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)

How about page 1 of what you call the official regimental history? 40,000 is the number there, one that's been accepted for years. Now suddenly the UDR Association puts out a press release not to announce that the figure was actually 50,000 with an explanation why it was wrong, but to announce a memorial and includes a new number of 50,000 with no explanation. That's a 25% increase, or 10,000 more people. When you're only dealing with 40,000 to begin with that's a huge increase to the previously known figure. Without an explanation as to where this new figure has come from, I strenuously object to its inclusion no matter how many reliable sources parrot the figure when reporting on the memorial due to the press release. That's before we even go down the WP:SYN road. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:48, 14 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)

<redacted with apologies for the remark> 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)

Maybe being that you are Peruvian you didnt read my comment correctly.Murry1975 (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC responses

OK - so you've asked for an RfC. May I suggest that the protagonists in the above mud-slinging match either cease talking until some outside opinions have been made - or at least restrain them to the section above so we can have a clean discussion in this subsection.

Firstly - having too much information in the article (so long as it is both correct and referenced) is not an urgent problem. It doesn't seriously adversely affect the reader's ability to find the information they need. So we don't need to panic about removing the information pending the discussion. So let's chill out and see what the cooler heads have to say here. SteveBaker (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Simplify - As far as I can see, there is a lot of duplication there and it could be drastically reduced and replaced by a "See Also" and some heavy linking of the remaining text. SteveBaker (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Tricky

The text does need to be simplified, but not with the addition of mere "See Also" links as some seem to be suggesting. You can't cover the facts about Catholics not joining the UDR without explaining why, therefore you can't not include details about the Hunt Report and the B-Specials. Then it logically follows you can't explain the B-Specials without at least mentioning nationalist attitudes towards them, ie that they were "seen" as a sectarian Protestant militia designed to protect Protestant interests and the status quo. Then it logically follows that you can't explain that without at least explaining both of those.

Nothing against some pruning, but the events leading up to the formating of the UDR and covered in extensive details by reliable sources solely covering the UDR. They can't be dismissed to other articles to hide uncomfortable facts from this article.

I'd suggest someone proposes a draft, while nothing <redacted> isn't acceptable to me. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Tricky it may be, but as the article makes clear some units had a healthy representation of Catholic soldiers who then left. One of the main reasons was that the IRA/Irish Republican campaign focused on intimidating and killing them. Another was the exacerbated division of society along sectarian lines and people acting accordingly. This too is detailed in the article. Sweeping statements in the lead such as "However, in time suspicion and disenchantment among the Catholic community grew, and Catholic membership settled at around 3" are not representative of the situation. 10:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. However there's also the problem that them being considered the B-Specials under another name made Catholics not join in the first place. And my point remains that you can't cover information like that with a see also link to Ulster Special Constabulary. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

At formation the UDR by the figures stated in the article had 38.7% Catholic recruits so on the face of it your response would seem simplistic and or inaccurate. Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that the comment really is simplistic and inaccurate when reliable sources say Catholics were put off joining? Or do you think the text you refer to is accurately cited?Mo ainm~Talk 12:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. The preamble largely refers to the USC - not the UDR. It is irrelevant and should be deleted in its entirety. Wikipedia isn't the place for political statements. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The IRA killed the first Catholic UDR man in 1970 just after the formation of the regiment so to write the introduction of the article to stress that they were put off because of the USC is simplistic and/or inaccurate. I'm not advocating removing the USC but we need balance in this article Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Unless there is balance there is no chance we will ever get an A class article. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Kernal where do you think the information in the article you refer to is accurately cited? Mo ainm~Talk 13:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you are refering to as I've made a couple of points. To be frank I'd rather demonstate what I mean using the proposal below. Hope you join me Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it going to be more accurate by the point above you made "At formation the UDR by the figures stated in the article had 38.7% Catholic recruits " , its not in the article("The regiment was intended to be nonpartisan, and it began with Catholic recruits accounting for 18% of membership") only a diff of 20.7% , a typo there bud?Murry1975 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at the figures later in the article that give a breakdown of USC and Catholic recruits. It will involve some basic mathematics. There is a disparity yes which is why the article is basically a mess and is deserving of editors who can work together collaboratively to improve the article. See the proposal below. Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The ref states "The total of applications to join includes 15 who have not yet been allotted to a county battalion and 946 from Roman Catholics." Applications not recruits. It involves some basic reading skills.Murry1975 (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked the ref but these figures can be manipulated dependent up[on who said therm and when. For example the compiler of the official UDR history (Major John Potter) gives in his book that a quarter of all applicants were Roman Catholic. Elsewhere I am sure I read that the numbers varied dramatically from area to area. 3 UDR in particular had such high number of Roman Catholic ex-servicemen that they virtually ran the battalion leading to complaints from Protestant politicians like Ian Paisley. I find that a remarkable fact and think it should be included. I'm kind of tickled by the fact that B Specials should be happy to be led by Roman Catholics in defiance of all the statements to the contrary in various publications - and in this article. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My reading skills are spot on. The article text states "By the end of March 1970, the number of accepted recruits was 2,440 including 1,423 ex B Specials and 946 Catholics." I'll check the ref later when I'm rewriting this article Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Kernel, thats the qoute above from the ref, who ever transfered it to the article didnt transfer it correctly . SonofSetanta, Paisley called on I think he was the second person to be head of the regiment in relation to the amount of senior Catholic members, a highly diproportionate number, to voice his concerns.Murry1975 (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Murry that's a quote from the article, the quote from the reference is "The total of applications to join includes 15 who have not yet been allotted to a county battalion and 946 from Roman Catholics", and there's no proof of 946 Catholic recruits (that they were applicants aren't disputed). Mo ainm~Talk 18:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Mo , sorry crossed lines I qouted from the ref above, Kernal from the article next. Yes that was my point the article mention 946 applications from Catholics not success applicants or recruits. Number haveresting percentages, this is one problem with the article that has happened.Murry1975 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This was previously thrashed out in depth at Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment/Archive 2#Catholic Recruitment. I am restoring the accurate version agreed there, not the false claim there were 946 Catholic recruits. Potter cites one area with 30% Catholics at formation as high, he wouldn't possibly do that if the total Catholic figure was 38% since the so-called "high" figure would in fact be below average. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks as if, despute assurances of discussion you're just going to go ahead and do things your own way. I suggest you revert this until you have a concensus for making the changes from the other people who have agreed to discuss the rewrite. Failing that I think we'll just have to ask for an RfC everytime you do something. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You can discuss for 10 seconds, 10 minutes, 10 hours, 10 days, 10 weeks, 10 months or 10 years, the source will still talk about total applications and total recruits then state the number of applications from Catholics was 946. Doesn't matter how long you discuss that, the source gives the number of Catholic applicants not the number of Catholic recuits. So I wouldn't recommend holding your breath while you wait for me to revert the article back to an state I know is incorrect, as it won't be happening any time soon. You'll have to point me in the direction of where I said I was going to get your permission to change incorrect information that distorts sources? Never happened, so you won't be able to. I'm planning to remove or amend incorrect content as I see fit. You're welcome to try and file an RFC every time I change something, as soon as you file the second frivolous one I'll consider you a vexatious litigant and start an RFC on you for disruptive editing and time wasting if you continue doing it. The community won't be that happy if you file frivolous RFCs for every edit you don't like, especially when they find out my edits are ensuring the sources are being accurately cited. On second thoughts, in fact I'll go even further than that. If you continue to waste my time insisting that we have lengthy discussions before removing information which is proven to be demonstrably incorrect, I'll start an RFC anyway. We don't need prolonged debates over whether three equals seven or five equals seven or whether applicants are recruits, none of them are correct. If you are serious about improving this article, you will stop attempting to block improvements to this article by demanding non-controversial corrections are approved by you before they are made. The more time you waste on this talk page, the less time there is to improve the article. Think about it.... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ref your claim that 946 Catholic recruits is false I refer you to Hansard http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1970/mar/23/ulster-defence-regiment-applicants#S5CV0798P0-06665. This clearly shows the figure to be correct. That being the case I will now include the information under that link - not Potter. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"The total of applications to join includes 15 who have not yet been allotted to a county battalion and 946 from Roman Catholics." doesn't prove there were 946 Catholic recruits at all, only 946 applicants as has been explained time and again. Mo ainm~Talk 16:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I have copies of all the relevent material used to construct the article and am happy to work collaboratively to contruct a draft. I also consider myself neutral based on previous Troubles articles. We will obviously take into account the RFC and any other constructive comments. Would anyone care to participate with me or am I urinating in the wind? Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you indeed for your proposal. I am familiar with your work on military articles and am very pleased to work with you although I doubt I can match your skills. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Setanta, another couple of people on board and I'll be happy to start Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be there. Mo ainm~Talk 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Will be there! I think this is a good start and will need to be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Depends what happens relating to the sections immediately below and above this one. If a certain editor does what I expect, there's going to be problems. But if I'm wrong, I'm up for it. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you show some good faith please and try to involve yourself in discussions instead of steamrollering ahead based on original research. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are you telling me to assume good faith when you already proved my assumption right? I knew you'd either revert or demand I revert because it wasn't discussed. Sorry, I'm not playing that game when it comes to incorrect information. If you want to dispute that according to CAIN and Lost Lives only 3 Catholic UDR members were killed by the IRA in the 14 months after August 1971 you're welcome to try. I see you haven't attempted to dispute that fact yet (well, not to any extent that convinces anyone else you're right), instead you're arguing about process. As I said I'm not playing that game. I'm not getting bogged down in any discussion where you think you have some kind of veto that stops incorrect information being removed from this article. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You agreed to discuss the many changes this article needs. Now you've gone ahead and made those changes without discussing them in advance with anyone so neither myself or Colonel Saunders get a chance to provide input. There is no point in reverting what you have done because you have two other editors in your gang who will, as they have done before, reverse the revert. Having fallen foul of this tactic before I'm not going to do it again. Your information is at odds with that provided by Potter and Potter is the definitive source for facts (as pointed out by admin). What does Ryder say on the subject, presumably something similar? Your opinion though is that your original research is better than that of the man who wrote the official history of this regiment? This is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Had you discussed beforehand it there could have been agreement and no need for anyone to point out what I perceive as the error of your ways. I'm prepared to accept good faith on your part and it may well be that we all agree to leave your new facts in but in the meantime could you not at l;east try to play the game with the rest of us? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"You agreed to discuss the many changes this article needs" - diff please, or strike your allegations. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your first post in this section indicates you are willing to discuss. I should also remind you that an admin has insisted this is the way forward and will not tolerate anymore bickering over the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, my exact words were "Depends what happens relating to the sections immediately below and above this one. If a certain editor does what I expect, there's going to be problems. But if I'm wrong, I'm up for it". The assertion you attribute to me appears nowhere in them. I'm more than willing to discuss controversial changes, I'm not willing to waste time arguing with you over the removal or amendment of incorrect information, it's that simple. I'm not wasting time listening to you argue black is white and white is black, not a chance. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

And as for your claim that Potter has been ruled the definitive source (another unsourced assertion bereft of diffs I hasten to add), you seem to be forgetting Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 79#Major John Potter - is he a reliable source?. you're welcome to go to WP:RSN and ask if CAIN and Lost Lives are reliable, I already know the answer you'll get.

Maybe you can explain why Potter is so reliable on UDR deaths given the following? On page 389 he has the Roll of Honour, right at the bottom he has the section for former UDR members killed by paramilitaries in 1972. The only entry is "Pte I Scott". Only one problem with that, the only Scott killed in 1972 was Protestant civilian Joan Scott, killed on 30 May 1972. Or more likely it's actually the Scott referred to in 1973, one Isaac Scott who is listed as ex-UDR and who was killed on 10 July 1973. Lost Lives say he was killed in 1973 too, as does the Operation Banner website and the Palace Barracks Memorial Garden and just in case those aren't good enough how about a newspaper from July 1973?? Funnily enough Potter doesn't list Scott in 1973 either, just so there's no confusion. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it's up to me to explain it. The general concensus of opinion from that link is that Potter is reliable for facts but that care should be taken over his general opinions. In this case you're disputing a fact taken from the official records of the UDR. That doesn't mean it's correct but Potter is the definitive source of facts for the UDR as no other history written from official documents exists. Let me check on Scott in Potter's book and I'll see what he says. Knowing which battalion he came from would be a help. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I dispute your summary of the discussion. Even if I didn't seven Catholic UDR members killed by the IRA in the time period being talked about can't be a fact if it's contradicted by two other sources. Look up the definition of "fact. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What I see as the issue is that Potter will have had access to documents not available to others. From his book I understand the official history he wrote to still be closed. For how long I don't know. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So you are making the claim that Potter knows of killings that were never reported and that are not on the UDR Roll of Honour? Mo ainm~Talk 15:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any mention of I Scott in Potter but the UDR Association website, another definitive source, lists ex-Private I. Scott, 3 UDR as being killed in 1972 http://www.udrassociation.org/Roll%20of%20Honour/1972.htm. Anything coming from the UDR Association website is official. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a Pte Isaac Scott on the Palace Gardens Memorial. I cannot yet find a year or cause of death. I have also been able to discover that Victor Smyth (whose death was listed as unknown causes in one of your posts) was killed when caught in a bomb outside McGurk's Bar in Portadown. He was driving past when it detonated. Added Op Banner website lists Scott as being killed outside Tully's Bar, Belleek on 10/7/73. One of these sources is wrong. Given that Op Banner is a privately run website my finger would be inclined to point at them. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you just like arguing for the sake of it? Are you never capable of admitting that you are in fact mistaken? I'll break this down into separate bullet points, just so nothing can be missed.

• CAIN, Lost Lives, the Palace Barracks Memorial Garden and a newspaper from July 1973 (the newspaper doesn't say he was ex-UDR, but it confirms everything else - name, location and date) all state ex-UDR member Isaac Scott was killed in 1973
• "I Scott" appears on the Roll of Honour for ex-UDR members in Potter and on the UDR Association website for 1972.
• There is no trace of an "I Scott" being killed in 1972 in CAIN or Lost Lives, ex-UDR or otherwise
• No "I Scott" or "Isaac Scott" appears on the 1973 Roll of Honour in Potter or on the UDR Association website.
• The Palace Barracks Memorial Garden clearly lists Isaac Scott as being killed in 1973, it's right there on the second line on my browswer (may vary slightly on other peoples due to screen/font size)

But despite all this, you're still making ridiculous claims that everyone else is wrong and that the UDR Association are official and can't possibly be wrong. It's clear your "definitive", "official", "can't be questioned under any circumstances", "always right", "no higher authority than this afaik except for parliament" UDR Association (and indeed, Potter) have got the Roll of Honour for 1972/1973 wrong. And just to be clear the words in quotation marks aren't always yours, and by using them should not imply I agree with them in any way.

For the UDR Association and Potter to be right about "I Scott" being killed in 1972 would require two extraordinary things to both be true.

1. Potter/UDR Association know about an ex-UDR member called "I Scott" killed in 1972 that CAIN, Lost Lives and the media they used for research all failed to find any details of his death. That, or they are all involved in some cover-up.
2. CAIN/Lost Lives/the 1973 newspaper all erroneously reported that ex-UDR member "Isaac Scott" who was killed in 1973 wasn't actually killed in 1973 at all (despite the newspaper being dated just days later), that or he wasn't ex-UDR. Or I'll grant you he was killed and he was indeed ex-UDR but Potter/UDR Association forgot to add him to the Roll of Honour. Or maybe even he's the black sheep of the UDR and deliberately left off the Roll of Honour?

Back to reality, the answer is staring you in the face. Everyone else has already recognised that answer, Potter/UDR Association have got the Roll of Honour wrong!! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh and since you've brought up Victor Smyth, it appears you didn't read what I said properly. Yes I said CAIN have him listed as killed by "unknown", but later on I said I'd checked Lost Lives and found that he'd been killed by a car bomb believed to have been left by loyalists. So he wasn't killed by the IRA anyway, well not verifiably. There's also a further stumbling block, which I already pointed out, namely that Victor Smyth is in fact a Protestant!! So what appears to be you providing evidence of a missing Catholic UDR member killed by the IRA is in fact a Protestant UDR member killed by loyalists. Oops! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective Ryder is very clear on the wider question of IRA killing in the earlier period of the UDR. He states that one particular IRA killing of a UDR man in front of his family caused a large number of UDR catholics to quit the regiment. Therefore it wasn't the number of killings that was the primary factor. Sound fair? Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Review

I have a rough draft of a new first section. I have initial comments from ONiH and SoS. I'd be please to receive any more preferably on the comments section on my sandpit link Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sentence removed

I wouldn't normally explain the simple removal of a sentence, but this does require in-depth explanation. On page 60 of his book Potter says "In the fourteen months following internment seven Catholic soldiers were murdered. Over that period they averaged 7% of the total strength of the UDR, yet they totalled 28% of those killed by the IRA."

So we'll say 9 August 1971-31 October 1972 for the fourteen months in question, no objections I hope? Anyone who objects is welcome to try a slightly different time period, nothng it's 14 months from the end of internment, no objections to anyone saying 10 August or similar dates onwards, obviously you can't use a date earlier than internment as a starting date. No matter what date you pick, it doesn't really matter as will become clear. The last Catholic UDR member killed by the IRA was on 10 October 1972, so it doesn't matter how far back you choose to make the end date in 1972

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
09 August 1971 Winston Donnell (22) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot while at British Army (BA) Vehicle Check Point (VCP), near Clady, County Tyrone. 03 September 1971 Francis Veitch (23) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot while on guard duty outside Kinawley Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) / British Army (BA) base, County Fermanagh. 07 December 1971 Denis Wilson (31) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot at his home, Curlagh, near Caledon, County Tyrone. 08 December 1971 Sean Russell (30) Catholic Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot at his home, New Barnsley Crescent, Ballymurphy, Belfast. 10 December 1971 Kenneth Smyth (28) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot while travelling to work in car, Clady, near Strabane, County Tyrone. 10 December 1971 Daniel McCormick (29) Catholic Status: ex-Ulster Defence Regiment (xUDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot while travelling to work in car, Clady, near Strabane, County Tyrone. 13 January 1972 Maynard Crawford (38) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot while driving his firm's van along King's Road, off Doagh Road, Newtownabbey, County Antrim. 16 February 1972 Thomas Callaghan (45) Catholic Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Found shot, shortly after being abducted while driving bus, Foyle Road, Derry. 29 February 1972 Henry Dickson (46) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot at his home, Lawrence Street, Lurgan, County Armagh. 01 March 1972 John Fletcher (43) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot outside his home, Frevagh, near Garrison, County Fermanagh. 04 March 1972 Marcus McCausland (39) Catholic Status: ex-Ulster Defence Regiment (xUDR), Killed by: Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) Found shot, by the side of Braehead Road, Derry. 08 March 1972 Joseph Jardine (44) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot at his workplace, Ministry of Agriculture office, Middletown, County Armagh. 20 March 1972 Samuel Trainor (39) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Killed in car bomb explosion, Donegall Street, Belfast. Inadequate warning given. 19 April 1972 James Elliott (36) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Found shot by the side of the road, Altnamackan, near Newtownhamilton, County Armagh. 20 May 1972 Henry Gillespie (32) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Shot by sniper while on Ulster Defence Regiment mobile patrol, Killyliss, near Dungannon, County Tyrone. 08 June 1972 Edward Megahey (44) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Died three days after being shot by sniper while on Ulster Defence Regiment mobile patrol, Buncrana Road, Derry. 09 June 1972 Roy Stanton (27) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot as he left his workplace, Autolite factory, Finaghy Road North, Belfast. 23 July 1972 Robert McComb (22) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Found shot, Kerrera Street, Ardoyne, Belfast. 07 August 1972 William Creighton (27) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot outside his home, near Newtownbutler, County Fermanagh. 26 August 1972 Alfred Johnston (32) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Killed by remote controlled bomb, hidden in abandoned car, detonated when Ulster Defence Regiment patrol approached, Cherrymount, near Enniskillen, County Fermanagh. 26 August 1972 James Eames (33) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Killed by remote controlled bomb, hidden in abandoned car, detonated when Ulster Defence Regiment patrol approached, Cherrymount, near Enniskillen, County Fermanagh. 21 September 1972 Thomas Bullock (53) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot together with his wife at their home, Aghalane, near Derrylin, County Fermanagh. 10 October 1972 John Ruddy (50) Catholic Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot outside his home, Dromalane Park, Newry, County Down 22 October 1972 John Bell (22) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot at his farm, Derrydoon, near Newtownbutler, County Fermanagh. 08 November 1972 Irwin Long (29) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot while driving his car along Lake Street, Lurgan, County Armagh. 22 November 1972 Samuel Porter (30) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot outside his home, Ballinahone, near Maghera, County Derry. 05 December 1972 William Bogle (27) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot outside post office, Main Street, Killeter, near Castlederg, County Tyrone. 15 December 1972 Frederick Greeves (40) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) Off duty. Shot as he left his workplace, creamery, Moy Road, Armagh. 20 December 1972 George Hamilton (28) Protestant Status: Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA) Off duty. Shot at his workplace, building site, Kildoag, Claudy, County Derry.

Click to view the copy and paste from CAIN. If I've missed some deaths by accident I can assure you it was just that, in fact I'd appreciate it if someone else did check that I've got all the relevant UDR deaths from 1971 and 1972.

The results of this are quite revealing. Far from killing seven Catholic UDR members, the IRA killed Catholic UDR members on 08 December 1971, 16 February 1972 and 10 October 1972, and ex-UDR members (Potter makes no mention of any of the seven being ex-members, but I included them for the sake of thoroughness) on 10 December 1971 and 04 March 1972 (the latter actually killed by the Official IRA, but again I don't want to be accused of trying to cheat the figures by leaving him out). That makes a total of five, even if I'm generous enough to include the ex-UDR members as I have done. Five does not equal seven. Those five were in fact the only Catholic UDR members killed by the IRA between the beginning of internment and the end of 1972. I've even matched up the UDR Roll of Honor provided in the book by Potter, all five of the listed names from 1971 are on CAIN. The 1972 one is slightly more complicated. According to CAIN Catholic UDR member Henry Russell was killed by a non-specific Loyalist group on 13 July 1972, for obvious reasons he isn't in the list above, similarly Protestant Victor Smyth killed by unknown on 05 September. We also have "T T Maguire" on the roll of honour, the apparently correct match (fits chronologically, and only two Maguires of any beckground were killed in 1972 and the other is no match) for him is Catholic civilian Terence Maguire, killed by a non-specific Loyalist group on 14 October. There is no mention any of them in the index, so no evidence he has named them in the book itself with further explanation as to who he thinks to be responsible. So taking those three people who aren't on the list due to them being killed by Loyalists, and adding them to the 23 names of people killed in 1972 in the list above, we arrive at the total of 26 which matches the number on the Roll of Honour. Therefore - we're missing nobody. Everyone happy so far? Just for the sake of thoroughness I checked Lost Lives for the three people above who CAIN isn't clear about. Henry Russell is believed to have been killed by a group featuring prominent Loyalist and UDA/UFF member Albert "Ginger" Baker, so no disagreement there. Victor Smyth was killed by a car bomb, believed to have been left by Loyalists. Terence Maguire confirmed as UDR by Lost Lives, and killed by the UDA/UFF. So essentially those three appear to have been killed by Loyalists, so are irrelevant to anything else.Or are they? Perhaps not, as you will see.

So where oh where are the mythical seven deaths of Catholic UDR members and 28%? The only way I can see of getting to seven deaths is to include the two supposedly irrelevant Catholic UDR members who were actually killed by Loyalists during the relevant time period. This does kind of fit the first sentence "In the fourteen months following internment seven Catholic soldiers were murdered", the only problem is his second sentence ("Over that period they averaged 7% of the total strength of the UDR, yet they totalled 28% of those killed by the IRA") assumes that all seven were killed by the IRA, which I've shown wasn't the case. "Seven" deaths out of a total of twenty-six (09 August 1971-31 October 1972) gives 26.9%, whereas "seven" deaths out of a total of twenty-five gives exactly 28%. Why twenty-five you ask? Well Winston Donnell (Protestant by the way, don't think I'm leaving out any Catholic by doing it) was killed on 09 August, the same day as the introduction of internment, so if you simply move the date to 10 August or 31 August or any other day in August you get 25 for the total killed in the next 14 months.

So I'm hoping given this evidence (and no it's not original research, I'm simply showing what the facts are, it's emphatically not original research to point out according to CAIN only 3 Catholic UDR members were killed by the IRA in the time period being talked about) we can all agree that Potter has got it wrong? Yes seven Catholic UDR soldiers (if you include ex-members don't forget) were killed in the 14 months following the introduction of internment, and yes that does amount to 28% of twenty-five. But, and obviously a big but, only five of those seven were actually killed by the IRA (Provisional or Official) and two of them were actually ex-UDR at the time. So in reality we're left with three Catholic UDR members killed by the IRA in the 14 months following internment. So three out of twenty-three (not twenty-five, as obviously I need to exclude the two UDR members killed by Loyalists during the relevant time period) gives a percentage of 13%, and as any good statistician will tell you a sample of three isn't really big enough to draw any inference, and it isn't that far away from the 7% cited by Potter anyway.

Since the claim made by Potter just doesn't tally with the facts, I've removed it. There is no place in the encyclopedia for untrue information, and this has been demonstrated to be untrue. Before anyone trots out verifiability not truth, that's designed to stop people adding information without sources, not to force in incorrect information because it's sourced. Check out WT:V and recent archives if you don't believe me, there's lengthy, lengthy discussions about an addition to stop people misinterpreting the policy in that way. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I for one wouldn't accept your original research. Potter had access to all official files and records from the UDR. You're correct in thinking you may have missed someone. I personally object to the removal of this sentence without proper discussion amongts those who have agreed to discuss. I suggest you revert until there is a concensus. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit was well reasoned and goes beyound what would normally be required. I agree with the edit. We have dealt with Potter before, and I see no reason to re-visit it.--Domer48_'fenian' 15:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As ONiH pointed out there's no original research involved in pointing out that according to CAIN the IRA only killed 3 Catholic UDR members between the introduction of internment and the end of 1972. Stuff like that is explicitly allowed per WP:CALC. He's drawing no conclusions at all, he's just stating the figure. I'm very interested in your claim that he's missed someone, who exactly? ONiH says the total UDR deaths from 1971 and 1972 match the total on the UDR Roll of Honour printed in Potter. Are you expecting us to believe that Potter knows about UDR members killed during the Troubles that don't appear on the Roll of Honour, don't appear on CAIN and don't appear in Lost Lives, and by definition their deaths were never reported in the media which CAIN and Lost Lives used for research? I think ONiH may have messed up slightly when pointing out the 13% at the end, but that doesn't change the fact that his main point isn't affected at all. The IRA didn't kill 7 Catholic UDR members in the 14 months after between the introduction of internment, they killed 3. I support the removal, and reject outright the call for readdition until consensus is formed. There's no need for a lengthy protracted discussion every single time a piece of incorrect information is removed, that's a waste of time. Mo ainm~Talk 16:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with it. That means there is no concensus amongst those of us who agreed to discuss all changes. What are you going to do, steamroller it through or do the decent thing and make reversions until all parties to the agreement have spoken and decided what to do? SonofSetanta (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it your contention that Potter knows about UDR members killed during the Troubles that don't appear on the Roll of Honour, that don't appear on CAIN and don't appear in Lost Lives, and that their deaths were never reported by the media which CAIN and Lost Lives used for research? Having failed to answer this question by Mo ainm, are you now going to discuss it or are you going instead to arguing about process.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I did the decent thing already. Since I object to our readers being misled by the inclusion of untrue information, I removed or amended the offending information. I was decent to them you see. There's no original research involved in my edit, the policy reads "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia". The latter part of my comments may well be original research, but it's not essential to my argument, I'm not planning to add it to an article, and equally your "Potter knows about secret UDR members that were killed" argument is the exact same thing. Pot, meet kettle! The only reason I even included it was to demonstrate exactly how I believe Potter got it wrong, by making the erroneous assumption that all Catholic UDR members were killed by the IRA during that time period. That's quite a reasonable deduction consistent with the facts, unlike the claim you made which amounts to a belief that there were a number (either 2 or 4) of Catholic UDR members killed during that time period who don't appear on the UDR's Roll of Honour, don't appear on CAIN, don't appear in Lost Lives and there were in addition an apparent media blackout over their deaths if CAIN or Lost Lives don't include them, unless of course they are also part of this cover-up? I know which argument I prefer, the one that doesn't require me to a wear a hat made of tinfoil! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing a golden opportunity here. If you agreed to revert the information I'd be happy to confirm your research. I have a copy of Potter and I'm waiting on several other books from Amazon, including Ryder. Is there a section which deals with how the Protestant paramilitaries viewed the UDR, apart from their obvious attempts to infiltrate? Is there a section which says how many UDR soldiers were killed by Protestant paramilitaries - were these as a result of feuding within the paramilitaries or were these soldiers killed for some other reason? Potter is very comprehensive on the intimidation and murder of Roman Catholics from all sources and just as informative on the success stories of Catholic recruitment and the opportunities missed. would it not be wise to include these facts? In the meantime, as the information you have changed on the article came from Potter it must be considered a valid fact - until an equally reliable source is found. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I will not be reverting to add back incorrect information. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. So drop the stick. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't been able to prove that the information is incorrect. By taking part in the discussion it was assumed you (and everyone else) would agree to edit by concensus. What say you? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

To prove what I've been saying I have rewritten the offending paragraph in such a way that Potter's figures are not put forward as gospel. I have also included more information on the subject which highlights the issue for our readers. May I suggest we discuss the information contained within it and see if it needs any further additions/subtractions before moving on to discuss something else?SonofSetanta (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the removal of this information, and proposals should be placed here first. The removal of factually incorrect information should always be removed.--Domer48_'fenian' 16:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

New Background section

New background section completed with some difficulty as someone keeps trying to revert what I'm putting in. I hope I've overcome objections by leaving the disputed cruft in for the moment until we discuss it out. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you made another mistake on the amount of reverts you did? Is it more than 1? Mo ainm~Talk 16:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

They have, and did so knowingly. I've raised it at the appropriate forum. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You two have tag teamed me. That is evident and a report has been made as you will both be aware by now.SonofSetanta (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Are we not meant to be discussing changes here , such as the correction of referenced figure was done yesterday?Murry1975 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That was my opinion as well but on the one hand I'm being hit with information deleted before it's discussed and on the other I can't edit anything new in even though there appears to be concensus from the RfC. I have no choice now but to wait for the outcome of the complaint I have made. I don't feel I can make any further posts until that process is over. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Boring. Yes, there's general agreement that the background section should be trimmed to an as yet undecided extent. However there certainly isn't an agreement that SonofSetanta gets to decide on his own exactly what the changes are and make them without any prior discussion. Perhaps if he stopped wasted time arguing black is white and white is black on points he's no chance on we could make some progress? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the opening sentence in the background section should be changed and the UDR should be brought into the picture well before the third section.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What's going on exactly?

First of all we have Flexdream reverting standard copyediting on the grounds that "Restoring context as long listed in this article". Erm, the 50,000 isn't long listed, it's been torn to shred in the section above that Flexdream has ignored completely. Secondly as I pointed out the 40,000 total membership figure is already in the article, and the point that criminal acts (well, proven ones) were only committed by a small percentage of the membership is covered by the sentence at the end of that particular small paragraph which reads "Only a small fraction of the regiment were involved in such criminal activities". So quite why my routine copyediting should be reverted without adequate explanation is anyone's guess?

Secondly we don't remove deadlinks per WP:DEADLINK. Especially since it can and has been easily fixed...

Thirdly, and most importantly we have an attempt to add back a large swathe of disputed content that was removed from the article years ago for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment/Archive 3#In addition. I can't be bothered looking through the hundreds of versions from 2008 to find the exact matching version, but here shows where this "new" text has come from. I suggest editors don't go around fishing in atticle histories or on Wikipedia mirrors looking for material they want to add without fully reviewing the talk page archives first, and propose any substantional re-additions here first. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The numbers of those who served has long been in the paragraph you refer to, and didn't cause problems. What is in dispute is the number.

"... we don't remove deadlinks per WP:DEADLINK. Especially since it can and has been easily fixed..."

Didn't you do exactly that with this edit? [1] which I fixed. [2]

Thanks for your comments on the additional information. I'll check out the history.--Flexdream (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do I really have to quote WP:DEADLINK to avoid you missing the point entirely? The key word in WP:DEADLINK being "solely". 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you implying you had another reason? Apart from the link being broken, what other reason could you have for removing it? As the link was broken you couldn't have any problem with the content, and the title of the link was relevant and RTE is a reliable source. I didn't know about WP:DEADLINK till you mentioned it. You claim to be familiar with it.--Flexdream (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

UDR memorial section

Anyone else agree this could easily be pruned down to a couple of sentences and incorporated into another section? We really don't need stuff about leasing land and stuff like that. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an important part of the UDR story and deserves to have its own section. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It would seem to be in the correct place in the article for me. The article suffers from material shoehorned all the place. From a chronology aspect, it's in a good place, again the article is already very poor on this. A quick google search demonstrates substantial array of sources so the notability can be demonstrated. However, it could do with the addition of more sources (not difficult) and some pruning and some expansion! (also not tricky). Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's in the correct place if we need a section. The situation at present is the assumption seems to be made that we need a section therefore fill it with all sorts of stuff that's not really relevant to an article about the UDR itself in order to justify the continued existence of the section. Almost half of the section is taken up by crap about land. Admittedly my suggestion referred to the section in its current state, and wouldn't apply if a better section could be written. While sources may not be difficult, it'd be better if we tried to use ones that aren't just paraphrases of the UDR press release. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Opening

The opening in my opinion should have been addressed by now. There is no point in approaching this article in a half-assed fashion. Start at the start and work through. The opening says nothing about the UDR and is more like some sort of political speech about all that was wrong in Northern Ireland, according to political views. It has no place on any article about any military regiment, especially when Wikipedia already has enough articles on this subject. I propose to delete the entire section and start the article off with the Hunt Report which is where the UDR started. Links can be included to take readers to other articles on the Irish Troubles and the Ulster Special Constabulary. Would those in favour and those against please show their preference.SonofSetanta (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an RFC open on this, its not closed yet. Why all the hurry, it was you who opened it, it stays open for a month. The "political veiws" in the opening paragraph? Do you mean the lead? Or are you humming about the "background" section again? Either way to make whole scale slices after calling a RfC on it is a bit odd dont you think?Murry1975 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to comment on the background section itself instead of making remarks about my intentions? One Wikipedia basic is to Assume good faith. May I respectfully advise you to refamiliarise yourself with this advice then hopefully we can get rid of at least some of the rancour in discussion? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Third time to try and reply, all the little minor touchups!! AGF is a guideline and it can be worn thin. I never remarked about your intentions. I believe something progressive might come out of the RfC.Murry1975 (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The RfC seems to be dead in the water. I think we've had all the useful comment we're going to get. The simple fact (from what I've been told privately) is: many are scared to death of getting involved here, particularly in view of what has happened to me. The only thing to do in my opinion is to press on and get the job done. This regimental article is long overdue an overhaul. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well there is this version but I've been pushed for time to do more about it [3] Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In Favour. I like it. I'd go for that without any modifications. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

RfCs never work. The current heavily-political background section was inserted by Domer48 without consensus, although at the time it proved impossible to stop the changes being imposed (I fought a virtual lone battle at the time - see here for previous discussions). I'm content with Kernel's proposed text, notwithstanding that I may wish to make a few tweaks. Mooretwin (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be up for that but in essence I agree with Kernel's NOPOV approach.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Up for what? Mooretwin (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You making a few tweaks to Kernel's new background section. I think it should happen today. There is a consensus for change. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Rather than keep starting new sections on the same subject, [4][5][6], address the comments made in the previous discussions. Editors have raised issues above which have yet to be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If Kernel posts his background section, I'll tweak. Mooretwin (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks to you two guys for doing all the work. Now we can move on to the rest of the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

See section 'Proposal' above! Please keep all discussion together as Domer suggests Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Brigadier Harry Baxter

Guys I forged ahead yesterday and started a stub article on Brigadier Harry Baxter. That removes some red text from the article. Reading through the profiles of some of the commanders and colonels commandant of the UDR some of them were amazing men with stupendous war records. I think a lot of that is being overlooked to be honest and I wish I could find more on the likes of Baxter, Logan Scott-Bowden et al. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Read Ryder - he gives a potted history for all of them Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Great. I have Ryder here. I'll dig it out and see what else I can gain on a few more of them. Too many blind links or no links for Colonels Commandants and Commanders UDR is my own view. It amazing how an article like this can yield so many interesting military offshoots. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Major John Potter

There seems to be some argument about Potter's status as UDR historian. Some editors seem determined that he will not be known as the official historian. I have his book here and it quite clearly states in the preface that "I was deputed by the Colonels Commandant to compile a historical archive of the regiment." It goes on to say it is four volumes large and: "Comprising as it does OFFICIAL PAPERS, it is held by the Ministry of Defence....." There can be no doubt therefore that Potter is the OFFICIAL historian. His book "A Testimony to Courage" is NOT the official record however but contains extracts from it and other official sources. I hope that clears the matter up for those who were wondering about it? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Historian- yes, offical papers yes, offical historian- a twist on the words. Any other source that states such?Murry1975 (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Regrettably sources on the UDR are thin on the ground. What we do know for sure is that Potter compiled the official history. It seems to me to kind of be splitting hairs to call him anything other than the official historian. Why do you think there's such opposition to this? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

SonofSetanta you have to be able to use reliable sources for anything you put in, calling him the offical historian unless you can use verifiable sources to state that he is such. Its not splitting hairs anything else can be removed on grounds of OR.Murry1975 (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Murry from a purely military perspective it appears he is the official historian. If he was "deputed" by senior officers that makes him so. That would be my reading of it anyway. Perhaps others would care to comment? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Simply writing a book does not make one an historian. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I agree with you. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"it appears he is the official historian" appearing is not a varifiable source and is OR, show a source or stop adding it. Others can comment, but it still needs sources. Dan Mills wrote a great fact based book he is not the official historian of the siege of Al Amarah, even if everything he wrote was cleared and sanctioned by the MOD, as needs to be done in relation to the offical sercets act.Murry1975 (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Potter is absolutely clear. He was deputed to write the history of the regiment which is now held under MOD restrictions as an official document. Ergo we have a source for Potter being the official historian but none denying it. Unless you can find one? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding: Neither I nor Potter claim that his book IS the official history. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. Is the writer of an official history therefore the official historian? I don't know the answer, although instinctively I would say "yes". Mooretwin (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As would I and I wonder why anyone would be so determined to prove otherwise? We have a great source for official facts in Potter's book. Why are some editors so opposed to them?SonofSetanta (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply Sniper One is also in that catergory at the MOD - and probably the pre-print versions. You still dont have the source for it." Neither I nor Potter claim that his book IS the official history" he doesnt claim to have wrote the offical history? What does that tell you about offical historian and OR?Murry1975 (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not getting it Murry. Potter was a battalion adjutant in the UDR for x amount of years after 22 years in the Royal Artillery (I think). After that he became Regimental Secretary to the Regimental Association which is the official voice of the regiment. During that period he was ordered (deputed) to compile the official history. That's what makes him (verifiably) the official historian and the best source we have at the moment for this regiment. No-one is claiming that his book is the official history. He makes it very clear that it isn't but that it contains excerpts from official sources and has been edited by the MOD who removed some information. Given that knowledge why would you (or anyone) fail to see that he is the compiler of the official history/official historian? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting it? Show a source that refers to him as such your OR is not good enough, any reference to such in any articles should be removed as it is not verifiable. You have not shown this anywhere only imply. Now please find sources not opinions .Murry1975 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I did publish the source actually.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Where? The article doesnt mention "offical historian" or "offical history" , yet it mentions Potter 64 times. A very high number indeed.Murry1975 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe 'Regimental historian' or 'official Regimental historian' could be a description of Potter's status? --Flexdream (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Historian has a meaning which goes beyond "someone who has written a book about history."--Domer48_'fenian' 21:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Potter didn't write 'a book about history', he wrote a history of the UDR using official sources. As it was a Regimental history, then Regimental historian is a helpful description. --Flexdream (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How about "former member who wrote a book on the history of the regiment". Is he a historian? No he is a writer and former soldier. Is he official or claim to be? Acording to SonofSetanta "Neither I nor Potter claim that his book IS the official history" so no on that account yet original research is labelling him as official regiment histoian and the person proposing this states the previous qoute. All I am asking for is a varifiable source, that is the way of wiki is it not? Murry1975 (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A bit confusing this discussion. SonofSetanta says here that they "wouldn't for a minute suggest that "A Testament to Courage" is the official UDR history" and go on then to suggest that Potter be described as an "official historian" for an "unofficial UDR history." I would also be helpful if SonofSetanta can also claim here that in Potter's book, in the preface it does state that Potter is the "official UDR historian, at the invite of the British MOD" yet omits this information from this discussion. Could it be that in the preface it says no such thing? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The synopsis at [7] describes it as a history, but not an official history. The book is shown here with the subtitle 'Regimental History'[8] , so maybe Potter could be referred to as either 'Regimental(or UDR) historian', or as 'historian of the Regiment(or UDR)'. I haven't read the book yet.--Flexdream (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Flexdream this synopsis say the book was "Denounced by Britain's Ministry of Defence" so I suggest the use of a synopsis would not support the use of the title suggested. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It would also be very helpful is SonofSetanta could explain why having raised this issue in the past, at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and accepted the comments by Itsmejudith (last post in the discussion) as to any use of such a title as "official historian" for Potter they now raise it again? That they also raised it at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and at the same time raised it at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability and got the same response is a bit of a concern? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The same issue of Potter has also been discussed before on this talk page. Why is this issue coming up again. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Going back further Potter was also raised in this discussion. Can we not draw a line under this and just drop the use of "official historian." --Domer48_'fenian' 23:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's start this discussion all over again

It seems strange that the text of the page in Potter's book hasn't been provided yet. So I'll do it now. Firstly the entire text of the unnumbered page opposite the table of contents:

The manuscript of this book was submitted to the Ministry of Defence prior to publication. At their request, some changes were made to the text in order to protect the work of, and those who served in, The Ulster Defence Regiment. However, this does not imply MOD endorsement of any part of this book, nor those unofficial sources referred to

Now for the relevant part of page ix:

When I retired after serving for thirteen years in a UDR battalion, followed by a further eight as a Regimental Secretary, I was deputed by the Colonels Commandant to compile a historical archive of the Regiment. Since at its height there were eleven battalions, always evolving and constantly on operations, this archive became very large - four volumes in fact. Comprising as it does official papers, it is held by the Ministry of Defence and will be treated in accordance with the requirements of the Public Records Act, emerging therefore in due course into the public domain.

Once I had completed it, I felt there was a need for a shorter, less detailed account that could be published now and which would tell those who had not served in its ranks what it was like to be a member of the Regiment. Hence this book.

My interpretation of that is that Potter was not deputed to compile a regimental history as claimed. He was deputed to compile a historical archive which is a different thing entirely, an archive is just a collection of papers and similar. After compiling the archive, he then decided (apparently on his own without being told/ordered/asked to by others, due to "I felt") to write an actual history. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that was certainly a conversation stopper! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Protestant or Loyalist

The section on infiltration has statements like 'even the most tenuous links to Protestant organisations was dismissed from the regiment'. In cases like this shouldn't it read 'Loyalist organisations'?--Flexdream (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two such mentions of this in that part of the article. The other one even appears not to be in the citation given(by Potter).Murry1975 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the references, and changed 'loyalist' to 'Loyalist'. I've left "best single source of weapons, and the only significant source of modern weapons, for Protestant extremist groups was the UDR" unchanged as that's a quote from http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/irish_news/arts2006/may2_subversion_colluson_UDR.php. --Flexdream (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Loyalist isnt meant to be capitalised, neither is unionist nationalist or republican. Murry1975 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll change that. --Flexdream (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

SonofSetanta's recent edits

I've reverted several of these.

The addition of "It was then discovered that women's voices projected much better on radio transmissions so women were appointed as radio operators" is already covered in the same section.

The repeated linking of CBE is unnecessary and against WP:OVERLINK.

There's no evidence George Lapsley is notable, and the section is for notable members not every single UDR member going. Less than 10 words sourced by a book that isn't even about the UDR would suggest trivial coverage of him, and the use of Gamble has been dealt with before. It's only a reliable source for minor factual details about the regiment.

The spliting down of "Killings by UDR members and other crime" caused duplication, and if SonofSetanta is serious about wanting this article to be A-class then creating two sections with one sentence in and one section with two sentences in will prevent this article being A-class. Mo ainm~Talk 10:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Tend to agree with all the above. In particular regarding Lapsey I dispute this person is notable at all, there's nothing in the text added that makes him pass WP:N. The coverage in Doherty appears to be trivial as Mo states, and Gamble has already been addressed by Domer on this very page see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Reliable source for more info. If he's notable, create an article on him. If an article can't be created that'll survive an AFD, he's not notable and doesn't belong in this article. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I happen to disagree so the information will be put back the way it was. Anyone who wants it removed should seek concensus here. It is a more accurate way of presenting the information.SonofSetanta (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus? There seems to be a bit of confusion on one part, the double entry. Why would consensus allow the need for a double entry? It was brought up above and on the AE page. I am removing, its not an out-and-out removal as it is already in the article.Murry1975 (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. SonofSetanta seems to have missed that point completely though. Since all SonofSetanta's edits that were reverted are actually changes to the article it would have been up to him to seek consensus for the changes, since the consensus position was before his edits were made. As Mo ainm has explained why some of those changes were reverted, and the only counter-"reason" has been "I happen to disagree" there is currently no consensus for the changes. I have reinstated the consensus version per Mo ainm's reasons above along with my added comments regarding Lapsley. I've also removed a couple of OBEs from people who later received CBEs, people don't hold both at the same time. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The CBE was clearly overlinked, however due to the fact the initial wiki-linking of CBE is so far back in the article from the next instance, it is highly permissable to wiki-link it again. I've made the changes, however without the blatant overlinking that was added. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)