Talk:Ulster Special Constabulary

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ulster Special Constabulary article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

Northern Ireland

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Cap Badge

I have changed the cap badge design to a new rendering faithfully based on an original image ^[1], which deletes the inaccurate proportions, and inclusion of the modern Government of Ireland coat of arms (which as any reader would know is highly inappropriate in this instance). Cyberbeagle (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.policerollofhonour.org.uk/forces/n_ireland/usc/usc_crest.JPG

1922 and the USC / IRA memo

Any ideas on how best this interesting note might be included? It draws a line on that conflict in September 1922, and mentions an action by some specials against others. It was sent to Richard Mulcahy.Red Hurley (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

This section is just a load of POV and it has to be modified or replaced. Wikipedia is not the place for promoting POV, see WP:MOS. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain? Mo ainm~Talk 10:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. For a start, in the named section it states that Catholic recruits were "not encouraged by officialdom". This is untrue. Much was done to attract Catholic recruits but it was measures put in place by the Nationalist Party, The AOH, Sinn Fein, the IRA and the Catholic church which deterred them - not the unionist government, who had "encouraged them" to join. Ergo the statement is untrue. This is probably because you are relying on outdated sources, Magee 74, and Curtis 94, whereas I am using sources from post 2000. One in fact from this year. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What source are you using? Mo ainm~Talk 12:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several newer ones than you. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share them here and what they say. Mo ainm~Talk 13:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly Doherty 2004 - the Thin Green Line, but some from Roche and Barton which I pointed out to you the other day which debunk the concept of institutionalised discrimination. Who's your glove puppet BTW? Or have you got a minder now? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things, sonofsetanta: 1. Just because a source is old, doesn't mean it is "outdated" or factually incorrect. 2. Stop being so obstructive by refusing to discuss things properly, and making offhand statements like "several newer ones than you" - you're the one making the objection, so make your point properly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually Luke in many cases it does mean that when a source is old it becomes outdated and factually incorrect, because new information gets released all the time - note, they used to say the world was flat, but new information got released. I haven't refused to discuss things properly. My answer to Mo above is clear and comprehensive. When one gets short replies however it isn't constructive and I see you recognise that, so perhaps you could have a word with Mo and ask him to discuss the content I have now indicated with a star, rather than him simply answering me in a five word snippet? Of course he could always speak for himself. He didn't use to use a spokesman in the "good ole days". BTW, I don't have to make an objection. WP:BOLD allows me to change whatever info I want. I have been most courteous in coming here to let other editors know I am about to change this article big time. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what do these sources say I asked could you put them here instead you launch in to a personal attack on another editor accusing them of being a "glove puppet" or a "minder". Could you keep these comments to your self and share the sources that you have found thank you. Mo ainm~Talk 13:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've lost none of your charm. As regards my sources I'll be keeping them to myself if you don't mind. You haven't really managed to establish the rapport you need with me to allow for sharing of that nature. If your friend had observed WP:CIVIL then he would have had a friendlier response. As it stands he's quite fortunate I bothered to reply but I did and managed to stay civil - just. The complete rewrite of the article will sort all the sources out and you can diss them then. It'll keep you busy for a while. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this section closed so if you are unwilling to discuss or share the sources that you say contradict the reliable sources that are in the article already. Mo ainm~Talk 14:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I've just used one of my sources - right behind your edit. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SonofSetanta, is it me you refer to when you say "his friend"? If so, I don't know Mo ainm, and have very rarely interacted with them prior to this, if ever, so I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. Your attitude stinks, quite frankly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

This section has been replaced by a complete rewrite. It's been done for a reason - I'm not happy with the constant attempts by some editors to rewrite history to suit a party political agenda. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and anything which suggests the Northern Ireland government did nothing to attract Catholic recruits in the face of good sources to the contrary is trying to twist history. Asarklaí, you are changing sentences to a form which doesn't reflect the source, i.e. "Sinn Fein was the first to launch propaganda against the new force, claiming the composition of the USC was overwhelmingly Protestant and unionist, and was the government simply arming Protestants to attack Catholics". as per Doherty p14 That is what the source says not, "Sinn Féin was the first to launch propaganda against the new force, pointing out that the composition of the USC was overwhelmingly Protestant and unionist, and claiming the government was simply arming Protestants to attack Catholics". as per Doherty p14

The paragraph you removed was not about the UDR. It was a statement about nationalist ideology which compared the attitude of 1920's nationalists with that of those in the 1970's towards the UDR as the successors to the B Specials. It's a fair comparison and you removing it doesn't give your claim of NPOV any credence. I suggest you forget about trying to prove the existence of a downtrodden Catholic minority. It didn't exist. Let's have real history here, not revisionism. As at the Drumcree page I suggest if you still disagree with me you ask for an RfC rather than simply deleting content you personally disagree with. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ulster Special Constabulary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Files for deletion

Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2019_September_7#File:USC_Poster.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.policerollofhonour.org.uk/forces/n_ireland/usc/usc_crest.JPG

[1]