligence lurking in the background.--jeanne (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm aware of that, but as I recall the uniforms of the UDR were slightly different from that of the regular Army. Correct me if I'm mistaken.--jeanne (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how their uniforms are relevant! (Not aware of any difference, either - although happy to be educated.) Mooretwin (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps some Editor can enlighten us as to the difference. Anyway, it wouldn't have made much difference to the occupants of the Showband van. To them, the checkpoint would have appeared to have been a British Army checkpoint. Sorry, I made such a fuss.--jeanne (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Miami Showband Massacre

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

message: The article mentions the Mid-Ulster Brigade. There was also the Belfast Brigade. But weren't there other brigades operating across the North? I believe there was a Shankill Brigade, and there was a group in the Tyrone/Fermanagh area. Were they a brigade with its own commander? The UVF were pretty active in the Omagh area in the mid-1970s. The article needs to list all the UVF brigades and their areas of operation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen the Mid-Ulster brigade, Belfast brigade, East Antrim brigade, and North Down brigade named in books and/or news articles. The Mid-Ulster brigade seemed to cover the biggest area (north Armagh, southwest Antrim, east Tyrone, southeast Derry). I assume the UVF's structure was similar to that of the Provisional IRA (see here). It's possible that UVF groups outside those areas weren't attached to brigades. ~Asarlaí 16:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, those geographical areas were more correctly "battalions", not brigades, as outside Belfast no area had more than one battalion (I believe). And as the UVF's commander-in-chief holds the rank of brigadier-general, local commanders (like Billy Wright up to 1996) were colonels, the equivalent to battalion or regimental commanders. Billsmith60 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Different UVF brigades

message: I know there's an ideological link and an unbroken tradition of sorts between the 1913 UVF and this one, but still the second sentence looks kinda clunky to me:
*The current incarnation was formed in early 1966 and named after the original...but there are no links to the original organisation of that name.
Surely "It was formed in early 1966" is all that's needed? And then, in a separate sentence, "It was named after the UVF of 1913, with whom its founders had a strong ideological affinity", or something of that sort?  Scolaire (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. Although I don't think the "ideological affinity" part is strictly neccessary – "It was formed in early 1966 and named for the UVF of 1913..." would do. If it's named after it, it's safe to assume that the modern UVF admired the old one. JonChappleTalk 06:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second sentence of the lead 

message: I have noticed for some time that the Mid-Ulster Brigade is referred to in this. Why is it there? As a comparator, the Provisional IRA page lists the command as "IRA Army Council" and does not mention South Armagh or any other area.
The MBU was only one of a number of brigades; listing its leaders in the infobox is not appropriate. The MBU had its own command structure, of course, but it was neither a separate entity within the UVF nor independent of the Belfast leadership.
For instance, Robin Jackon remained loyal to the "Eagle" (popular name for the UVF HQ) in 1996/97, while also keeping in with Bily Wright. And it was the central leadership in Belfast that stood down the MUB in 1997, leading it to break away and form the LVF. Brigades or battalions naturally had freedom of operation within their own areas but were under the control of the central leadership, even if nominally so on occasions. I recommend that all references to the MBU, or any brigade, be removed from the infobox
The leadership of the UVF was the Brigade Staff, comprising the CoS or "brigadier-general", his no. 2 - a full colonel, and a number of others of lieutenant-colonel rank. Battalion commanders, also of lieutenant-colonel rank, made up the full complement of the Brigade Staff. When I get time, I will add in a section on the leadership. For now, though, views on the substantive point about the infobox are welcome. [And Gusty Spence appearing there as leader 1966-78 is also incorrect but can be discussed separately]. Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade has its own article. As a unit of the IRA it was notable enough to have its own page, same as the MUB is notable enough to warrant its own article. As regards the "Eagle", why not add this to the article along with the source? I think it's informative. Regarding the Brigade Staff leadership, is it prudent to give the name of the Brigadier-General, seeing as he's a living person? If we list his name (we both know who I'm talking about), the sources have to be impeccable. As for the infobox, I added the info on the MUB before I craeted an article on them.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm speaking from a position of almost total ignorance, but it does seem strange to have the leaders of one brigade in an infobox on the whole force, especially when the brigade isn't even mentioned in the lead. I would suggest taking the MUB and its leaders out of the infobox, and instead summarising the 1970s and post-ceasefire content - where the brigade is dealt with - in a new paragraph in the lead.  Scolaire (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Have merged "civilians" and "civilian political activist". The fact that out of 400 odd victims, 11 were "political activists" is not important here. It is not okay to kill political activists. Furthermore, it is a pretty average number - no doubt eleven of the victimes were darts players, thirty five football amateurs etc etc. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Civilian is the generic term for a non-combatant. If we said so-and-so was a civilian political activist, we'd have describe another as a civilian community worker, and so on.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly object to the introduction of the partisan concept of "non-combatant". Civilians are those persons not in the military. That includes police and terrorists. Mooretwin (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: civilians

message: I notice that a certain "Mr.WM" has been added to the list of Chiefs of Staff, naming him as the CoS from 2009-2011. There isn't a single source to back up this addition. What do other editors think about this?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: After a search on Google I have found nothing that says "Mr. F" retired as CoS in 2009, therefore I have removed "Mr WM" from the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr. WM

message: The Post-Ceasefire activities section is a bit of a mess at the moment with events out of chronological order, murder used instead of killing, sentences that all begin with On such and such date.... It really needs to be cleaned up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Section a mess

message: I have reverted Dcolt's POV reversion of my removal of golfer Rory McIlroy's uncle as being a notable victim of the UVF. Had it been Rory McIlroy himself, then it would be a 'notable' victim. Hundreds, if not thousands, of 'notable' people in NI have lost relatives to terrorism: are all of these relatives 'notable' simply beacause they are related to someone who is well known? Billsmith60 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree, with the addition of the fact that at the time of the death (1972) Rory McIlroy wasn't even born, and wouldn't be for another 17 years. It's ludicrous to include him in this section, as it basically implies they never killed anyone "important" (for want of a better word") at all. 2 lines of K303 20:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Notable" Victims

message: I have reintroduced the row showing "Civilian Political Activists" killed by the UVF. This information was removed solely on the basis of an emotional decision by one editor who found it distasteful. It is the job of Wikipedia to share information impartially regardless of whether or not it suits our personal tastes - WP:NOTCENSORED.
The source used was Sutton, far from perfect, but one that is free and a useful reference. It is also, like Lost Lives, thoroughly impartial. More importantly, the edit introduced serious errors into what are, essentially, innately impartial statistics. To give two examples: Ronald Trainor, a member of the IRSP, has now been claimed as also a member of the INLA by that organisation although Sutton still lists him primarily as a "Civilian Political Activist". Too, Maire Drumm is listed as an activist due to her role as Sinn Fein vice-president although she was also leader of the paramilitary Cumann na mBan (Women's Group). Due to this emotionally-driven edit these two examples were classed as "Civilian". If applied to the INLA or IPLO page someone like George Seawright, the bigoted DUP councillor now claimed as a member of the UVF, would also be classed as a civilian. Both Sutton and Lost Lives break down paramilitary killings in this manner, probably for the simple reason that it aids analysis. Shipyard Special (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian political activists 

message: Mabuska, do you have any evidence for your assertion that the people fighting the police  during the Battle of the Bogside were not resident in the area? Gob Lofa (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have evidence that they all where residents to make your groundless claim? If you can't produce the goods then don't expect other editors to when all they are doing is restoring to the stable version. Mabuska (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Mabuska, this is a little breathtaking, even for you. It says in the introduction to the BOTB article that they were residents, and it's sourced. If you can prove they came from Donegal, this would be remarkable. Can you? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What odds it was you who added that information into the BOTB article? It wouldn't be the first time you've quoted your own edits as some form of justification. Regardless of what that article says it is not this article and you can't use Wikipedia as a source, so you need to provide a source for your claims. Provide a reliable and verifiable source and the issue is sorted. It is as easy as that. Simply breath-taking that after all this time you still fail to grasp the basics of Wikipedia. Mabuska (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sourced in the lede of the BOTB article, like I told you. Do you have a source that says those fighting the supremacists weren't residents? Gob Lofa (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I thought not. Please be more careful in future. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As already explained that is another article, not this one so whatever is there has no bearing. Is it really that hard to add a source into this article? Also be more careful with your imflammatory and highly biased POV statements. Mabuska (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact the reality is probably that you know rightly the first source doesn't state residents at all and the second one is a highly biased source. If you can find reliable neutral 3rd party sources for your claims then as stated no problem with the edit. Mabuska (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't answer my question. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Still waiting Gob Lofa... Mabuska (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you believe they weren't residents? Unfold for us the conspiracy theories that drive you. Gob Lofa (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted per my statement made on 21:57, 5 June 2016. Source is highly biased and unlike your claims in the edit summary is not what was requested. I requested "3rd party reliable evidence", not a source of clear bias like the one you pilfered from BOTB. Not all people involved on either side came from the city. Mabuska (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible double invasion of the Bogside

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Ulster Volunteer Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110426121606/http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/sarmagh.html to http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/sarmagh/sarmagh.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218015532/http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/documents/uploads/Twentieth%20Report.pdf to http://www.independentmonitoringcommission.org/documents/uploads/Twentieth%20Report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218162439/http://www.nio.gov.uk/report_of_the_independent_international_commission_on_decommissioning.pdf to http://www.nio.gov.uk/report_of_the_independent_international_commission_on_decommissioning.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/the-untouchable-informers-facing-exposure-at-last-13401237.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050328085847/http://www.belfastsomme.com/uvf.htm to http://www.belfastsomme.com/uvf.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123001001/http://www.belfastsomme.com/ycv.htm to http://www.belfastsomme.com/ycv.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am not comfortable labelling the UVF a Protestant fundamentalist organisation. Very few, if any, of the members would even practice the Protestant faith or even darken the halls of a church outside of funerals and weddings. It is a paramilitary unionist paramilitary group which sees itself as defending its community from ‘the other side’ which happens to be Roman Catholics in a dispute between Irish and British territorial claims. Even if we can find a source that describes it as Protestant fundamentalist, is it wise to use it? The definition of Protestant fundamentalism is a firm belief in the core beliefs of Christianity - virgin birth, Jesus saves, Jesus rose from the dead, belief in the Trinity, Jesus is son of God, etc. In political modern terms it is often used (interchangeably with Bible bashers) to describe people who have a strict literal interpretation of the Bible and live a strict Christian life, etc. To suggest the UVF members are fundamentalist Christians is absurd. Not even the UVF claim to be fundamentalists.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context here you can't define the use of religion by church attendence or your own summary of what you thin religion is about. Fundamentalism is about belief and social context not a set of criteria you are setting for church attendence and general life style issues.  The religious context is a critical aspect of understanding the troubles and your reversion of a long standing text after it was reinstated fails to show this to readers -----Snowded TALK 14:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an article section that defines Christian/Protestant fundamentalism on this page: Fundamentalism#Christian. As you can see it is indeed about things such as the infallibility of scripture and other core Christian beliefs. I suggest your definition is based on original research. We have lots of long standing original research in articles unfortunately, some of which is garbage. When spotted it is best deleted, especially if it is demonstrably false.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Christian scripture instructs attendance of church to worship and living a Christian life - so yes the UVF members (if they believed in the infallibility of scripture/the Bible which is fundamentalism by definition) would all be regularly attending Church, trying not to sin, preaching salvation and the gospels, volunteering for Charity work as this is what the Bible teaches. So they cannot be Protestant fundamentalists since they do not do these things. Instead of loving thy neighbour and thy enemy the UVF hate and kill thy enemy. It is silly to call them fundamentalists.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

text: To address your other point about the religious aspect to the troubles: well yes, originally Roman Catholic Britain was instructed by the Pope to govern and convert then pagan Ireland to Catholicism and the Catholic British throne invaded/interfered in Ireland. Then came the Protestant reformation and there was the plantation of Ulster which involved land grabs from Catholics with Protestant settlers (mostly from Scotland) settling Ireland to bring Ireland religiously inline with Britain in an attempt to make Ireland stay loyal to Protestant Britain and the Protestant Royal family. That is a very very rough summary. Then there was centuries of discrimination, fighting and hatred that grew between Protestant Unionist and Catholic Republican communities and of course the partition of Ireland all of which led to The Troubles. Yes, there is a major religious contribution (deeply intertwined with politics) to The Troubles but this history does not by default make the UVF organisation or membership ‘Bible bashing’ born again Christians.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Provisional IRA also killed people and come from a catholic background.  The simiple fact is that the religious background of the Protestant paramiligaries is fundamentalist, not main stream protestantism.  If loving thy neighbour and not killing people is an essential feature of designating anyting as not Christian then you have got a lot of articles to change on wikipedia. We don't require consistency of practice with theory to designate a religious background.  I also find it rather iromic that you are requireing justification of works to justify protestantism :-)   Please self-revert until there is some consensus for the change -----Snowded TALK 19:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide reliable sources that the UVF is a Protestant fundamentalist organisation, thanks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Why don’t we, as a compromise, just call the UVF ideology ‘Protestant extremism’ which is more accurate and I imagine there would be an abundance of sources supporting this description.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy with that if there are sources -----Snowded TALK 02:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! :-) I have actually found dozens of sources - I can list them all here if you like. To me this source is reliable: "1,264 people have been killed by Catholic extremists, referred to in the paper as 'Republican paramilitary groups', and 613 were killed by Protestant extremists called 'Loyalist paramilitary groups', whereas 264 people were killed by the security forces." If this is not sufficient we can find and use another. Thoughts?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: UVF and Protestant fundamentalism

message: It seems a bit inaccurate to describe the United Kingdom as belligerents of the UVF when declassified documents from the 1980s show that the thatcher administration was giving them material and intelligence support. This was obviously not known by the public or the majority of the British Army however characterising them as belligerents gives the impression that they weren’t actively supporting their cause with money weapons and intelligence 31.94.2.169 (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2024