Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment

This page under article probation

All edits to this page by all editors are now under 1RR. See the link above for details. SirFozzie (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the concept, see WP:1RR: No more than one revert in a 24hr period is permitted (and anyone who waits 24hrs and 1 minute before making the same revert will not be looked upon favorably). Rockpocket 02:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New Editor

Hello, I'm new here and I'd like to edit this article. I can see it's been fairly contentious for a while and it looks like a reasonably balanced article as a result of all the interventions and argument but in my honest opinion it does need a little tweaking to tidy it up.

I'd also like to find a mentor because I know how emotional any discussion involving the Irish Troubles can be and I don't want anyone accusing me of being partisan.

I'd like to start by addressing two specific issues. The first is that the section called "IRA Military Campaign" seems to be a misnomer and should be changed to reflect the fact that the IRA's splinter groups were also involved and to include any information on attacks by Loyalist organisations (surely there must have been some?). Perhaps it could be retitled "Paramilitary Attacks on the UDR"? The other issue is that there seems to be a lot of sentences beginning with the words "John Potter says" or "Potter says that". I have the Potter book and it is clear that he is the official historian of this regiment, appointed by the British Ministry of Defence and that he had access to all documentation. Some of it must have been very sensitive because the official history has not been released by the Ministry of Defence but they did give himand his publisher the right to release the book after examining it and editing it so it should be taken as properly sourced and edited by official sources. Perhaps a section could be added about Potter which details his military experience, UDR experience, appointment as official historian and anything else which could be explanatory and helpful. In any case the references for each piece of information sourced to Potter should be sufficient to comply with Wikipedia rules and stop a reader becoming confused as to the source. Then the sentences can be properly written without constant reference to him.

I'd really appreciate any help, advice and/or comment from any interested person. This is a record of a fairly unique regiment in terms of British and Irish history and I believe the information on it should be given to interested readers in an informative way which doesn't display the opinions of any of the Irish factions, past or present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonofSetanta (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't sign - this is my first post and I didn't know I had to. Also, does anyone know how to archive the previous discussion? It's pretty out of date now and it would be very nice to start with a clean sheet. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the archive as this was discussed before and we don't need the Thunderous sound of editors on this articles bickering over attribution. Mo ainm~Talk 19:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome and also to the two people who archived the discussion and did some editing. I intend to read through the article carefully and correct any grammatical or punctuation errors first, unless anyone has any objections? As part of that I want to remove all these references to "so and so says" - which predominantly seems to be "Potter". The issue there seems to be that there are only about two histories of the UDR (unless anyone knows of any others?) and they are going to be relied upon heavily and obviously someone has felt that the entire article (wrongly) depends on them. It doesn't read like a sensible historical document. I think I need to work round this but in some way point out to the reader that there are only one or two histories. Perhaps a small section detailing John Potter and other UDR historians? I have another book here by an English journalist and I'm sure I've seen references to it here. Something I think really needs to be avoided is anything that looks like it's come from a source which could have a strong opinion from any of the protagonists?

Does anyone disagree?SonofSetanta (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read the archive of this discussion by the way and I can see exactly what you mean. There are always strong views about Irish matters. I see the same names cropping up again and again and I've read some of the arbitration reports. I'd really like to avoid any of that bitterness which is one of the reasons why I want to take things slowly - so I don't offend anyone. Another reason is that I don't want this work to be an advertisement for the UDR or for any of the Irish political or terrorist groups. Just plain fact. In the event of dispute I don't intend to get into an argument, I'll bring my mentor in or find someone else who can adjudicate the point before moving onto the next one. As it stands the article seems very well balanced. I don't want that to change.SonofSetanta (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What about the following statement to be put at the top of the "History" section?

"The official history of the Ulster Defence Regiment has not been released by the British Ministry of Defence. The official historian, Major John Potter (former Adjutant of the 3rd Battalion) has released a history entitled "A Testament to Courage" which was edited and approved by the Ministry of Defence. This article draws heavily upon that book for dates and facts."

Does it sound twee? Does it fit in with how Wikipedia want articles to be written? Would it suffice to remove all the references to Potter and just leave the links to the reference section below?SonofSetanta (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

John Potter

With regard to the Potter book while it was supplied to the MOD before publication (at their request) it "does not imply MOD endorsement of any part of the book, nor the unofficial sources refered to." So it is not an official MOD history so the attribution to Potter is correct as they are his views. Mo ainm~Talk 16:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Also in the preface he states "I must also emphasize the the opinions expressed, were they are not attributed, are my own..." Mo ainm~Talk 17:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reference to support the suggestion that Major John Potter is the official historian of the UDR? Should a reference tag be added? Is it possible to sort out this ref, i.e. page number, publisher, etc?--Domer48_'fenian' 20:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't for a minute suggest that "A Testament to Courage" is the official UDR history but in the preface it does state that Potter is the "official UDR historian, at the invite of the British MOD". It goes on to say that the book was proof-read and edited by the MOD before permission was given to publish. Potter apparantly was given unrestricted access to the UDR documentation, including log books from comcens, patrol logs etc. I think for that reason he needs to be given credence. The way the article is written at the moment I don't think there's very much to change but unless there's a sort of explanatory note to say who Potter is it's filled with references to a man who no-one will know. I think you could view Potter's account in much the same way as Kipling's "History of the Irish Guards in the Great War". Kipling wasn't involved at all but through access to papers etc he was able to produce a good history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonofSetanta (talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The link I gave to prove that higher pitched voices are better on radio is to an Air Corps site. It's an official publication and the best I could find on the day. The page it's on is 31.6.2-7 and it says "The voice should be pitched slightly higher than normal. Female operators, and those with a naturally higher pitched voice, may not need to increase their pitch noticeably." Can anyone suggest how that could be put inline better than the way I did it? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SYN because a women "may not need to increase their pitch noticeably." doesn't back up what is claimed in the article. Mo ainm~Talk 15:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Also nowhere in the preface does it say that Potter is the "official historian of the UDR" Mo ainm~Talk 15:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In the preface to Potter's book, which I've now got in fron of me he says he was "deputed by the Colonels Commandant" to compile an historical archive which, classed as "official papers" is now held by the MOD. On page 117 he says that (regarding women) "With their higher pitched voices they made excellent signallers".

There's thing called RSVP (rhythm, speed, volume, pitch, which radio people are supposed to use, military or civil. Finding UK military training manuals to illustrate this doesn't seem to be easy but here's one for the US Coastguard which further assists a reader in understanding the need to raise pitch when speaking on the radio. http://volunteerlifesavers.org/forums/thread/74.aspx The object of this being that women are naturally higher pitched and take to radio communications well. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have the book in front of me also, so you agree nowhere does it state that Potter is/was the offical UDR historian. Mo ainm~Talk 15:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If he was invited by the Colonels Commandant I'd say that was official. In addition his history is in the care of the Ministry of Defence as "offical docouments". I'm aware there has been a lot of fuss on this article over wee things like this however so, given that his book is sub titled "The Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment" I think no-one would lose any sleep if he was referred to as "The Regimental Historian". I note he was also Adjutant of the 3rd Battalion and Regimental Secretary at one point, so he's not what you'd called "ill-informed". Maybe that could be included as well.

Let's not make too much of this. Let's find a wee line that could be included which explains why his name keeps coming up.SonofSetanta (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason his name keeps coming up is because they are his claims, and he states that in his book as I said above "I must also emphasize the the opinions expressed... are my own..." Also not trying to be a smart arse but it doesn't matter if you "...say that was official" as wikipedia works on reliable sources and the source you are using states that they are the authors opinions and not an official MOD history. Mo ainm~Talk 16:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was official. It's in the Potter book that he was invited to compile the history by the Colonels Commandant and that it is classed as "official documents" and held by the Ministry of Defence. You have to ask yourself I suppose, what authority do Colonels Commandant have? Is a request made by them an official one? He goes on to say that where opinions are expressed they are "attributed" except where he gives his own opinion based on his experiences in the regiment. After all, if someone has experienced something first hand are they not entitled to put it on paper as authentic? I don't think you're being a "smart-arse" but I do think we're having rather a lot of dialogue about a regimental history. If we're dealing with facts, like women being naturally better at radio voice procedure because of their high pitched voices what can be the issue? It's repeated elsewhere as I have shown you so why would Mr Potter be wrong? Also, if he has had access to War Diaries, Comcen and Patrol logs (plus God knows what else) I'm sure it can be taken as read that when he states something as fact - it is fact. That's the purpose of regimental histories; to establish what happened, where it happened and why. I've read several other regimental histories on Wikipedia and it seems to be accepted there that if someone writes a regimental history based on official documents and personal experience that it's accurate - except for private opinion.

What's the alternative here. Does the articles remain with this mystery man "Potter" constantly referred to or can something be entered to tell someone who knows nothing about military history who Potter is and why he is qualified to write anything about the Ulster Defence Regiment?SonofSetanta (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad that is sorted! So Potter is not the "official historian" of the UDR and his book is not the "official history." --Domer48_'fenian' 15:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for a debate on this here since the question has been raised at the appropriate forum. It is always best to get outside views wherever possible. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now also raised these issues at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Help_Required_With_Source and Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_Required_With_Source. Hopefully I can get a definitive view from people who are very into this attribution thing. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Information deleted without discussion.

It was my opinion that parts of an article shouldn't be deleted unless there was good reason to do so. Perhaps the person (One Night in Hackney) could put his discussion points here where there seem to be several interested parties before making deletions of previously acceptable and to me anyway, interesting material. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Could I also point out respectfully that the classification of this article is B Class. Removal of large swathes of information which were included when it was classified may result in the article being downgraded. Perhaps the gentleman/woman might be kind enough to explain why he thought the information wasn't necessary? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted because the material fails WP:V, WP:OR and in at least one case WP:BLP. Mo ainm~Talk 17:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As Mo ainm points out, the material fails WP:V, WP:OR and most definitely WP:BLP in at least one case. The argument about class is specious, as my edits improved the article. Removing material that violates policy is an improvement, and since you are already active on various pages about sources, and indeed on the talk page of the relevant policy, you might want to familiarise yourself with WP:BURDEN. In case you want to try and argue lack of time, you chose to remove a tag that had been in place for over a year without addressing the problems with the material (which are that the source doesn't mention the UDR, thus making it original research, and an unreliable self-published source being used for material other than what is mentionedhere particularly as it included claims about a living person which is right out) so I simply removed the policy violating material as is my right *at any time*. You do not have the right to revert to add back unsourced material or original research, WP:BURDEN is quite clear on that. As for the "Irish Freedom Fighters" revert, my summary correctly points out that Potter does not say they are republican, and the name has also been used by loyalists meaning you cannot even assume they are republican because of the name. So including them in a paragraph dealing with republicans is totally misleading, and there is zero point including it elsewhere as then it simply becomes a "UDR member allegedly lost his weapon" story and that's already covered by other text.

And finally, in case I didn't make it clear before, I don't need your permission to remove any material that violates policy. You don't own this article, and I'll remove material as I see fit if it's a policy violation. I note you seem to think editing this article is a one-way street in which you have permanent right-of-way, in that you can make whatever additions you feel like yet nobody else is allowed to change anything. Well that isn't happening, so get used to it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Potter

It would appear that the consensus is that Major John Potter is a reliable source when it comes to quoting facts, figures or if his opinion is confirmed by another historical sourceWikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Major_John_Potter_-_is_he_a_reliable_source.3F . What I intend to do now is go through the article and remove un-needed attribution to this man to make the article look a bit more pleasant to the eye. It doesn't really involve much change.

I still feel that Potter needs to have a section, or at least a few words of explanation, so that readers know who he is and why he's qualified to state anything and why his own opinion (in some cases) may carry some weight. Where his own opinion is obvious I intend to leave it attributed to him.

There's no reason why this editing should be confined to me and I would appreciate any input or involvement from others. If I do something that seems out of place I would appreciate a heads up. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That would not be my view of the discussion, in fact quite the opposite. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

MOD reference used in the lead

This did not source "It was the only regiment of the British Army to have been operational from the date of its formation until its amalgamation", and its removal was wholly correct. I wil admit to only having read the page in full five times so may have inadvertantly overlooked the piece of text that sources that exact sentence, so pipe up if I missed it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I only read it twice, with the same results. "Notable" is not a synonym of "unique", and even if it were to be treated as such that would only cover the "date of formation" part. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

However the fact that the regiment continued on operational duties until the date of its amalgamation is mentioned elsewhere in the article. I simply wished to substantiate the fact that it went on duty on the day of its formation. Then again, why couldn't this be discussed like this with One Night in Hackney. If he felt I needed to get a better reference then I would have tried to oblige. Or I could have changed the wording to suit the quote better.

This is what I'm trying to say to the others. I'm not getting a chance to do anything. Information I put in just gets deleted without any discussion at all, just another set of rules being posted which, having read through some of them, don't seem to confirm that someone can delete my input without discussion. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This section was started by One Night in Hackney 3 days ago, you chose to ignore it so that is why there was no discussion on it. Mo ainm~Talk 14:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Difficulty

I'm having difficulty understanding the logic of some of this so I have made a request for third party intervention.SonofSetanta (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Going from forum to forum such as you have here,here, here and now here is called Forum shopping and is considered disruptive. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverted to Oct 21 version

I have reverted the item to the 21st October version because I don't understand why so much information has been deleted. I'm not doing this to annoy anyone. I want to know why One Night in Hackney feels this information should not be in the article. It's all very well tidying an article up and improving it but if someone else has taken the time and trouble to put information in which has been accepted at that time - why should it be deleted? If it's a question of out of date links or some other technical reason then I don't mind spending the time to update these rather than lose the information which could be valuable from an encyclopaedic point of view.

If One Night in Hackney wouldn't mind engaging with me in discussion I'm sure I have a lot to learn from him/her. In the interim I have now received advice from the British Military Task Force page and I would like to invite people from there who specialise in this sort of article to advise all of us.

If I could ask once again for all interested posters to have patience. The article isn't going anywhere. I'm new and I don't have yhour technical knowledge yet but with your help I'm sure this article can be improved no end.

Thank you for your kind understanding. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As I, and someone else, have already explained, the material fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:BLP. Those are non-negotiable. You ignored this and reverted to your preferred version. I don't need your permission to edit this article, so please stop trying to own it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anyone needs my permission. I'm asking for understanding and time to grasp what's going on and to allow some experts to get here and advise me. I'm also very happy to enter into dialogue with you so I can learn why you think certain things need to be done. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do this. Please discuss these things with me. I feel as if I am being bullied here. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You have breached 1RR on this article which you knew about so self revert and cut the bullying calls as it doesn't wash. Mo ainm~Talk 12:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

While SonofSetanta did violate the 1RR restrictions, after having been warned, and will probably be sanctioned, I do believe the other two of you need to explain more clearly. Assuming SonofSetanta is a new user just as xe claimed, xe likely has no idea what WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:BLP mean. And it would be far more helpful for you to explain why specifically the edits in question are being questioned under those policies, and how they apply to this article. This will make everyone's editing experiences smoother.

To SonofSetanta--unfortunately, as you were earlier notified, this page is under a strict 1RR restriction. That means that no one is allowed to revert the actions of previous editors more than once per 24 hour period. Thus, you should have stopped after a single revert, and come here to ask for more clarification, or gone to one of Wikipedia's help pages to request assistance. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

He's not new, he's an obvious sockpuppet. Do I really need to explain what WP:V is to an editor who has been active on WT:V before I even said WP:V? That's a rhetorical question by the way, we all know the answer to that already. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Then file an SPI. If it's confirmed, xe can be blocked. If you don't have that evidence, assume good faith, please. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I withdraw my support for SoS. I see from the AE report that SoS was fully aware of 1RR, having used the term him/herself earlier. Still, I think filing the SPI would have been by far the better way to proceed, as y'all wouldn't end up with uninvolved editors like myself jumping in here, thinking the three of you are the "bad" ones. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for your advice and your involvement. I don't want to bleat un-neccessarily. I think I sound like a big enough fool as it is but I feel I have asked enough times for discussion and I explained my reason for restoring the earlier version. I feel the others should have responded in a kinder fashion instead of trying to force their version through on a 2-against-1. How can I get any discussion when there is always two of them forcing their views on me? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI is being filed tomorrow, since they only denied being a reincarnation today. Since the old account(s) are old they will be stale for checkuser, meaning it has to be behavioural based evidence instead of a "I think these people are the same" followed by a quick "Confirmed" by a checkuser. Behavioural evidence like that takes a little while to assemble. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You mention 2 against 1 but looking at the history you had reverted twice before I made a revert. Mo ainm~Talk 14:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not how I saw it. I made a bold change and explained why on the noticeboard. Then One Night in Hackney and you both made reverts without coming to the invited discussion. I felt I was justified in making the reverts and forcing the discussion. I believe agreement should be sought on these things, don't you? Why then is my editing being deleted without my discussion points being given validity? SonofSetanta (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What discussion points? Mo ainm~Talk 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In particular: my request to tell people who and what John Potter is/was and also my request for patience and discussion over the deltions. It's all there in the dialogue above.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the edits by One Night in Hackney it appears he agreed with you and removed a lot of the attribution to Potter, I am in agreement also that readers should know that Potter was an ex UDR member and should e in the article, but with regard to you making edits and then telling others not to make any changes to the article till it is discussed while you didn't discuss the insertions you made seems a bit like ownership of the article a cry you are making against other editors. Mo ainm~Talk 17:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As was pointed out above, the material fails WP:V, WP:OR and WP:BLP. At no time were these issues addressed by the editor. It was also raised here and the concerns were not addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The calm before the storm

Since it is also relevant to this page, this link gives details of the changes I have made to this article, with explanations where necessary. I'll be happy to answer any questions regarding those changes, if required. Any blanket reversions to previous versions of this article that do not include those changes should be classed as blatant disruption in my opinion. Any changes that need to be made should be made to the current version of the article, obviously this does not include the reintroduction of material removed in violation of content policies *unless* the material is properly sourced. If anyone is in doubt as to whether something is sourced properly, I suggest posting their proposed change here *first*.

I surely cannot be alone in noting the utter barminess of the current situation. SonofSetanta repeatedly describes himself as new and inexperienced, while referring to me as experienced. Yet I have been prevented in making almost all of my changes to the article as SonofSetanta repeatedly reverts my edits, yet he is free to make whatever changes he feels like without discussion. Isn't this completely and utterly backwards? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proportion

This article suffers from being excessively long. It is over 11,000 words, whereas the article on the Coldstream Guards, which has a 350-year history, is a little over 2,000 words. Adding paragraphs of obsessive minutiae does not make a better article, it simply makes for very boring reading. Peter Bell (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the Coldstream Guards article is short on it's history? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly so, but that doesn't change the fact this article prattles on at tedious length about really trivial things. Once a certain issue has been dealt with, I'll make a start on cutting some of the information down to sensible levels. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Links to Glenanne gang

The article fails to mention how rogue elements of the UDR in the mid-1970s were associated with the Mid-Ulster UVF led by Robin Jackson and the larger ring of assassins known as the Glenanne gang.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Miami Showband killings

In all the acccunts given by survivor Stephen Travers, he states that trumpeter Brian McCoy, who had been driving the band's minibus the night of the attack, had been sure the soldiers were regular British Army and not the UDR. The only notiable difference in the uniforms would have been the UDR's Maid of Erin regimental cap badge. What I'm getting at is how well known and recognisable was this cap badge by the people of Northern Ireland? Would the absence of it have likely caused Brian McCoy to presume they weren't UDR?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The UDR would also have had green berets and depending on what British army units were there there could have been numerous uniform distinctions. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There had to have been something about their uniforms that night which led McCoy to erronously believe the soldiers were regular British Army. Travers did testify that a mysterious Englishman arrived on the scene who had a "lighter-coloured beret" , a "crisp English, upper-class accent", and had the bearing of a true soldier. It's possible that the arrival of this man was what had convinced McCoy. Travers did note that prior to his appearance at the checkpoint, all the soldiers had spoken with Northern Irish accents. I would have thought this factor alone would have told McCoy they were UDR.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I notice the article says the cap badge was dulled by blackening. Why was this done?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Shiny things at night aren't good for soldiers who want to reduce visibility. Might be an idea to bear in mind the rules around orginal research for the rest above Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The article needs to state that they blackened the badge to reduce visibility. Brian McCoy is unfortunately dead so cannot explain how or why he came to the false conclusion that the soldiers were regular Army. It's not likely that Travers asked him why he presumed this. It is recounted by Stephen Travers in his account of the shootings that at some stage while they were lined-up, McCoy nudged him and reassured him that the checkpoint was British Army and not the UDR. Northern Irish people, as I personally recall, never described the UDR as British Army, although that's what they were. If I were to include my conclusions in articles then it would be OR; however, I am searching for facts in regards to the UDR's uniform which editor Jim Sweeney has provided.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Notable Members

As the 'others' section appears to be receiving the 'bad apple' batch of UDR members (no issue with that), I have moved Torrens-Spence to professional soldier (sailer etc) and Frazer back to politicians (has been during his career). Gavin Lisburn (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not that it matters since I've removed the needless formatting, but Willie Frazer is not and has never been a politician. He has never held any political office. Standing in an election doesn't make someone a politician, in the same way that someone applying for a job as a barman doesn't make them a barman. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Any sources comeone can point me to for a list of commanders of the regiment? Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Try an open FOI request via "What Do They Know"? Takes a month but sometimes worth it. Also, Potter works at NI War Memorial. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds obvious, but why not ask over at Ref Desk Humanities. Somebody might have access to the info you are seeking. Actually I'm surprised the article doesn't already have a list of commanders.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I have just asked over at Ref Desk Humanities. I think a list would be appropriate to include in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is odd and I can't anything on the web that gives me a list. I'll have a look in my library when I get home. I should be possible to put one together if the ref desk doesn't come up trumps. Any opinions on substituting the current list of former members with links to Category:Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers and Category:Ulster Defence Regiment officers Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's looking good. We need to discover who was the commander from 1971 to 1973.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's all of them! Kernel Saunters (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on a job well done, Kernel Saunters. The article most definitely benefits from the list. I had not realised that during the early to mid-1970s, two of the Commanders were Catholic!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of Members Served

The article details 40,000 members serving throughout the period referenced in Ryder's book. Further up-to-date information has been published in the past weeks by the UDR Benevolent Fund / UDR Memorial Trust in this press release stating 50,000 members served in the period. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The UDR association are not reliable for any disputed facts. The BBC confirm 40,000. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It is the UDR Benevolent Fund / UDR Memorial Trust who published the news brief. I am certain they know how many persons who served. I will amend the item to show a dispute.Gavin Lisburn (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There are now a number of new sources that state that 50,000 members served in the UDR i.e. BBC News and Utv News. I would propose that the article section is amended. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Regimental Association of the Ulster Defence Regiment publishes 50,000 as the correct number. There is no higher authority than this afaik except for parliament. Accordingly I have changed the information and invite anyone to post an RfC if they have any objections. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Background

I do apologise but a rewrite of mine seems to have clashed with a post by Mo ainm and looks as if I have reverted him which is not the case. As this is the second time someone has objected to what I consider cruft however I will now seek an RfC to avoid any edit warring over this article, which seems to be the case when anyone tries to make any significant changes. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC Request

Is it necessary to have a preamble about the entire Northern Ireland issue as an opening for this article?

I believe not. There are articles about the Northern Ireland Troubles elsewhere on Wikipedia which deal with this and if a background is needed then a simple link should point to one of them. Supporters may argue that the regiment was raised in troubled times but most regiments of the British Army were and this one is no different. Let the article concentrate on the subject matter and reduce the amount of cruft about the sympathies of either community towards the police or army. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Cruft? Or cited material used to give information. Censoring of information is discouraged on wiki as you may have learned from your last block for edit warring over the same issues. Murry1975 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You are replying to an RfC request. I'm sure there's a page somewhere which tells you how to do that rather than taking issue with me on a personal basis, which I'm pretty sure goes against all protocols here anyway? By reverting the page you have also engaged in edit warring without waiting for the results of the RfC. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am commenting on your edits end of. BTW you should have self reverted your edit as that is the edit that needs the RfC not the stable version. You have raised it not the other editors.Murry1975 (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And I am commenting that you shouldn't have done either. You can see an RfC has been made. Let the process take place. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the background section ?Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Whilst there should be a background section it is seriously bloated with a lot of unrequired and irrelevant to the article information. The section could instead include "See also" links to the articles that deal with the issues mentioned in depth rather than bog down this article. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The whole article is bloated and could do with a major trim of all the cruft. Mo ainm~Talk 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Then why have you reverted my attempt to remove some of the unneeded cruft? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact taking a further look at the background section - what has any of this got to directly do with the article? It and the next section concentrate too much of the USC. It could be so easily removed and a "See also" link provided in the section to the actual Ulster Special Constabulary article which details the quite well the whole civil rights issue making it pointless to repeat it all here. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. My feeling is that the article should concentrate on the regiment and its role. Not the Irish troubles or the political nonsense that surrounded it. All mentions of objections to the regiment and the Irish troubles should be deleted. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"All mentions of objections to the regiment and the Irish troubles should be deleted" , no that is background, the Troubles could be tidied down but the mentioning of objections should be kept as it is a relevant piece of information in the article.Murry1975 (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, we don't need the background. There are enough articles already on Wikipedia which give a much greater insight into the troubles without making the UDR article a statement on perceived failures of the governments, politicians, or a statement of woe about either of the warring sides. I agree that there shout be a short preamble but as Mabuska has pointed out (and which I thought) there is far too much of it. Most of it seems to be how the nationalist community was experiencing hardship from the government and security forces and objected to the formation of the regiment. If all of that is deemed so important why doesn't someone start an article called "why the UDR shouldn't have been raised" instead of trying to make a sub-article in this one? I haven't looked at the RUC or B Specials articles but my guess is there's going to be a lot of the same cruft there - added by the same people. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to restate that the background should be reduced and not erased .Murry1975 (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is to do as I did. Remove the cruft about who says what about the Northern Ireland govt etc. Give a lead which includes mention of intercommunal problems, the Hunt Report, and a link to the B Specials. There's no need even to say that the B Specials weren't universally popular - that's for the B Specials site. In other words "the UDR was formed in 1970 because of problems in 1968/69" (loosely). SonofSetanta (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Very thined down. You are going to have to wait for more responses. I think in general a thinned version would work but it would still have to balance both sides. Murry1975 (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You're never going to balance both sides in anything to do with Ireland. The emotions run too deep. The best we can do I think is to include a historically accurate paragraph as background and make sure there are no weasel words or emotive terms in it. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Really , never? And why no? Is it your POV stating the article isnt historically accurate now? That it needs to be historiclly accurate on one sided information? I would like to hear what weasle words are now included in the background. I may or may not reply quickly.Murry1975 (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion Irish people are far too involved in the past. They get all het up about the smallest of things which seem to take on huge significance for them. I wasn't inferring there are weasel words or historical innacuracies in the article at the moment (I haven't actually read the whole article though) but I noticed it has a few hidden categories like "Weasel Words" which means it has included them in the past. I would endeavour to ensure I didn't fall victim to that. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Q.E.D."In my opinion Irish people are far too involved in the past", "I haven't actually read the whole article though" so are you not too involved because you are British? You havent read the whole article yet edit it quite a few times and ignored the 1RR on it yet you are not too involved? Murry1975 (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What I am is not anyone's concern here. No disrespect intended but if I announced I was English or Irish or Scottish then I reckon I'd immediately be classed as partisan - lets just class me as Peruvian. What I should have said is: I haven't read the article completely on this pass. I have before now but when I came back to it I read the first couple of parts and decided to edit. That's how I work: one bit at a time. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes Peruvian suits us all fine. Your back tracking does not.Murry1975 (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume you do concede me the right to explain myself? Therefore I am not back tracking. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

AGF is a guideline. 1RR is a rule :) You can explain yourself I will listen what I choose to believe is my own doing and ,dont take this personal, I will take some convincing that all the background should state is very little of what it states now. Can we wait for more opinions over the next few days so you dont have to reply too much, already I dont think I talked to my wife as much today.Murry1975 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm in absolute agreement with you. I'm just wondering why I was prevented from doing this and then reported because I made an error. I'm quite happy to wait for more opinions. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)