User talk:The Thunderer

Troubles in Portadown

Be careful to assert why the victim or murder is notable in WP terms.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do - thanks.The Thunderer (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your use of the word murdered will be change to killed. I'm afraid you wont win that argument.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a concensus on this? Logic and common sense tell me that killings carried out by proscribed organisations are murders.The Thunderer (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a big row on Norman Stronge about murder/killed I think revolving around the fact that no one was convicted of his murder.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this needs to be addressed again.The Thunderer (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Polite notice

At considerable expense I have acquired books on the UDR, and have noticed that your additions sometimes considerably deviate from what the sources actually say. Over the next few days I will be making amendments to the article to ensure the sources are being correctly used. Before reverting me or adding any further information that is not in the sources, please familiarise yourself with these policies - Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research. Thank you. BigDunc^Talk 23:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Having suffered the same expense for the same books (there are only two) I sympathise. My additions do not deliberately deviate from anything in those books but I refrain from quoting where possible as I am not rewriting the history, merely using the books as reference and avoiding using a UDR only point of view. If you're willing to assist in the writing of a sound, encyclopedic article then you have my fullest support. Up until now it appears that your editing policy has been to remove anything which shows the IRA as an enemy with an agenda and instead depict the UDR as the rogue element. A section is badly needed on the methodology of "Ambush Attacks" against mobile patrols by PIRA which was the major factor in loss of life outside off-duty murders. I'd like to see a well written section on that if you wish to oblige? Without condescenion you also need to acquire a little bit of military undertanding. You deleted the names of several brigadiers without realising those were regimental commanders, referred to as "Commander UDR". This is totally unique in the British army as is the position of "Colonel Commandant" and IMHO you should have maybe asked one of the other editors why the names were there. Do you see anyone postng the names of battalion commanders for example? Not that there'd be anything wrong with that but unless they were notable there wouldn't be any point because there are just too many. Play the game fair and I'll have no problems working with you and assisting you with any insight you need on obscure military information.The Thunderer (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I could say the exact same thing to you, I know none of my edits are POV, you might not like them doesn't make them POV. Notice the way alleged is used if a negative against the UDR. If I put allege before every IRA action i'm sure you would have something to say about it, and rightly so. The IRA were and i'm sure still are the enemy of all crown forces I dont dispute that and wouldn't even attempt too. You say you are here to write a sound, encyclopedic article well guess what so am I. My edits are not done to annoy you, I dont scoure the article thinking what can I do now to annoy you. So loose the ownership of the article and we can definitly work together on this. BigDunc^Talk 10:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no ownership issues over the article. If something is proven then it's not alleged. I don't need you to make allowances for me. The issue of encyclopedic knowledge comes first. What we both need to realise however is that, in the world of Irish politicians, allegations are made and repeated all the time. The more often opposing politicians repeat their allegations the more they expect the public to believe what they're saying. For example: the prime allegation against the UDR is that it was a sectarian force. Common sense tells me that there must have been people of a sectarian nature in the regiment so that means there must be some truth in that allegation, but was sectarianism institutionalised and endemic? What did the officer corps and command structure do to address it (or exacerabate it)? What has to be presented are examples. In my considered view what needs to be portrayed is how the actual workings of the regiment were affected by the politics which they were all touched with, as well as explaining what their role was and how it changed as the unit evolved. The structure, armaments, vehicles, duties, usefulness in preventing or repelling attacks. How most of the dead were killed off-duty. The border actions (which were very different to the conflict in Belfast). What they did to help the Northern Ireland situation and what they did to make it worse, whether by accident or design. That also means focusing somewhat on changing IRA tactics, from the 40 man assault on the Deanery down to the 4 man ASU's with their growing specialisation in ambush. No holds barred but impartial in every way. Is that fair enough?The Thunderer (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I also have access to the books, and I see that even since this message you have continued to add unsourced information and your own commentary, arguments and conclusions into articles. Please stop this type of editing, thanks. Domer48_'fenian' 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)