Talk:Ulster Defence Association

message: Para 1 says the UDA was made illegal in 1992, while Para 3 says 1991.
Also, since it mentions the fact that they are banned both in the UK and ROI, were they legal until the early 90s in both countries, or just the UK?
Ben Bulben 17:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies 

message: Whilst I am no fan of the DUP and their brand of Bible bashing No Surrender Unionism I feel it is wrong to try and link them directly to the UDA.
Despite their staunch attitudes they are a democratic party that are openly opposed to all paramilitary organisations (Apart from the Third Force in the 80's or course).
It is also true that many loyalist paramilitaries were stirred up by "The Big Man's" (Ian Paisley Snr) bible bashing rhetoric, but to try and say that the DUP are associated with the UDA is misleading and even though it galls me unfair to the DUP.
The political groups properly associated with the UDA are well known.
In 1978 the UDA demonstrated an interest in politics and set up the New Ulster Political Research Group. This was replaced in 1981 by the Ulster Loyalist Democratic Party (ULDP) which advocated independence for Northern Ireland. In 1989 the party renamed itself the Ulster Democratic Party.
Disagreement over the Belfast Agreement between the UDP leadership and the UDA, and within the UDP itself lead to the pary being dissolved in November 2001. Its role has largely been taken over by the Ulster Political Research Group not the DUP.
--Strangelyb 08:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DUP & UDA 

message: The Ulster Defence Association was not an exclusively Protestant organisation. There was, in fact a contingent of anti-Sinn Féin/I.R.A. Catholics, who were very fiercely pro-British. - (Aidan Work 08:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving aside alleged Catholic membership it was definately NOT exclusively Protestant in the sense that it didn't have any secularists, atheists, agnostics etc. The "Protestant people" they purported to be defending are essentially ethnically defined with religious belief as a high correlate and historical feature, but not necessarily strictly Protestant. Not dissimilar to the way in which Milosevic was supporting an Orthodox "ethnos" while he himself was actually an atheist. Unfortunately in Northern Ireland we don't have an ethnic label like "Serb" that does not have religious connotations.80.229.27.11 (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The U.D.A. was not exclusively Protestant.

message: In this instance I believe the grammar correction is itself incorrect. I quote from Wikipedia's A, an article.
"An
An is the older form, now used before words starting with a vowel sound, regardless of whether the word begins with a vowel letter. Examples: a light-water reactor; an LWR; a HEPA filter (because HEPA is pronounced as a word rather than as letters); a hypothesis; an hour. In some circumstances, an is used before any noun starting with h, such as an hotel.
More examples: "a boy, a European, a j, a picture, a store, a table, a bottle, a window, a phone, a hyphen, a one-horse town" and "a united country, a usurper, a eulogy, a ewe, a U-boat" and "an entry, an f, an hour, an orange, an ape, an odor, an idea, an eagle, an honor, an umbrella, an unbeliever" and "a hotel, a house, a hill, a hymn, a honeycomb". [1]
"Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage is more descriptive than prescriptive, but it advises: You choose the article that suits your own pronunciation. Theodore Bernstein gives the straight vowel-sound-vs.-consonant-sound explanation but allows that you should indeed say "an hotel" if you think hotel is pronounced otel." [2]" []
Ulster is similar to an umbrella or an unbeliever therefore "an" rather than a united country or a usurper which has a defined U sound which indicates "a" as the prefix.
--Strangelyb 09:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a & an

message: I've just spotted something in the lead I'm less than happy with - Its main activities were the killing of Roman Catholic civilians and to a lesser extent, Irish nationalist politicians - that's just woefully wrong. Certainly in its earlier years the UDA's main activities were more of a street based defensive force, albeit it with some other activities as well. This isn't really mentioned much in the article either. I'm not really aware of how significant (if at all) this role was as the years progressed, so I'm not overly comfortable adding too much to the article about it. Obviously the lead needs to provide a short summary of the article which it does at present, but this does need looking at in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 08:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be removed. The actual figures are stated later on in the article. Also, all the paramilitary organisations detail how many deaths they were responsible for, except the PIRA page. This should be changed for consistancy I think. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with removing it, but it still leaves the main article problem which I don't feel capable of solving. Apart from the 1974 strike there's actually very little about the UDA's activities other than the murders, so it paints a slightly unbalanced picture of the organisation in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 09:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was going to remove "Republic of Ireland" from the area of activities. The UDA undertook a small number of operations there but it's misleading to say that it was active there. The UVF article has the same information. If going down that line, you've to add Great Britain, too, as both loyalist organisations were active there and undertok paramilitary-type actions. Billsmith60 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Main activities

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

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "cain" :
** CAIN project
** http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/uorgan.htm Cain web Service: Abstracts on Organisations]
DumZiBoT (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

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

message: I see there have been frequent attempts to add disputed content into the article. The Guardian article does not source the conclusion being made, and it also contains a number of inaccuracies. Padraig O'Seanachain is not described as 'oglach' in Tirghra, and the previous IRA activities of Danny Cassidy and Alan Lundy are described in the book's text. However neither of them were necessarily IRA Volunteers at the time of their murders, which is the key point. The Irish Echo article also contains a number of inaccuracies. The murder of James Sloan and James McCann was not by the UDA, it was by a loyalist group without a name in collusion with the MRF, this is admitted to by someone involved in the follow-up attack (John Black in Killing For Britain). The idea that the UDA/UKFF would murder a prestigious target such as two IRA Volunteers and make no claim of responsibility is an outlandish one, which is why it was not done by them. CAIN attribute it to a non-specific loyalist group, John Black admits it wasn't the UDA, so we are only left with Holland's plucked from thin air ideas as to who was responsible. I welcome further discussion here. O Fenian (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat my request for discussion of the proposed edit here, as it is unacceptable in its current form and it is more unacceptable to keep making it while ignoring this discussion. O Fenian (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: I've corrected errors there re the original leadership. Smallwoods came later. And it's incorrect to say that McMichael was leader of the UFF until his death. He was a UDA briigadier and hence "a leader" of the UFF, but Tyrie said on TV years ago that the UFF never had a single leader. This was true, since it operated a brigade structure without an overall command like the UVF had. I think he should be removed from there, as it's misleading. Problem is that it's referenced but did the cited works really claim that McMichael was *The leader of the UFF? I doubt it. Billsmith60 (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is really very little media and scholarly coverage on the UFF, since it was just a cover name given to the hard-liners within the UDA who carried out the violence such as bombings, assassinations and random killings. These men were allowed to command various areas such as John White and Davy Payne in the Shankill and McMichael in the South Belfast/Lisburn area; yet they remained under the UDA umbrella. The UFF was obviously not allowed a single over-all leader as the UDA leadership would have been worried lest the UFF seek to become a separate group entirely and take all the hard men with them. I think John McMichael's name should be removed seeing, as Billsmith correctly points out, the UFF did not have a single, over-all commander.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In point of fact, the Shankill Road Brigade of the UFF became the UDA/UFF's infamous 2nd Battalion, C.Company that Johnny Adair would later command.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: In what way is a United Ireland a "reunification" please? As I understand it, the ideology of a United Ireland is that of united the Republic of Ireland with Northern Ireland outside of the United Kingdom. "Reunifying" implies that the Republic of Ireland would rejoin the Union, which is not something that is particularly desired by Republicans. The article being directed to by the wikilink is clearly titled "United Ireland" and not "Reunited Ireland". Please explain the revert to my edit. Thanks. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with that interpretation of the phrase. Ireland used to be united and now it isn't, thus it would be reunified. 2 lines of K303 15:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was only united as a kingdom and a lordship of the British monarch, and later as an integral part of the UK. Thus the ambiguity with "reunited". --86.12.24.209 (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unification/Reunification

message: Big Dunc: read any articles cited more carefully before reverting my work: see 2nd last section (Links to British Fascism): "and Combat 18 is no longer wanted by the UDA. Combat 18's links have not been only with the UDA, however, and in fact, with losing the UDA connection, their connection to the UVF undoubtedly became all the more important. It is significant therefore that the recently demoted UVF commander of the Village had links with Combat 18." Billsmith60 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong the article you are using is from 2004 and doesn't say all links are severed, here is one from the BBC in 2006 which claims links are still there. So I will be removing again when 24 hr period is up unless you want to self revert. BigDunc 13:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong again! Where did Vincent Kearney get his info.: from some of the Wikipedia article, probably! How you can accept that bald statement without qualification is beyond me. The logic of what he's saying is that the Combat 18 links must have been restored since 2004. Please amend the text accordingly, then, thanks. Billsmith60 (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I assume you have evidence that Vincent Kearney, the BBC Northern Ireland home affairs correspondent plagiarises his reports from wikipedia. Also as of 2001 links were there according to the site you were using here at most we had a little window when no one reported on the links between the facist groups.BigDunc 16:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that is Wikipedia's major weakness: accepting journalists as impeccable sources. They are largely lazy and selfish and use other people's work all the time, esp. Wiki like I believe Kearney did on this occasion. You'll note that he did not substantiate his bald statement. In the absence of other sources, I refer to the press but would prefer not to. Billsmith60 (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I am sure lazy reporters have taken chunks of articles but you are making a serious accusation against a BBC Journalist that he is plagiarising his work. BigDunc 15:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing against Mr Kearney but will rest my case on the evidence above. Thanks, Billsmith60 (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recommend becoming a prosecution lawyer any time soon. If you had looked at the original source you will see exactly who is plagiarising whom. There has been some slack journalism at the BBC in the past which I have complained about and received a personal apology from the BBC, when this report copied and pasted a significant amount of text from an article I'd written, and this was subsequently repeated in two related news reports in 2009. I believe this was due to the BBC not writing fresh copy but recycling parts of earlier reports which makes logical sense, thus it stands to reason that this article would recycle the earlier report which was plagiarised by a Wikipedia editor in the first place. 2 lines of K303 14:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Combat 18

message: I've temporarily removed the synthesised claim that many considered the UFF a "military wing". Getting several sources and adding them together does not equal "many", especially when one author was even cited twice. Crimes of Loyalty is even inconsistent in the UDA/UFF relationship, going with the "flag of convenience" label instead. Many sources describe the UDA/UFF relationship in different ways, the majority of them listed in the section title. Only presenting one view using synthesis isn't accpeptable, anyone got any ideas on the best way of doing it? 2 lines of K303 14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But wasn't the UFF just a cover name for the UDA hard men who carried out all the sectarian attacks in the early 1970s, with John White devising the name Ulster Freedom Fighters in 1973? It was used so that the UDA could avoid being proscribed, yet claim credit for their killings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was, but all of the labels in the section heading can be reliably sourced. In addition some sources also use more than one of the labels, alternating between military wing and covername or another label. So any ideas on the best way of presenting the "relationship"? 2 lines of K303 15:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I see it, the main problem here is chronological. Killing squads in the UDA began their campaign of murdering Catholics before the UFF name was created in 1973, yet the members of the UDA killing squads were also UFF members (but only after 1973 since the name didn't exist before then). I had this problem when I created the article on Davy Payne. I had to describe him as second-in-command of the Shankill UFF brigade, yet he allegedly began executing innocent Catholics in early 1972 as a member of the UDA.  I suppose the best way of presenting the relationship would be the way the murals in Loyalist Belfast do: UDA/UFF. I cannot think of any other way.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's definitely a case to be made for that in the early 1970s when the UFF were "formed", as back then the UDA had a large membership and it was a minority of the membership that were involved in "retaliatory" activity. However over the years the distinction between the UDA and UFF became virtually non-existent, as is evident by the British government's actions in 1992. 2 lines of K303 15:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem back then too was that the UDA leadership was finding it hard to control the hardliners in such an unwieldy organisation. The UFF served as a type of sieve where the hard men could go and carry out their missions, yet still remain under the UDA umbrella as the last thing the UDA leaders wanted was a rival organisation complete with its own commander, who just happened to have all the heavies and enforcers with him such as Davy Payne and John White.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The UFF was never "formed", as such, being simply a flag of convenience for the murderous activities of the UDA in an attempt to take the heat off that organisation. The UDA had been murdering Catholics long before the UFF name was first used in June 1973. In Dillon's "Political Murder in Northern Ireland", a UFF spokesman (possibly John White) said in an interview that the UFF had been responsible for "most of" the murders committed in the upper Shankill area since sectarian murder took on a dimension all of its own in spring 1972. Military wing is misleading, as UDA members were involved in thousands of attacks on Catholics and Catholic property without the UFF name being used. Flag of convenience or cover name is clearly the correct term when there is no difference between the UDA and UFF. Billsmith60 (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say is true, however the UDA almost always used the cover name UFF when carrying out it's attacks against Catholics from June 1973 onwards. The UFF claimed responsibility for the Paddy Wilson-Irene Andrews double-murder in June 1973 and it also claimed responsibilty for the attempted murder of Bernadette Devlin McAliskey in 1981. My problem is when one is a member of the UFF yet began his killing campaign in the Spring of 1972 as a member of the UDA such as Davy Payne. The name UFF obviously served a triple purpose for the UDA: To keep the British government and RUC at bay; terrorise the nationalist community; and maintain the "Hey, we're the good guys, we help the community, it's the UVF who are the hard lads" image to the law-abiding Loyalists who saw the UDA as defenders of their community. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Covername/military wing/flag of convenience/nom du guerre

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

message: This IP has removed the following, claiming that it is not supported by the source:
However, most of its victims were civilians according to the Sutton Index of Deaths. - choose "organisation" as First Variable and "status" as Second Variable
Now... if you follow that link and follow my instructions, you'll be shown a table. If you have a calculator handy, you'll find that 197 of the UDA/UFF's 260 victims were civilian. ~Asarlaí 01:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP 85.211.119.221 

message: Someone needs to state clearly that the UDA is composed of Protestants in the first sentence, and change many of the vague, confusing uses of "them" and "they." One shouldn't have to click outside of the article to read "UDA IS A PROTESTANT ORGANIZATION."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubledragons (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't exclusively composed of Protestants. 2 lines of K303 10:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In the main body of the articlee, the opening sentence mentions that they were Protestant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UDA is a Protestant organization. 

message: The article says "attacks carried out by the group include the Milltown massacre" yet Milltown involved a single attacker, not a "group", no?--Brian Dell (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Milltown massacre" 

message: In the introduction the article claims that the Royal Irish Rifles "preceeded" the UDA. This seems unlikely to me, as the Royal Irish Rifles were a regular, official regiment of the British Army, while the UDA have only ever been a private organization which cannot officially lay claim to any kind of ties with any part of the Armed Forces.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.69.224 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error 

message: There are far too many superfluous links throughout the article. Johnny Adair has been linked at least three times. Once is sufficient!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superfluous linking 

message: Snowded, you've linked Provisional IRA three times in one section. You've also changed the description of the civilian activists killed, from Sinn Féin to IRA, which is inaccurate. Gob Lofa (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to make a case for removing 'Provisional", anything else was collateral damage in restoring the stable position ----Snowded TALK 22:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Provisional Sinn Féin redirects to Sinn Féin. Gob Lofa (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Which also describes the history of the split which at the time was significant, and this article relate.  You may get agreement of other editors if you argue the case, but the simple fact remains that you are breaking 1RR without that agreement ----Snowded TALK 22:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The true extent of the horror you feel at 1RR breaches could not be better exemplified by how you have dealt with the recalcitrant Snappy immediately you became aware of his breach at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Category_talk:Sinn_F.C3.A9in_MPs. Well done. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinking etc. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ulster Defence Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051215212147/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk:80/article/040805/sunday_world_faces to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/040805/sunday_world_faces
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060106084530/http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/printFriendly/0,,1-1507-1743605-1187,00.html to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-1507-1743605-1187,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Ulster Defence Association. 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/20100118084213/http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/legislation/current-legislation/terrorism-act-2000/proscribed-groups.html to http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/legislation/current-legislation/terrorism-act-2000/proscribed-groups.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ulster Defence Association. 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/20090625021351/http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/staff/Rybar4.html to http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/staff/Rybar4.html
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) 01:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is primarily directed at User:Serial Number 54129, however I would be very interested to hear from other users too. Currently the lead of the piece says:
::The Ulster Defence Association (UDA) is an Ulster loyalist paramilitaryMulholland, Marc. Northern Ireland: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press, 2002. p.80 and criminalhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56460503https://www.newstalk.com/news/oneill-northern-ireland-violence-orchestrated-by-criminal-gangs-linked-to-loyalist-paramilitaries-1176987 group in Northern Ireland.
I removed the term "criminal" from the description because I do not see how the posted sources justify that application to the whole organisation; this should not be interpreted as evidence of my attitude towards paramilitarism in Northern Ireland (I would happily apply the term "criminal organisation" to all paramilitary groups regardless of political persuasion in the North) however. The BBC article is referring to the opinion of Former PSNI superintendent Ken Pennington in relation to the South East Antrim UDA specifically. The opinion of one former PSNI officer regarding one branch of the organisation does not legitimise the assertion that the whole organisation is a criminal organisation (unless of course we apply the "criminal organisation" description to all paramilitaries). In relation to the newstalk article, that also doesn't justify claim that the whole of the UDA is a criminal organisation; it's taking the opinion of the Sinn Fein Deputy First Minister claiming that NI violence in April this year was "orchestrated by criminal-gangs linked to loyalist paramilitaries". The term "linked to" does not justify the claim. Alssa1 (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal Organisation 

message: While it is evidently fair to refer to the UDA as a terrorist group, can someone please explain why this label isn't used for numerous other violent organisations in Northern Ireland, such as the INLA and LVF, which are instead described as paramilitary groups? Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Disregard. A new editor changed this last month, in doing so removing sourced material. thorpewilliam (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist & paramilitary groups