Talk:Ulster Volunteer Force

UVF 1913 vs UVF 1966

Two unrelated organisations sharing the same name - is there a policy regarding disambiguation of article names? Should we go by dates formed (UVF (1913) and UVF (1966)), or some other method. Either way, this page should perhaps be a disambiguation page. --Mal McKee 12:36, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

To my knowledge they were successor organisations? Denis Cavanagh 12:41, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

No, the original basically disbanded some time after having seen action in the First World War. The more recent one had no connections with the former, save that the founders thought to 'pay tribute to' the original organisation by using the name. I think Jonathan Bardon illustrates this well in his A History of Ulster. Though I've left my copy with someone, I've just asked them to see if they can find the relevant passage.

The CAIN website also says, "The group adopted the name of the previous UVF", indicating that there was no direct connection between the two, despite presumably the sentiment of the founders of the later organisation. --Mal McKee 14:29, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

I incorporated this point into the text of the revised article. If it is not yet accurate, please correct. I also added a conventional opening sentence with the name of the article boldfaced at the beginning, as per guidelines.

Roger Lohmann 13:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that I have made a change to the recent edits, as discussed. I haven't changed the other added information. --Mal McKee 16:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

IRA and variants - page naming

While we're on the subject, has any convention been sorted with regard to the naming of the various incarnations of the IRA? Obviously, since the split between the Official IRA and the Provisional IRA, the latter had often been referred to as "the Provos" which eventually lost favour in the media to simply "the IRA". This may lead to ambiguity in some places for our readers with regard to which particular and specific group was involved with some events as, before the 1969/70 split, there had only really been a singular IRA. --Mal McKee 15:10, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

The split took place with the Good Friday agreement, didn't it? So we now have the real Ira, the continuity Ira and the Provisional IRA (The majority who went along with Good Friday?) And I agree with you about a disambig page; I was under the wrong impression that the UVF was in continuation as a small organisation until the Troubles. Denis Cavanagh 15:15, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

Well, exactly - there were indeed further splits in the organisation later on. In fact, there had been a split also before 1969, at the time of the Treaty, as you are probably aware. I had been thinking that it might be a good idea to present this somewhere in a graphical format, illustrating the splits from the Pro- and Anti-Treaty factions, through the Provo/Stickies period and up to the 1980s and 1990s splits of Real and Continuity IRAs. I was thinking something along the lines of a family tree, if you know anyone who would like to do that. --Mal McKee 16:28, 14 May 2008 (CDT)

Yes, good idea. Could be useful in a general IRA article at some point. Denis Cavanagh 17:40, 14 May 2008 (CDT)