Talk:Royal Ulster Constabulary

message: Removed the mainland => Great Britain. There is no such place as the mainland. The phrase is sometimes used clumsily to refer to the part of the United Kingdom other than the Northern Ireland. The name of the UK is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The bit that isn't Northern Ireland is simply the island of Great Britain. It is nobody's mainland and is a term that is generally regarded as "stoopid" and wrong. 
Removed Ulster. Ulster is a POV term as used by one community, as is the North of Ireland and the Six Counties. The correct title is Northern Ireland, nothing else.
Removed Republic of Ireland and replaced it by Éire. The Republic of Ireland was created on 1st April 1949, under the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948 so it did not exist under the name 'republic of Ireland' during World War II, which this article claimed. Under article 4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann (the 1937 constitution) the state formerly known as the Irish Free State was renamed Éire or in the english language, Ireland. Ireland cannot be used for two reasons; (i) it has another conflicting meaning, the 26 county state or the island of Ireland. A more specific term is needed. (ii) Bunreacht na Éireann says the Irish language takes priority over english. Hence Éire not Ireland is used on coinage and was the correct term used to use in the period from 1937 to 1949, when the description "Republic of Ireland" replaced it when referring to the 26 county state. ÉÍREman 22:59 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
:Saying that inhabitants of Northern Ireland cannot use the term Ulster is also POV! One of the difficulties about writing about anything in Northern Ireland is that "neutrality" and "correctness" simply do not exist. Ulster has meant different things to different groups. It's use in practise will invariably raise hackles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badtypist (talk • contribs) 
:Generally this issue has been discussed at talk:Éire talk:Ireland, talk:Republic of Ireland but no firm decision has been taken as to its usage.  I normally refer to Ireland, but footnote it and say it was also referred to as Eire in the time period.  The reason that Ireland is preferred is because Éire is considered to be a POV against the country- used in a condesending manner by British nationals. Fluffy999 21:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other linguistic changes 

message: An incorrect term was used for those responsible for the murder of the 1st RUC officer, Victor Arbuckle. I have substituted the word Unionist for loyalist. The term is often misused and misunderstood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.118.121 (talk • contribs) 
:Thanks for correcting that; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist for a case being taken against the user who introduced the POV term on this article and many others. Demiurge 13:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term used regarding shooting of Victor Arbuckle 

message: Please correct me on this point but I believe the first killing of the "troubles" was actually Matilda Gould.
The UVF carried out a petrol bomb attack on a Catholic owned bar and off-licence in Upper Charleville Street in the Shankill Road area of Belfast, 7th May 1966. The attackers missed their intended target and set fire to the home of Matilda Gould (77), a Protestant civilian, who lived next door to the public house. (Her house was painted identically to that of the bar/bookmakers). Gould was severely injured in the attack and died on 27 June 1966 as a result of her injuries.
If someone can support me on this I would be more than happy to edit.
Dr M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris politics (talk • contribs) 
:Although there was more than one sectarian murder during 1966, they have never been encorporated under the banner of being part of the troubles as the troubles themselves are regarded to have started [if such a term can be used] on and around the events surrounding the annual 12th August parade of 1969. This resulted in the widespread nationwide violence that resulted in the deaths of eight people, all in seperate incidents during the night of 14th into the 15th August. Official Government records state John Gallagher, a civilian shot in civil disturbances in Armagh on the night of August 14th as the first official fatality of the troubles. CAIN, the web resource of the troubles and the book, Bear in mind these dead include two men who died as a result of baton injuries in disturbances in July. The first victim is officially recorded as Patrick Rooney, a child shot inside his home by a stray bullet during disturbances outside his Divis Flats home on August 14th. The official government terminology of a victim being anyone who lost their life while not on duty as a member of the security forces or on active service of a paramilitary organisation or actively taking part in an illeagally organised demonstration or street disturbance. The only exception to this to date has been the victims of Bloody Sunday who, until 2010 were not classed as victims as they were regarded as taking part in an illegal demonstaration/street disturbance. Captainbeecher (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First killing of the "troubles"? 

message: To quote stephens 3 overview and recommendations document 17th April 2003 Page 3:
"My Enquiries have highlighted collusion, the wilful failure to keep records, the
absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, and the
extreme of agents being involved in murder. These serious acts and omissions
have meant that people have been killed or seriously injured."
So im wondering where all this alleged stuff enters into Section 8 of the article.  If Stevens 3 overview and recommendations document says there was, then surely its a POV to say that its an allegation ie. "assertions without proof"?  
I mean its even in section 8 already, Stevens 3 document is quoted: "I conclude there was collusion in both murders and in the events surrounding them." Page 16
Neither is the definition of the term "collusion" as used by Stevens 3 given. 
So it goes on with the allegations of Stevens 3 on the subject of his obstruction. Report says: "Throughout my three Enquiries I recognised that I was being obstructed. This obstruction was cultural in its nature and widespread within parts of the Army and the RUC." Page 13.
Followed up with this framing of reaction to Stevens 3:
"(It was notable, but not surprising, how in the aftermath of Stevens' report, everyone from the media to British politicians, the unionist UUP and the nationalist SLDP and Sinn Féin, all dropped the previous reference to alleged collusion and referred simply to collusion which in the aftermath of Stevens's shock report was accepted by all as a fact.)"
Surely if Stevens 3 says there was collusion and obstruction then its a POV to make out that "the media to British politicians, the unionist UUP and the nationalist SLDP and Sinn Féin" were saying anything that disagreed with Stevens 3?  Is wikipedia indicating that an investigation to investigate Stevens 3 is now needed? That Stevens 3 is somehow making it all up? 
Are the findings of Stevens 3 disputed by any citable source?  If so, can they be cited instead of all this language which seeks to frame the statements in the Stevens document as dubious. As the article appears now it looks to have a dual personality, alternating between quoting Stevens statements declaring that collusion existed then referring to his findings as "allegations". Fluffy999 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleaned it up and quoted direct from the report, no paraphrasing. Removed POV. Asked for a cite on Durkan's remarks as I cannot find them anywhere.  Made it clear that allegations exist about other cases not examined in Stevens 3, whilst Stevens 3 found evidence and proof of collusion as defined by Stevens during his inquiries. Fluffy999 21:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV section in Stevens

message: The article currently says:
: Casualties:
: 302 officers were killed and over 9000 were injured during the Troubles (mid-1960s to late 1990s), of whom 277 were killed in attacks by the IRA.
But the Sutton database of deaths (set 1st Variable to Organisation and the 2nd to Status) says 301 officers were killed, only 271 of which were killed by the Provisional IRA (Sutton rather simplistically lists PIRA as IRA). Another two were killed by the Official IRA (listed as OIRA in Sutton) and 15 more by other Republican paramilitaries including the INLA.
The stats should explicitly state which organization, or group of organisations ("groups which call themselves the IRA"), and have an appropriate figure.
I might go ahead and use the Sutton figures if no-one objects. Is there a source for the figure of 302, and why does Sutton report 301?
Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  12:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here's an improved link that takes you straight to the detailed stats. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  13:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty stats 

message: tim pat coogan in his book ireland in the 20th centuary states that the ruc especially 
in the early days were guilty of some of the most serious crimes commited by a police force
anywhere in europe Bouse23 12:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RUC EXCESSES 

message: I'm curious as to why Weggie keeps reverting Irish Republican's addition of the following statement in the opening paragraph...
:Long standing allegations of collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries have been made against the police force by nationalists and Republicans. The RUC came in for heavy criticism after Nuala O'Loan published the findings of Operation Ballast in January 2007. Ballast Investigation into Collusion in North Belfast 
It would be helpful if Weggie would give a reason for the deletion of this section before simply reverting it again. Revert wars should be avoided. - Big Brother 1984 08:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a whole section on these claims later on where they are fully discussed - correctly. The addition in the Intro of these claims is unnecessary. The RUC suffered huge casulties and collusion is one small part of the story. Its POV to characterise the force in terms of collusion in the intro to a long article and gives this aspect of the force undue prominence Please review WP:NPOV if you don't understand Weggie 09:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to add some content go for it but all you've done is to put some text in the intro which suggests the article is about collusion - its not!!. The article is about a police force. If you took more time and trouble about the material you add, instead of adding political slogans you might have more more luck with your posts Weggie 10:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you're seriously suggesting criticisms with regard discrimination and collusion are not worthy of mention in the opening paragraph then I reckon you're in need of a reality check.  If the RUC weren't such a discredited force why the need for widespread change in the force?Irish Republican 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While allegations of colllusion are correct to be included in the article it must also be balanced by the 'bad apple' principle. To clarify this, the bad apple principal is the given knowledge that within any policing body there will be a percentage who use their position of authority to further their own political or financial ends. In this case the RUC were no different to any other force in the World and their 'bad apple' principal involved the allegtion that officers of a loyalist perspective assisted criminals who shared their political belief in committing crimes. While grounds to support such actions within the RUC are unquestionable it is also recognised by all those who have investigated the force without prejudice or political agenda that the volume of officers who are likely to have taken part in active collusion would certainly be below 1%. For this reason collusion is not worthy of mention in the opening paragraph as the RUC were in effect no different to any other force policing an area where organised crime has had a major hold on the community, e.g. Mafia controlled Little Italy in New York or Mob controlled East End of London where a number of officers were complicit in, at the least turning a blind eye to crime. Captainbeecher (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collusion 

message: "It wasn't just a renaming" - frankly, yes it was.  Legally that is all that changed.  There were some associated reforms, but it was by no means wholesale.Traditional unionist 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was however, reformed, due to the fact that it has implemented the vast majority of recommendations of a third party. Therefore it was renamed and reformed. The meanings of the word "reform" may cause some confusion: it wasn't disbanded and then reformed, but it was reformed in the sense of policies, operating procedures etc. --Setanta 20:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "Renaming and reforms" ??Thunderer (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That might be workable, as 'reforms' doesn't imply reformation, or disbanding-and-reforming. --Setanta 21:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it then.  I'm not able to edit this article at the moment due to a mediation agreement.Thunderer (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  renamed vs reformed 

message: Officially, 303 officers were killed
:Does anyone have a source for this. CAIN is the only casualty listing I can find. GiollaUidir (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The book, the Thin Green Line gives it as 314, all but twelve between 1969 and 1998.   If you quote the same source as me and use page 271. The Thunderer (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death toll 

message: I highly suspect that Seamus Mallon was exaggerating slightly for effect when he made that quote. I had hoped for a specific year in a citation, but thanks for adding that Dunc. :)
I'm not sure that the actual representation of RCs in the force ever dipped below 8% throughout the RUC's history. I think perhaps that fact, if it can be cited, should be added to the sentence containing Mallon's quote. --Setanta 10:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'm sure that is sourcable regarding Catholic membership I'll see what I can dig up. BigDuncTalk 16:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mallon's quote 

message: The "Loyalist collusion" section is unbalanced. At present apart from a few words from Peter Hain, only Jimmy Spratt's comments on the 2007 report is included. In the source cited there are many quotes from people far more prominent than Spratt, it seems as though only the one most negative of the report has been included. Unless there are objections, I propose removing Spratt's comments in their entirety? O Fenian (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to balance the section than remove sourced material, in my opinion. --John (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which people do you propose quoting? All of them? O Fenian (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have any preference on how this is resolved? Either Spratt's view can be removed as it is not the majority view or even a significant one, or everyone else can be quoted in full as well. I prefer the former. O Fenian (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced section

message: I have removed the opinion of Michael McGimpsey which was being presented as fact originally added in this edit. We would not present Gerry Adams' opinions as fact, so why McGimpsey? If any reputable academic sources have made those observations please cite those instead. O Fenian (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Policing in a divided society section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Royal Ulster Constabulary. 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/20080308000853/http://www.psni.police.uk:80/index/pg_police_museum/pg_academic_research/pg_sir_arthur_young.htm to http://www.psni.police.uk/index/pg_police_museum/pg_academic_research/pg_sir_arthur_young.htm
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 17:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As pointed out by  there is no evidence "Royal Ulster Constabulary GC" or similar was an official name, see for example https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/32/section/1. I have removed its addition from the infobox. FDW777 (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Cross