Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Male personnel

I intend to remove the non notable members from this section Ronnie Gamble and Roy Marshall. It reads like a vanity piece concerning Gamble with an on line link to the pamphlet he self published. In fact I feel the whole section could be removed as it adds nothing to the article and we already have a list of notable members, any comments from editors would be very welcome. BigDunc^Talk 17:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We probably need an overarchign "Personnel" section, with "Female personnel" as a subsection, and concentrate more on general personnel issues. The list of notable members is probably a bit OTT as it stands, maybe pick out a few fo the most notable, and otherwise have a "See also" link to the relevant category. If we could find some reviews of the book, it would probably be worth keeping mention of Gamble, and although even the ahrd copy of the book was published by the regimental association, there may still be some utility in his writing as a source for day-to-day activities of E Company.—Preceding unsigned comment added by David Underdown (talk • contribs)

As regard to gamble I have searched high and low for a review of his publication it is non notable and as I stated before the British Library dont even have a copy. Do you not feel that maybe the Greenfinches could have a seperate article David as IMO that would be something that could be expanded? BigDunc^Talk 18:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we established that it would be more accurate to say taht it doesn't yet appear on the BL catalogue, rather than necessarily that they don't have a copy. On the Greenfinches, yes they probably are notable enough for their own article, but summary style dictates that they also need to be mentioned in this article. David Underdown (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No I am not saying remove them all together just that it could do with an article on them and then trim it down. BigDunc^Talk 14:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Military campaign section

This section needs to come out as it reads like an article on the IRA and the missions they carried out only relevence it has to the UDR is that they were targets. BigDunc^Talk 22:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I would not agree to removing the entire section as it gives a good detail of what was occurring on adaily basis. Perhaps the name of the section should be amended as 'Military Campaign' would usuall signify a major battle or similar. What about 'Attacks against the UDR'? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So what would constitute an attack? Do we add one night billy the loyalist threw a petrol bomb or paddy the republican assualted an off duty member. It is IRA attacks on the UDR and as such is POV. BigDunc^Talk 09:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As usual it's down to sourcing. If there's a good source for numbers of attacks on UDR eprsonnel, on or off duty, the tactics used, and which groups were responsible then it has a place in this article. From all I've seen attacks by Republican groups were far more common than those by Loyalists, which is hardly surprising given the nature of the conflict. Just because the majority of "blame" is pinned on one particualr group doesn't make it POV if there's good evidence to back it up. David Underdown (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable Members

I intend to revert this section into the 3 sub-categories of Professional Soldiers, Politicians & Others. It is important to place some order into a list like this. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? Is it like that in other articles? It is just a list of notable members and doesn't need ordering. BigDunc^Talk 23:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have left it as just a list of names without a suitable explanation or order. Readers do not want to have to click on each link to see who they are; they need a bit of assistance by the use of sub-categories. Previously, each sub-category had been ordered eg by rank where known etc. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that not the idea of linking articles so we have no need to add commentary on each name? Readers then follow the link and get a full run down on the notable member. BigDunc^Talk 09:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Some breakdown of the list does help the casual reader to understand why the names are considered notable in this context, are they notable purely as UDR men, or are they really notable in some other field which perhaps also makes their UDR service particularly worth noting. David Underdown (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You have not given any rational and just reverted while a discussion was taking place could you explain why you made your revert. BigDunc^Talk 01:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave notice of an edit I wished to make; there was discussion from interested parties and I made the reversion. If this was the wrong action, please advise how long the discussion should have taken and how would the decision have been taken? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gavin Lisburn, the process of consensus varies. As to this discussion, I noticed that you addressed none of the issues raised at all really. For example David asks above "are they notable purely as UDR men, or are they really notable in some other field which perhaps also makes their UDR service particularly worth noting" you did not address this at all. Could I ask why you did not think it important enough that you dismiss this without comment? You will notice that David had begun to address the issues raised by Dunc, and you simply reverted? David, Dunc and myself have obtained some experiance of consensus building and from that I can safly say, there was no reasonable discussion in this case. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What is required is a list of the commanders of the UDR with dates of service as is common for regiment articles. Does anyone have one? Then we can see who else is useful to include. The notable soldiers list contains both commanders and servicemen who are notable for their service with the UDR. Kernel Saunters (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As David has pointed out above, is their service with the UDR all they are notable for? If it is, is that notable in itself? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The people are notable in each of the 3 sub categories eg professional soldier (which covers off commanders etc), politicians and others (which includes a civil servant, a military subversive and a member of a family pressure group. The list is still open for all to add to. However, if it is decided to remove the sub-categories, then I still feel that would be moving in a backwards step. The article has improved quite a bit recently and no longer has edir warring. Perhaps it is time to consolidate the articlke and everyone leave be? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As the list stands at present I would have no problem with it as the listed members are all notable. BigDunc^Talk 20:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and I note your comments earlier. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Aftercare & UDR Benevolent Fund

Following the deletion of the seperate UDR Benevolent Fund page, I have added it into the Aftercare section in this main article. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Formation

It is my intension to start editing this article over the coming days. I will be adding the following text;

The regiment was formed in 1970 after recommendations from the Hunt Report (1969),which suggested disbanding the part time "B Specials" an all Protestant police force. Their membership had also heavily overlapped with the Orange Order, itself an integral part of the state. It was therefore seen as the strong arm of the "Protestant ascendancy". Nationalists had been "faced by official state forces that regarded them as hostile," and had being "attacked by irregular Protestant mobs, while the RUC and B Specials turned a blind eye," or were "active participants." They were to be replaced according to Hunt, with a force that would be "impartial in every sense and remove the responsibility of military style operations from the police force." ,

I've included the references to assist editors. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is any need to comment on the B Specials within your amended section as a link to that page should be sufficient. A full stop after B Specials in the first line is all that is required. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gavin Lisburn could you let me know why the Specials should not be mentioned? Why was there a reluctance to join the UDR? Were the concerns about the UDR justified and substantiated? Should we not add the Recruitment to the Ulster Defence Regiment back into the main article? Why was it removed? The proposed wording is a very brief summary and addresses some of the questions a reasonable person would ask when reading the article, would you not agree? Unless you provide a rational other than you don’t think there is any need and show were these issues are addressed in this article I have to disagree with your suggestion. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 15:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am just concerned that we are adding in B Special info into the UDR article. However, I will await the changes. OK with putting the other section back in as I am not sure why it was taken out. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Gavin Lisburn I've added the Recruitment to the Ulster Defence Regiment section back. I've inserted the text proposed above, and will review it now having re-inserted the recruitment section. So of the issues can now be addressed in that section. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Domer, I am very disappointed that after all the rpevious discussion you have proceeded with adding this text which has previously been the subject of strong objections. You haven't even fixed the detail of references as I have previously suggested. David Underdown (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Eva Martin

I think Eva Martin should have her own article. What do the other editors think? I haven't got the necessary sources on hand to do it, but perhaps an editor with a lot of documentation on the UDR and it's members could write it. Seeing as she was the first Greenfinch to be killed, she is notable. Dunc, Domer, Gavin, what do you think?--jeanne (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at what information I have and get back to you. I think the Greenfinchs should have their own article? --Domer48_'fenian' 15:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think so as well.--jeanne (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly not, otherwise a page would have to be allocated to the first male UDR soldier to be murdered as well (if there is not one already?). Gavin Lisburn (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found much biography on her, perhaps she could just be included in an article on the Greenfinches, which has been suggested.--jeanne (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with an article on Eva Martin is the lack of solid , referenced biographical information which cannot be located on a Google search. The only info I have on her comes from the Sean O'Callaghan book. One would need to discover her date and place of birth as well as the date she joined the UDR, etc., otherwise the article would look rather skeletal.--jeanne (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Benevolent Fund

The article on the Benevolent Fund, was subject to an Article for deletion and removed. I would suggest that to simply place it here now would have to be discussed first in light of AfD. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1). The notability criteria you refer to applies to an article, not the material in it. Could you show me the policy/guideline or precedent that shows that it should not be added here please 2). The material is clearly referenced and more references can be applied. 3). The AFD was a conditional close, where admin supplied the contents of the article to an interested user. 4). You have removed material that was NOT the subject of the AFD. 5). Large scale removal of material from articles without discussion is not good editing. I note that there has been large scale edit warring on this article already.

I suggest that the issues here are taken for a third party opinion for a way forward given the above ASAP Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kernel Saunters for your reply. On your first point, the section removed was an exact copy of the article removed under the AfD. The closing Admin did suggest that "if someone thinks they can show notability" they should do so. The references to date, did not show notability based on the above rational. I have removed material that was the subject of the AFD, and there has not been any edit warring recently on this article. If you would like to provide references which establish notability please do so, and as the AfD clearly show, I did make some efforts in that direction. I agree with your suggestion on third party opinion, but would simply suggest that we provide the additional references prior to any third opinion otherwise it will be based on references which did not establish its notability in the first place? Thanks again, --Domer48_'fenian' 15:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you note that your revert removed material that was not recently added, i.e. material not copied from the Benevolent Fund page? I've asked the closing admin to take a look at this. Worth pointing out that notability applies to an article not to sections of articles Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing admin popping in here. First, I just want to say that I have not looked at the material added / deleted in this article, nor do I intend to. Instead, I'll just comment on the close and closing comments, so no one is putting words in my mouth (keyboard?). :)

The deletion nomination itself suggested that anything useful in the UDR Benevolent Fund should be added here. The delete !votes centered on notability of the article as a whole, not whether bits and pieces should or should not be added here, but both delete !voters indicated they felt anything useful was already here. However, the discussion centered on deletion, not merger, so I don't think we can really gauge any consensus about merger from that discussion.

The reason I offered to userfy the article if someone felt they could do something with it was that while notability for the article wasn't shown, there was also no assertion that an extensive search had been done and come up empty. Since Wikipedia doesn't have a time limit, I don't have a problem helping someone rescue valid work if notability turns up later.

My suggestion as a disinterested party would be to weigh any additions here as if the UDR Benevolent Fund article had never been created (and therefore never had an AfD) -- does the material add to this article in an encyclopedic manner, and can it be properly sourced? If so, I doubt neutral party would have a problem with it. If not, it probably shouldn't be added.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that User:Fabrictramp, seems logical, clear and reasonable. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what is happening. I understand the editor in the seperate article suggested deletion or movememnt into th emain article. I accepted the suggestion of replacing it into the main article and said so on 18/12/2008 above. No further comments until now; 2 weeks later. So I ask again; is the text going to be replaced? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gavin Lisburn, I think the User:Fabrictramp sums it up well above, "does the material add to this article in an encyclopedic manner, and can it be properly sourced? If so, I doubt neutral party would have a problem with it. If not, it probably shouldn't be added." Now Kernel Saunters has suggested above that more references can be applied, and hopefully they can show notability. If I could just point out again my comments on the AfD, it is none notable because "Little is known of the make up of the Trustees," and "It is not known how the fund is financed at the present moment." Could these two points be addressed first, thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Domer, I'm re-adding the material concerning the aftercare provisions as opposed to the benev fund. I have at least six solid sources inc bbc and newspapers, Any objections to this material being added? Kernel Saunters (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kernel Saunters, I've no objection to material being added all I would ask is "does the material add to this article in an encyclopedic manner, and can it be properly sourced? Why not post it here, and allow editors such as Gavin Lisburn, BigDunc and myself a chance to look at it. Thanks for that, and for taking the time to sourse information, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary style and re-adding info to this article

I think we need to think carefully about the structure of this article before addin back large amounts of info into this article. Probably the splits should have been preceded by more discussion, but it's certainly true that this article is very long, and the general idea of applying summary style, is a good one. Treating every aspect of the UDR over it's 30 year history is bound to lead to an overwhelmingly large article.

What's currently labelled as the Criticism section (and the existing daughter aritcle which is now almost entirely duplicated here in the main article) might be better focussed on the subversion isue, with more general criticism better integrated into the article as a whole - criticism articles and sections are generally perceived as being an indication of point of view problems: either the article is otherwise not properly balanced; or there is an attempt to insert fringe views which are not covered in the best available sources (I don't mean to imply that this is the case here). David Underdown (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

An great suggestion David, the article is getting pretty messy as is Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

I've reverted to Maul's copyedit as over-attribution, as noted on other articles, makes the article difficult to read and is unnecessary as we have footnotes. Only where something is disputed or an element of theorising is this useful. So Maul in this case would seem more correct. Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Potter is not a neutral source and his word can't be taken as gospel. Far to much emphasis is placed on this book and we need secondary sources for what he states. BigDunc^Talk 10:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Atrribution in WP articles is properly done via the <ref> footnotes, to maintain readability. If Potter isn't a reliable source then the article needs to be appropriately restructured. Putting "Potter says" and "he notes" in every second sentance is a total mess. Most of the points so afflicted are points of fact - either they are suitable cited, and therefore should just be presented (with footnotes) or they aren't, and shouldn't be in here. Mauls (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If we start by outlining what we agree on, this should be easy enough. Potter is a self published source, and as such generally not regarded as reliable as there is no editorial oversight or fact-checking. His views are promotional in nature and based on his personal opinions. That is not to say it can’t be used because it can. However when Potter presents unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position then it must be attributed. In this edit here Potter appears to advance a position on Catholics in the UDR, and presents an analysis or synthesis of published material and is therefore attributed. If however it is supported by secondary or third party sources a footnote will suffice. On the book itself this says the book was denounced by Britain's Ministry of Defence, likewise here and here. It also say that This book is not an official history..., and also here?--Domer48_'fenian' 15:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we can take the comment "... Denounced by Britain's Ministry of Defence, this book ..." as entirely correct as it appears in a book commentary on an internet book site. Who wrote it; what are his motives and is there a citation from the MOD stating this viewpoint? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but all those "Potter notes" etc. are just really poor grammar, even without going into the rest of it. It is an inappropriate and quite unreadable style. Mauls (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The grammar can be addressed, so please lets go into the rest of it. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 23:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I've not got an answer on the reliability of this book, but it seems to me that if it's not up-to-grade for direct usage then it should be reorganised as a section specifically about the book, rather than as a normal part of the article. Mauls (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Pen and Sword are a publishing house Kernel Saunters (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The "denounced by the MOD" is seemingly part of the publisher's official promotion, not just a book reviewer.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So he's not self-published then Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Potter is a self published source, and as such generally not regarded as reliable as there is no editorial oversight or fact-checking. The "denounced by the MOD" is seemingly part of the publisher's official promotion, care to comment? --Domer48_'fenian' 11:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting the information that Potter is a self-published source? His publisher is Pen & Sword, a well-known military publisher Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What evidence / citation proves the book was denounced by the MOD? It is my understanding that Potter had access to official records at all levels. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A disclaimer in the book states that The manuscript of this book was submitted to the MOD 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 UDR. However this does not imply MOD endorsement of any part of this book, nor those unofficial sources refered to. BigDunc^Talk 13:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a standard disclaimer not a "denunciation." Valenciano (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The "denounced by the MOD" is seemingly part of the publisher's official promotion, care to comment?--Domer48_'fenian' 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Publishers are trying to sell books, controversy sells. It certainly seems like a standard disclaimer to me also, and it's certainly not self-published by any common definition of the term. I'd likewise agree that direct attribution is only required when sourcing an opinion, or if sources disagree over objective facts. David Underdown (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Formation 2

The “Formation” section appears to contain a number of POV statements.

• “Their membership had heavily overlapped with the Orange Order, itself an integral part of the state”. – it is POV to say that the OO was an “integral part of the state” – a much-exaggerated claim – do the two references support this statement?
• “Nationalists had been "faced by official state forces that regarded them as hostile," and had being "attacked by irregular Protestant mobs, while the RUC and B Specials turned a blind eye," or were "active participants."” – should this not refer to “some nationalists”, or “protesting nationalists” – it reads as though there was a general attack on all nationalists.

Can we agree to amend these? Mooretwin (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mooretwin, the statements are supported by the references. I will be adding to this section in the near furture to include references to Michael Farrell's book Arming the Protestants, which was approved of by Paul Bew. I will add referenced text to the OO and B Specials articles to support all this information. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The statements may be supported by the references, but they are still POV. Mooretwin (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin like I said, I’m going to have to place information across a number of articles to make it all consistent. If it’s an issue of POV, I will of course attribute to the relevant authors. Most of the information will be referenced to Government sources, I'm just waiting for copies to be sent to me from the Linen Hall Library. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re. the first example, the bit which says about the OO "itself an integral part of the state", should be removed. It's POV and not relevant to this article. If someone wants to know about the OO they should be able to click a link from here to the OO article. If the source says the membership overlapped with the OO, then I am content with that part of the sentence. Mooretwin (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mooretwin, you raise two issues, POV and weather it is relevant. Of the two, I can only deal with the second part, the first would have to be explained, like how is it POV. I will quote some sources later today, and you can tell me if you thing it is relevant. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 00:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how it is POV?--Domer48_'fenian' 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Because saying the OO was "an integral part of the state" is a point of view. Objectively, it was not part of the state: it was an independent, voluntary organisation. Objectively, most Government members were also members of the OO, and it exerted influence on Government, but that is not the same as being an "integral part of the state".

Further, someone's opinion about the OO's relationship to the state is appropriate for the OO article and not the UDR article. It is sufficient here to mention overlapping membership between OO and B-Specials (assuming there is a reputable source for the claim). Mooretwin (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the contentious clause as no justification for it has been provided. Mooretwin (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The contentious clause was added in again, still with no justification. Hence I have removed it. Mooretwin (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At least explain what you feel is POV instead of reverting. It is sourced content. BigDunc^Talk 13:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At least read the discussion before making kneejerk reverts in support of your colleague. Try reading 9.48am, 3rd February. Just because it's sourced doen't make it appropriate. An author's contentious view about the relationship between the OO and the state is appropriate for the OO article: it is not appropriate for the UDR article. Mooretwin (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I also raised this during the mediation attempt. To say integral to me implies a legal status it didn't have, unlike say the Communist Party in the USSR. There are ways of phrasing that would make this clearer, and would be equally true to sources. Membership of the Order was obviously highly important in "getting on" in politics, and even in tryign to get a job, but was not legally enforced, more of a cultural norm. David Underdown (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Have removed the clause again for reasons stated above, and in absence of any sound reason to include it. Mooretwin (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you've offered nothing other than your own opinion. You have failed to explain how it is POV, and continue to remove referenced text. Please stop, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a footnote and in adition to the references already cited support this statement? Any additional discussion should be based on referenced sources and not just opinions of editors. Should additional sources still prove nessary, I will be more than happy to include quotes from both Bates and Nixon, but I don't think that will be nessary. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not tell lies: I have explained how it is POV. But the pertinent point is that it is unnecessary and inappropriate in this article to be citing somebody's view that the OO was an integral part of the state. Whether or not it is referenced is irrelevant. People's views about the OO's relationship to the state are not relevant to this article: add them into the OO article instead. You seem to think that you can add anything to an article so long as it is referenced. Mooretwin (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked you to explain how it is POV, and you have not. Now in case I missed it, please give me the diff were you explained how it was POV. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 16:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked you not to tell lies: yet you repeat the lie. Please have the courtesy to read others' contributions to discussions. See mine of 9.48, 3 Feb. Mooretwin (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This diff here dose not explain how it is POV. But this one here does explain your POV. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Now one more time, please tell me how it is POV, because as I've illustrated above to date you have not. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you appear to understand the NPOV policy. Therefore you should understand why a claim that the OO was an "integral part of the state" is POV - in this case it is the POV of the author you wish to cite. Regardless of that, however, it is simply not appropriate to this article. It is sufficient simply to refer to the overlapping membership of the two organisations. Again, you appear to think that just because something is referenced, therefore it must be included in an article. By that logic, I could include a claim by another author that the OO is a benevolent, fraternal society, and add it in. I will not do so, however, because discussion of the nature of the OO is for the OO article and not this article. Mooretwin (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ths information is supported by 11 authors! You have still not explained how it is POV only that you think it is which is just your opinion. I have ignored your uncivil comments up till now, but I seriously suggest you stop now and stop being disruptive.--Domer48_'fenian' 10:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

11 authors say that the Orange Order was "an integral part of the state"? Who are these 11 authors, and where did they make these claims? You still haven't explained the appropriateness or relevance of including an opinion about the OO's relationship with the state in an article about the UDR. Why is that? And I have explained how it is POV: because it is not objectively the case that the OO was an integral part of the state. The OO was and is a voluntary organisation, independent of the state. To say that it was an integral part of the state is to express an opinion about the OO's relationship with the state. Mooretwin (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that the page has been protected, this is an opportunity for you to explain why you think it is appropriate to include this view in this article. I see that Big Dunc has joined in again, eschewing discussion, and reverting an edit. I should just like to point out that his edit summary is untrue. Mooretwin (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been asked to explain what is POV you haven't so my edit summary is correct. BigDunc^Talk 11:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not correct. You asserted in your edit summary that no "rational" had been provided for my edit. That is entirely untrue, given that I noted in my edit summary the following - Removing unnecessary opinion about relationship of Orange Order to the state. The rationale, therefore, is that the text represented unnecessary opinion. Your contributions would be more constructive if you took part in the discussion rather than joining edit wars in support of another editor. (I think you are also aware of past history of this.) Perhaps you could start by explaining why you think the text should be included? Why is it necessary and appropriate to include an author's opinion on the relationship between the OO and the state in this article? Would this issue not be better addressed in the OO article? Mooretwin (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is very disappointing to note that editors have elected not to take the opportunity provided by the protection to engage in discussion here about the disputed text. Their failure to do so is noted. Mooretwin (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been asked to explain how it is POV you haven't! --Domer48_'fenian' 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have. As has been pointed out to you several times. PLEASE have the courtesy to read others' contributions. Further, the argument for removing the text is, first, that it is not appropriate for the article. The question of it being POV is a secondary argument. You've addressed neither. Mooretwin (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But I have, a number of times, and I'm not going to go back over it all again. Read the past discussions and come back with a reason that will stand up. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The first link you provide doesn't even include the clause in question about the OO being claimed as "an integral part of the state" - so there is no discussion there at all relevant to this issue. The second link includes the clause, but demonstrates opposition to its inclusion by three editors: The Thunderer, David Underdown and Sunray. My intervention now makes four editors. Yet you appear to have forced the text through. Is that consensus? Mooretwin (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a total of 11 Authors Ruane & Todd, 2000, Pg.92, Ryder & Kearney, 2001, Pg.45, McKittrick, 1999, pg.30, Fitzgibbon, 1971, Pg.84, Farrell, 1983, Pg.2-3, Johnson, 1981, Pg.209, Patterson & Kaufmann, 2007, Pg.28, Bryan, 2000, Pg.66 who support this view, now like you have been told here go of and find a source which contradicts it and then there is something to talk about. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

All of these 11 authors say that the OO was an integral part of the state? I'm afraid I don't believe that. Could you quote the actual text, please? Even if they do, of course, it doesn't make the inclusion of the clause any more appropriate in this article: it's something for the OO article. Mooretwin (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The main issue as I see it that it is so boiled down, that for anyone without some existing understanding of the topic that at best it doesn't actually explain anything, and at worst it could easily mislead. There was no established religion, and no law proclaiming the positon of the Orange Order, but the societal norms lent it a very strong influence. David Underdown (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's absolutely right, David. The clause is not necessary in any case: it is sufficient to record the overlapping membership. I shall remove it again. Mooretwin (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing referenced and well supported text. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring. There is no consensus for the clause about the OO and the state, referenced or otherwise. It does not follow that because there is a reference, the clause must be included in the article. Please be less precious and defer to consensus. You do not own this article. Mooretwin (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As we went through during the mediation attempt Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment#Comments on Amended proposal, only one source seemed to use the specific words "an integral part of the state", and there, in context, there was rather more explanation of precisely what the authors meant by that. Without that further material, there is grave danger of misleading readers of this article as to the precise nature of the relationship between the OO and the state. In the section as a whole, there is also a grave lack of any contrary opinion of events. Yes Scarman is primary but the official point of view is just as valid a point of view as that of the nationalists so far as Wikiepdia is concerned. David Underdown (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suspected "11 references" was being somewhat economical with the truth. Mooretwin (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And you're absolutely right about the lack of contrary opinion to the nationalist ones painstakingly added in by Domer. As I noted in the USC article, every one of his edits has been to add in nationalist opinion. Goodness, one would almost think he was working to an agenda! Mooretwin (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

By far the most notable aspect in relation to the formation of the UDR was the recruitment of B Specials. No other aspect has received as much coverage in books and newspapers, resulting in multiple sources. Therefore background and context is both important and necessary for the reader. The role of the Orange Order in both the Specials and the UDR in relation to the Northern State is equally as important evidenced by the number of sources available.

The question then is, why is this important contextual information being removed? Please provide some rational and explain how this information is not considered necessary? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That is disingenuous. No-one's removing the clause dealing with "the role of the Orange Order in the Specials" (as you put it). It's only the bit about the Order "being an integral part of the state" to which editors are objecting. Mooretwin (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the role of the Orange Order in the State disputed? If so provide sources which challange all the sources provided to date. No sources = no dispute. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit break 1

The dispute is that the phrasing you have introduced does not adequately summarise the relationship between OO and the state. There was no official and legal relationship, however useful membership was in practice. David Underdown (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David for that, now could you possibly provide a source to support your contension, which contradicts or challanges the numerious sources which state otherwise. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 14:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The more extended quotes from your sources taht you've previously given during mediation show the problem perfectly well, without me having to find other sources. The main issue is that your text doesn't not (in my view) accurately reflect the sources you are drawing on as it oversimplifies. Whether or not it's actually sufficiently relevant is of course a further issue for discussion. If it's not relevant, no matter how many sources support it, there's no point it goin gin the article. David Underdown (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite. The reason I highlighted this text was because the commentary on the OO's relationship to the state is not relevant to this article. Commentators' views on that matter are relevant to the OO article and not the UDR article. Domer48, however, appears to think that because it is referenced therefore it is relevant. That is, however, faulty logic. The phrase should go as there is no support for it among editors other than Dunc 'n' Domer. Mooretwin (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

David the suggestion, without diff’s, that the sources somehow do not reflect the text is perplexing. So to dispel any notion here are a couple. I’ll leave out Farrell for the moment to save certain sensitivities but could add them if asked in addition to a couple more.

Fitzgibbon, 1971, Pg.84 writing about the Orange Order states

“ It is this semi-secret society which, through its Orange Lodges (its organization is modelled in some measure upon the Free Masons to which society many of its members also belong) has controlled, and still controls, the political activities of what are now called Unionists in Ulster. ”

On Pg.328 he writes about the B Specials

“ They remained therefore the armed branch of the Orange Order, which now controlled the new mini-state… ”

McKittrick, 1999, pg.30 on the Order writes,

“ The new state of Northern Ireland, having been established with such a large contribution by the Order, from the outset took on a distinctly Orange coloration. An Orange lodge was established within the new police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, while Orangemen made up the bulk of a new militia, the B Specials. In many areas the B Specials were based in Orange halls. Politically too Orangeism became an integral part of the state…A majority of Unionist cabinet ministers and MP’s between then and 1972 were members of the Order; most Unionist party meetings were held in Orange halls, while ministers used Orange platforms for important speeches. The power of the Order during those years has been described by two senior Methodists: “Membership was an indispensable condition of political advancement. It protected the employment of Protestants by its influence over employers, which is a polite way of saying that it contrived systematic discrimination against Catholics. Local authorities were dominated by members of the local lodges. ”

Ryder & Kearney, 2001, Pg.45 writing about proposed reforms in the North by O’Neill wrote

“ However, the bunkered hardliners in the Unionist administration, heavily influenced by the uncompromising Orange Order and fearful of losing ground and power… ”

Ruane & Todd, 2000, Pg.92 writing on the Northern government wrote,

“ Unionism was the official ideology of the state, informing its self- presentation in Britain and abroad and the beliefs of a section of the political elite. But loyalism was also integrated into the state at all levels, including government. It had institutionalised weight in the Orange Order’s links with the Unionist Party and in the state’s dependence on popular loyalist support in local and regional politics and in the security forces; its importance was symbolised and reinforced in the annual Orange marches which became the occasion of public holiday. ”

Hennessey Pg. 13, On the Order writes,

“ In terms of politics it had a further consequence: the belief among Catholics and their representatives that the tentacles of the Orange Order extended into the heart of government. Many Catholic-Nationalist politicians genuinely believed that the Order could dictate to the Northern Ireland Government rather like some Conservatives in Britain saw the relationship between trade union barons and the Labour Party. While many members of the Order, particularly on Orange platforms, denied that the institution was a political body (it merely operated in the field of the religious), Brian Faulkner, one of the rising stars of Unionist politics, consistently argued for its continued involvement in the sphere of politics. As he told the Blackmen in 1964, the Black Institution and the Orange Order ‘owe it to themselves and to the community as a whole to take their place in local government and central government and to bring with them the courage of those Christian principles upon which these institutions are founded’. While it had been claimed from time to time that members of the Orange and Black institutions should not concern themselves with politics because these were primarily religious institutions, Faulkner had ‘said before and I say again it is not possible nor is it desirable to separate politics from the day to day business of living.’ ”

So let’s be under no illusion as to the links between the Order and the State. Now this is the type of information which editors are attempting to remove. The wording I’ve used is quite neutral and not over hyped, now if you’d like I can re-word the quotes above and include them as footnotes. I also hope this also addresses the relevance of mentioning the order in the article.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't deal with the relevance issue at all. And only one refers to an integral part of the state. This is not the place for posting opinions about the OO's relationship to the state. Go to the OO article for that and provide a link from here. Mooretwin (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The relevance and references are obvious. Provide and cite sources which challange or dispute them. No sources = no discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If the relevance were obvious, you would be able to explain it. We're still waiting. You still appear to think that if something is referenced it must be included. Don't you understand the flaw in that logic? Would you accept anything at all in this article so long as it is referenced? Mooretwin (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, none of those changes my mind. I see two do actaully refer to integration, but the second (Ruane and Todd) refers to loyalism more generally, rather than the OO in particular. The quotes make it clear that some Unionists rose to cabinet rank without being members, if it were truly integrated, that in itself would have been impossible. It seems to me that you are concentrating on the political, it's the wider anti-Catholic discrimination that made the influence of the OO so pernicious, and makes it more relevant. But overall we seem to be missing the answer to the key question - what actually changed in 1969 that forced the hand of the NI government (and ultimately led to its downfall)? It was the broader discrimination, in housing jobs and so on (along with improvements in education) that lead to the development of the civil rights movement. From teh start one of it's demands was the disbandment of the USC, which itself shows the level of distrust there was, but it was the satte's reaction to the movement that ultimately led to the Hunt and Scarman reports and the chagnes that followed. David Underdown (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

David, even if I accepted your arguement, you conceed yourself there is two references. Not one has been provided to challange or dispute them. Now we are talking about the Formation of the UDR, so while 1969 will be discussed it's formation has to be covered. That includes the B-Specials and the role of policing a sectarian state. To suggest that the OO was not an integral part of the state is to ingore common sense. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the relevance issue. And David has pointed out that some of your sources actually contradict the contention that the OO was an integral part of the state. Mooretwin (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you have difficulty with the quotes above, I’ll try providing more, which are a bit more explicit.

Farrell Pg.92 The Orange State, having outlined the discrimination practiced by the northern government writes,

“ All this took place in a state where the government and the government party were entirely Protestant and remained so for fifty years, and where almost all Unionist MPs and all but one Minister until 1966-67 were members of the fiercely anti-Catholic Orange Order and paraded and spoke constantly at Orange parades. The ethos of the state was summed up by Craigavon himself in April 1934 when he said:

‘I have always said that I am an Orangeman first and a politician and a member of this parliament afterwards. . All that I boast is that we have a Protestant parliament and a Protestant state.

”

The Manchester Guardian had commented in an editorial on 18 July 1936

“ Craigavon’s government has been continuously in power since 1921, The circumstances in which it came into power explain why it then adopted the theory and technique of the “one party state”, regarding its political opponents as intending rebels and basing its power on the Orange Order. That may have been necessary in 1921. If so it was at best an ugly necessity...There was thus the temptation to presume that every Catholic was disloyal until the contrary was proved, to base the state on the old principle of a Protestant ascendancy and to strengthen the position of the government and its “one party state” by stimulating the anti-Catholic bigotry of all sections of the population, especially the least enlightened... It was possible to hope that the Northern Cabinet . . .would shake themselves free of sectarianism. . .The Northern government has chosen the opposite course, either influenced by the Nazi example, or because it finds itself too weak to oppose the Orange Order… ”

Commenting on this Farrell wrote Pg.141, “All see it for what it is - a government which has chosen to seek support for a new state from the strength of ignorance, sectarian prejudice and the passions of faction”. Craigavon was impervious to such strictures however. His government was secure again. On 12 July 1936 he announced,”

“ Orangeism, Protestantism, and the Loyalist cause are more strongly entrenched than ever and equally so is the government at Stormont.’ ”

William Brown, An Army with Banners: The Real Face of Orangeism Pg.viii, have outlined the history of the Orange Order writes

“ All this would eventuate in the partition of Ireland and in the creation of Northern Ireland in 1921, which for fifty years would be ruled by the Orange leaders of the Ulster Unionist Party. Thus when religio-political Protestant ascendancy was no longer viable in Ireland as a whole, Orange-unionism maintained it in the North by means of what Prime Minister Lord Craigavon (‘I am an Orangenmn first’) could proudly describe as a ‘Protestant parliament for a Protestant people’. ”

Brown on security would write

“ Thus the Orange-unionist government’s preoccupation with security was to ensure the defence of the Protestant ascendancy that had been institutionalised in the Orange state of Northern Ireland.

We have seen that the early priority of the incipient unionist government in 1920 was to establish a paramilitary reserve police force based on the Orange UVF, and known as the Ulster Special Constabulary.

”

Now we can add these additional references. However I could provide more if necessary but that depends on you.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

David you say that (Ruane and Todd) refers to loyalism more generally, rather than the OO in particular. So, I'll just add this to clarify,

“ The Orange Order was a powerful political force, nominating 25 per cent of delegates to the Ulster Unionist Council, the coordinating body of local unionist organisations which had authority over party policy. Unionist politicians joined the Order as a matter of course, marched in its parades and affirmed its beliefs in their speeches. Loyalists exercised constant vigilance to detect and deter possible Catholic threat and to guard against any softening of unionist or anti-Catholic principles. ”

As we had one party government for 50 years, and that party being the Ulster Unionist party, to suggest that the Orange Order was not an an integral part of the state is untenable. As you have accepted that "two do actaully refer to integration" in addition to the additional references I've added the text is well supported by third party sources. Not one source has been provided to challange or dispute this, therefore unless sources are provided the text will be replaced. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff, but you're still not addressing the relevance issue. Mooretwin (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I still think you're over-simplifying (and missing the bigger picture). There's a strong (maybe symbiotic relationship) between OO, the Unionist Party and the government, but there wan't the legal relationship which for me would make it truly "integral". The current wording doesn't explain the significance in the same way that all these quotes do. Addressing the wider issues of discrimination and so would also address the relevance point. You know what you mean, but we're trying to make it clear to others. Spell out that there was effectively one-party rule, gerrymandering, broad discrimination and so on. David Underdown (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

David, do you really think this is the right place for discussion about gerrymandering, etc.?? This article is about the UDR! It is not a vehicle to rehearse the history of Northern Ireland, which is well covered elsewhere. We are already discussing the USC rather than the UDR, we move another step beyond the subject of the article by moving on to other issues. It is sufficient here to note the overlapping membership between the OO and the USC. Mooretwin (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said a little higher up, I don't think we can adequately expalin why the disbandment of the USC and formation of the UDR came at this particular point in time without looking at some of the wider things that were going on at the same time. Obviously in this article it should be a high level overview, directing people to articles on the Civil Rights movement and so on, but we can't assume that people will already understand this stuff when they come to this article. Remember we're writing for any English speaker anywhere in the world. Not for poeple from the UK and Ireland (and many of those in Great Britain will have a fairly superficial understanding anyway). David Underdown (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) David you have given your opinion on why the OO wasn't an integral part of the state could you provide a source which backs up your opinion. Two very good reliable sources above say it was. As I see it the only reason so far for not including this sourced statement is I don't like it and an editors opinion. BigDunc^Talk 19:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dunc I'd have to disagrree with you that their are two very good reliable sources above, they are all good and they all support the text. I've ashed a number of times now for sources to contradict or challange the text and none has been provided. The relationship between the state, policing, politics and the order are clearly laid out above. It's time to move on, and that is now my intension. David has agreed that at least two of the sources support the text, so the text is supported. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Dunc, I'm saying that the text is over-simplifying a somewhat more complicated position, rather than trying to contradict. I totally accept that the OO was a major part of things. I jsut don't think the current text actually adequately explains the actual nature of the relationships between the various groups to someone coming fresh to this. You guys have drunk this stuff in with your mothers' milk. Try to take a step back and see it through fresh eyes is all I'm saying. Yes the nature of the relationship between OO, the Unionist party, the Northern Ireland government, the RUC and the USC needs explanation. You just need to expand on what's there to do that. David Underdown (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

David do you accept that the OO were “an integral part of the state” in both its creation and maintenance? If it’s just the term “integral” well lets work on it. The state and its apparatus were “inextricably linked” to the OO and this is also a term that could encapsulate what is being said. You’re now talking about expanding on what we already have there to include the social discrimination in such things as health, housing, education and employment all of which I have no problem with. On this one section though, I hope you agree I’ve tried to be as concise as possible, and possibly too concise? If that is the case, I’ve provide enough material here for us all to work with, if in your opinion we need to add more context to the relationship between the state and the OO. I hope that helps, and we can now move forward and maintain this positive approach. Thanks,--Domer48_'fenian' 21:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I take your point that it is over simplifying but it is something that should be mentioned can you think of another way it could be put into the article without a whole paragraph trying to explain it? BigDunc^Talk 21:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this major paragraph on OO & early history of NI is required in an article about an organisation that began it's operational role in April 1970. Why not place in the OO page with a suitable link from the UDR page? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's not appropriate to be shoe-horning in issues which can be and are dealt with in other articles. Mooretwin (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We need the context for those who don't know it. Why was the UDR formed? To take on the military duties formerly undertaken by the B-Specials. So why the change if a body already existed which carried out those duties? Because there were compelling reasons to disband that force? So what were they? etc In this article this stuff needs to all be high-level, and yes there should be links to the other articles where it should be explained in more detail, but there needs to be something here to point people in that direction if they want further detail, and to at least give them the basic idea of what was going on.

Domer, I think we are moving in the right direction. I still feel we're treating the nationalist view as "absolute truth", and not pointing out that the involvement, active or passive, of the USC and RUC in loyalist mobs, is disputed by the official inquiry into events. Let the reader decide how much weight to give that inquiry, rather than hiding its conclusions from them. David Underdown (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Was the start of the Troubles - and the increase in violence - not also a factor in forming the UDR? What does the Hunt Report say were the reasons for disbanding the Specials? I really doubt that the Orange Order's relationship to the state was a direct reason. I also see that Domer has now put in text saying that the Orange Order "controlled" the Government of NI. This is another contentious claim, backed up by references or not. NI ministers were almost all Orange Order members, but I am unaware that the Orange Order met and issued instructions to those ministers on how to govern NI. Domer seems more determined to insert opinion into this article (which backs up his POV) than he is to provide a balanced encyclopaedia article. I am sure we could all come up with a less strident and more moderate form of words for describing the Orange Order's role in NI. Mooretwin (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

While ignoring the fact that you again address your comments to the editor and not the edits, could you show me were in the article it says "that the Orange Order "controlled" the Government of NI."? You say "This is another contentious claim" please show me the source which contradicts or challanges any of the information in the article? Your opinion that it is "contentious" is not enough! Who said its "contentious" were is the source? You want "a less strident and more moderate form of words for describing the Orange Order's role in NI" well find a book with what your looking for and include it in the article, but don't come here saying the wording is "contentious" based on nothing other than your own opinion. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You added text which says that the OO was "a semi-secret society which controlled the political activities of Unionists in Ulster"! The Government of NI was a Unionist Government. Mooretwin (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've toned down the text, but left it to make Domer48's essential point, which was about overlapping OO membership and the position of the OO vis-a-vis Unionism and the Government. The previous text gave undue weight to matters a couple of removes away from the UDR - e.g. the Specials' activities in the 1920s and Craig's speech in the 1930s - and was not NPOV. The new text reads: The Ulster Special Constabulary or "B Specials" were an all-Protestant reserve police force, whose membership heavily overlapped with the Orange Order, an exclusively Protestant religious and political organisation with structural links to and overlapping membership of the ruling Ulster Unionist Party . I left Ruane & Todd as the apparently most relevant reference. Mooretwin (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV requires articles to be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources - Domer's text is written from a nationalist point of view, and does not represent fairly other significant views. More particularly, it emphasises the most extremely critical views of the USC, Orangeism and unionism rather than a more moderate and balanced assessment. Yet again, it has to be stated that various authors' views about the Orange Order's role in society and USC activities in the 1920s are not appropriate for an article about the UDR. Their inclusion amounts to undue weight being given to factors of only indirect relevance to this article. Mooretwin (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that you finally understand WP:NPOV, here is what you need to do, provide a source which supports your opinions;

1. That it is written from a nationalist point of view.
2. What are and were are the other significant views?
3. That the sources used are the most extremely critical views.
4. A source that provides a more moderate and balanced assessment.
5. Explain your objection to "various authors' views" and offer alternatives, other than your own.
6. The absence of alternative views does not amount to "undue weight" it represents the lack of alternative views, provide some.

You have been asked enough times now to provide sources, and have given us nothing. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What I have written is based on your sources. It makes your point (which, in my view is unnecessary in this article, but which I am prepared to accept if expressed factually), but in more measured language. What exactly is wrong with the new text? If you're unwilling to accept this compromise, then it should be removed altogether. Mooretwin (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit Break 2

I’ve had more than enough of your prevarication and obfuscations on this talk page. I’ll not be entering into circular arguments on this matter. Provide sources to support your claims, because in the absence of such we are left with just your undeveloped notions. So once more no sources = no discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, the references are the same as those you have provided. The point being made is the same: it's just expressed in less strident tones. Mooretwin (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Domer48 keeps reverting the compromise text and restoring his version, for which there is no consensus. As noted above, I oppose his introduction of material of dubious relevance relevant to the article - e.g. opinion about the OO's relationship to the NI state. Not only that, but the material used appeared to be selected in order to represent the most strident opinion on the matter. Despite being opposed to the material being included in the first place, in the spirit of compromise I decided to accept it, but to rewrite it in more dispassionate and factual style. Sadly, it seems that Domer48 is unwilling to accept this compromise and appears determined to force his version of the text into the article. I, however, remain willing to accept the compromise text. If Domer48 continues to refuse to countenance compromise, then I think it is only reasonable that neither version of the text be included in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop talking arrant gibberish! Your compromise text has no consensus. Our policies of verifiability and reliable sources address the complete lack of sources to support the dubious relevance of your opinions. Not one source have you provided, not one reference to support your dispassionate and factual style. Our policies do however prevent you from trying to represent the most strident opinion on the matter. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And now we're back to the over-simplistic notion of it being "an integral part of the state". Can we try and have a constructive discussion instead of just reverting back and forth. David Underdown (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

David could you supply a source which challanges or contradicts the over-simplistic notion of it being "an integral part of the state"? You have accepted already two sources which support this, "I see two do actaully refer to integration," now provide one which says otherwise. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 16:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this all before, without the additional context provided in the sources, it is over simplifying what those sources actually say. I don't see quite what you object to in Mooretwin's version anyway. As he says he is using the existing sources, just reading them in a less extreme way. David Underdown (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

David I added additional context and it was removed. Your willing to accept Mooretwin's interpretation, "reading them in a less extreme way" and neither of you are willing to provide any sources. So on the one hand you have Mooretwin saying the context is "of dubious relevance relevant to the article" and you saying "it is over simplifying...without the additional context provided in the sources" so I suggest you both sort this out between you, and provide referenced sources. You have been asked enough times now. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We are all using the same sources, or at least the quotes yuo have provided us with. To me it appears that the version you prefer essentially takes one or two phrases rather out of context, and doesn't really help a new reader to understand the complexities of the situation. Yes there was undoubtedly overlap between Orange Order, Ulster Unionists, the Stormont Government and the USC. What there wasn't was any legal status for the Orange Order within the state apparatus, nor indeed would it appear that members of the Ulster Unionist party actually required by any party rule to be members of the Orange Order, and we know at least one Cabinet member was not a member of the Order. Perhpas saying something like "the Orange Order exerted a strong influence over Unionist Party politics", rather than the phrase that Mooretwin most seems to object too about the Order controlling the Party might meet the case. You do give the impression that you think your wording is the only possible version, which is not what the editing process here should be about, we have to look to consensus, even if that means no-one is absolutely happy with the end result, so long as they are not so unhappy that they can't accept it at all. David Underdown (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, not one source to challange or contradict. Execpt you again suggest I "essentially takes one or two phrases rather out of context." I'll just add the sources again, and see the context;

Brown on security would write

“ Thus the Orange-unionist government’s preoccupation with security was to ensure the defence of the Protestant ascendancy that had been institutionalised in the Orange state of Northern Ireland.

We have seen that the early priority of the incipient unionist government in 1920 was to establish a paramilitary reserve police force based on the Orange UVF, and known as the Ulster Special Constabulary.

”

Fitzgibbon, 1971, Pg.84 writing about the Orange Order states

“ It is this semi-secret society which, through its Orange Lodges (its organization is modelled in some measure upon the Free Masons to which society many of its members also belong) has controlled, and still controls, the political activities of what are now called Unionists in Ulster. ”

On Pg.328 he writes about the B Specials

“ They remained therefore the armed branch of the Orange Order, which now controlled the new mini-state… ”

McKittrick, 1999, pg.30 on the Order writes,

“ The new state of Northern Ireland, having been established with such a large contribution by the Order, from the outset took on a distinctly Orange coloration. An Orange lodge was established within the new police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, while Orangemen made up the bulk of a new militia, the B Specials. In many areas the B Specials were based in Orange halls. Politically too Orangeism became an integral part of the state… ”

Ruane & Todd, 2000, Pg.92 writing on the Northern government wrote,

“ Unionism was the official ideology of the state, informing its self- presentation in Britain and abroad and the beliefs of a section of the political elite. But loyalism was also integrated into the state at all levels, including government. It had institutionalised weight in the Orange Order’s links with the Unionist Party and in the state’s dependence on popular loyalist support in local and regional politics and in the security forces; its importance was symbolised and reinforced in the annual Orange marches which became the occasion of public holiday. ”

The Manchester Guardian had commented in an editorial on 18 July 1936

“ Craigavon’s government has been continuously in power since 1921, The circumstances in which it came into power explain why it then adopted the theory and technique of the “one party state”, regarding its political opponents as intending rebels and basing its power on the Orange Order. ”

Ruane and Todd,

“ The Orange Order was a powerful political force, nominating 25 per cent of delegates to the Ulster Unionist Council, the coordinating body of local unionist organisations which had authority over party policy. Unionist politicians joined the Order as a matter of course, marched in its parades and affirmed its beliefs in their speeches. Loyalists exercised constant vigilance to detect and deter possible Catholic threat and to guard against any softening of unionist or anti-Catholic principles. ”

So again you suggest that we should accept Mooretwin's interpretation, "reading them in a less extreme way" and neither of you are willing to provide any sources. So on the one hand you have Mooretwin saying the context is "of dubious relevance relevant to the article" and you saying "it is over simplifying...without the additional context provided in the sources" so I suggest you both sort this out between you, and provide referenced sources. Consensus dose not overide policy (WP:V or WP:RS) and "interpretation" is one step away from WP:OR. Now propose what additional context you feel needs to be added, but please provide sources. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As noted several times above, the references are the same as those provided. They are included along with the compromise text. What exactly is your objection to the compromise text? Here it is again, for your convenience: The Ulster Special Constabulary or "B Specials" were an all-Protestant reserve police force, whose membership heavily overlapped with the Orange Order, an exclusively Protestant religious and political organisation with structural links to and overlapping membership of the ruling Ulster Unionist Party. Mooretwin (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Unfortunately Domer48 keeps reverting the compromise text and restoring his version, for which there is no consensus." Were is the consensus for this text? What part of your text was removed? Oh that's right, none of it! --Domer48_'fenian' 17:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I was considering adding this by Sir Basil Brooke (later Viscount Brookeborough), by way of context, who in 1932 he told an Orange audience:

“ There was a great number of Protestants and Orangemen who employed Roman Catholics. He felt he could speak freely on this subject as he had not a Roman Catholic about his own place. He appreciated the great difficulty experienced by some of them in procuring suitable Protestant labour but he would point out that Roman Catholics were endeavouring to get in everywhere. He would appeal to Loyalists therefore, wherever possible, to employ good Protestant lads and lassies? ”

You still appear hell-bent on shoe-horning in hobby-horse points to an article to which they have minimal relevance. This is an article about the UDR. Brooke's 1932 speech on employment is of little relevance to this article. The point about Orange overlap is made: you don't need to labour it. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to suggest how we could go about "reading them in a less extreme way"? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Still to me, to simply say they were an integral part of the state is an over-simplification. As I've repeatedly said, explain the discrimnation, explain the links, set what happened in the late 1960s into some sort of context which explains why the political landscape changed so much and so raipdly taht despite the one-party state, and the influence of the Orange Order, it became politically imperative for the USC to be disbanded then, and how that led to the UDR taking the form it dead. That, it seems to me, is what we're missing at the moment, add that in and it seems to me that the relevance would immmediately become harder to refut. Maybe extreme was the wrong word, but there is jsut one source which specifically states the Orange ORder was an integral part of the state, and as your quotes show, there is more said in taht quote which shows precisely what the author means by that which makes it reasonable, without that context though, I think many people would read a stronger tie-in than was in fact the case, as demonstrated by the totality of the source you offer. The other mention of integration is of loyalism in general, for which the case is undoubtedly easier to make, but doesn't really address the most important issues you are trying to make. My main plea though is that we try and discuss everything here, rather than getting back into the endless cycle of reverting. Both of you could easily have been blocked for yet again breaking the general restrictions on this article, but since neither of you seems willing to elarn from your previous blocks, there seemed little point in taking that route yet again. David Underdown (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

David you suggest that by saying “they were an integral part of the state is an over-simplification” whereas I say it is both apt and succinct. Regardless of what we both say, the text is well sourced and referenced. You yourself accept this, “I see two [sources] do actually refer to integration,” so it’s not a case of my "interpretation" of sources.

You suggest that what is missing is that we don’t “explain the discrimination explain the links,” that we don’t “set what happened in the late 1960s into some sort of context which explains why the political landscape changed so much and so raipdly taht despite the one-party state, and the influence of the Orange Order,” or why “it became politically imperative for the USC to be disbanded then, and how that led to the UDR taking the form it dead.”

On the last point first, the first paragraph, does address this, in addition to “They were to be replaced, according to the Hunt Report, with a force that would be "impartial in every sense" and remove the responsibility of military style operations from the police force.” On the first point, I can and will include the context, and address “the discrimination” but you must support its inclusion. On why “the political landscape changed so much” we do mention the demands of the Civil Rights movement. Should we add more?

In conclusion, only one point you raise has yet to be addressed. None of Mooretwin’s text was removed! Now could you explain how and why Mooretwin’s edit need no additional context, and mine does? Finally, there has been no breech of 1RR, and no intension of doing so. That one editor refuses to accept referenced and sourced text is however another matter. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've edited again, to take out the extraneous point-labouring stuff and try to present the information more concisely, more neutrally, and - in short - more appropriately for an article about the UDR. This is not an article about the Orange Order, about the history of Northern Ireland, or about employment discrimination. It is not even an article about the B Specials. Try to remember that. The section now reads:

The Ulster Special Constabulary or "B Specials" was an all-Protestant reserve police force.(ref) Its membership heavily overlapped with the Orange Order, an exclusively Protestant religious and political organisation with structural links to and overlapping membership of the ruling Ulster Unionist Party.(ref)These official state forces regarded Nationalists as hostile to the Northern State. As the Troubles began in the late 1960s, the RUC and B Specials were said to have looked on or actively took part in attacks by loyalist mobs.(refs) They were to be replaced, according to the Hunt Report, with a force that would be "impartial in every sense" and remove the responsibility of military style operations from the police force."(ref) Together the B Specials and the RUC became regarded by nationalists as the “Protestant armed wing of the Protestant political establishment.”(ref)

This is perfectly adequate in explaining why it was considered necessary to disband the USC, which is all that is necessary in this article. Mooretwin (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it does very little to explain the context in which the new force would find itself operating, and there was more to the disbandment than the allegations that they did not prevent, or actively participated in, loyalist attacks. Such allegations were almost entirely dismissed by the Scarman report after all (though of course the release of that report post-dated Hunt). At the moment the fact that the section is entitled "Formation" is perhaps colouring everyone's thinking, a lot of the material, and the extra that seems ncessary to me would fit better in a asection entitled "Background" or "Context". At the moment the chronology is rather confused, with issues arising at partition mingled in with the specifics of what happened during the civil rights marches and subsequent civil disturbances. Cover that, then move on to the formation proper with the publication of the Hunt report, poloticial reaction, Cabinet discussions, parliamentary debate and passing of the UDR Act 1969.

The whole problem I see with the phrasing "integral" is that if I why were to see that by itself, it would imply a deeper, more structural (and legal) linkage than the sources actually show. Where it is used, it is explained in its own terms, which do make sene in that context, but take the phrase without that, it does seem problematic to me, the Order was given no particular legal protection, the bowler hat and the sash were not items dealt with in the Flags and Symbols legislation, there was no legal requirement to be a member of the Order in order to get senior civil service posts or anything like that, which is what would be implied to me by simply reading that something was "an integral part of the state" with no other explanation. David Underdown (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with you re. "integral".

I also agree that the article would be better served by a restructuring along the lines you have proposed. I also think it would be very helpful if you were to edit the article, rather than either Domer48 or myself. I suspect that this would provide a starting point more likely to lead to a finishing point. Mooretwin (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the history of this article, I think it's very important we establish consensus here first before any editing. David Underdown (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, could you propose the restructuring here, then? Mooretwin (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Per my previous above. --Domer48_'fenian' 00:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreement to date

Thanks for that David, so we both agree that;

1. "Background" created. This will address the issue of context.
2. Additional context needs to be added.

I've created the "Background" section, and will add the additional text. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Your text appears to repeat that which failed to gain consensus under the previous structure. I'd prefer if David Underdown proposed the text, but, in any case, propose it here first. Mooretwin (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The new structure is good. I've restored the "Background" text to what better reflects the consensus here. It now reads:

• Disbanding of the Ulster Special Constabulary or "B Specials" had been one of the demands of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association during the late 1960s. (ref) The B Specials were an all-Protestant reserve police force, whose membership heavily overlapped with the Orange Order, an exclusively Protestant religious and political organisation with structural links to and overlapping membership of the ruling Ulster Unionist Party.(refs) Together, the B Specials and the RUC were viewed by many nationalists as the “Protestant armed wing of the Protestant political establishment.”(ref) As the Troubles began in the late 1960s, the RUC and B Specials were said to have looked on or actively took part in attacks by loyalist mobs.(ref)

I've taken out reference to the civil rights opposition to the Special Powers Act as the relevance here is their opposition to the B Specials. Mooretwin (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I came across this, which is quite a good summary of why the B Specials were disbanded. Maybe we could use this as a basis for a fair summary, avoiding bias? Mooretwin (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

THat source appears to be subscription only (which is not in itself a good reason not to use it), which makes it rather hard to evaluate whether it truly meets the criteria for being a relaiable source. There are a lot of good sources on teh CAIN website, which has impeccable academic credentials. That seems the best place to start to me. David Underdown (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not subscription only. I just click the link and it appears. Mooretwin (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

When I click it, I get the message "This article is available to subscribers only. To read this article please sign-in or register for a free trial". From what I can find elsewhere on the site, it seems to use the Hutchinson Encyclopedia [1], and it's defintiely subscription only, you must just be lucky. We should also bear in mind WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, we should be looking to use secondary sources as much as possible. We might just get away with a tertiary source in this instance as we're jsut looking to summarise background info, but it's not ideal. David Underdown (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That is very strange.

I'm not necessarily proposing that we quote this text directly: merely offering it as a suggestion for how we structure the background section. We could add our own secondary sources as citations. Mooretwin (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin could you give us a copy of the text that is on the subscription link so we can have a look thanks. BigDunc^Talk 13:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. This is the text:

• In the eyes of Catholics and Nationalists, the B-Specials became associated with the worst examples of unfair treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland by the police force. Catholics accused the B-Specials of being violently anti-Catholic and of abusing their powers of arrest and detention to intimidate and attack Catholics. The Unionist government of Northern Ireland saw the B-Specials as a vital part of its police strength to keep control of a potentially dangerous and unstable law and order situation.
• The B-Specials were finally disbanded under pressure from the British government in 1969. Their abolition was one of the demands of the civil-rights movement. Some off-duty B-Specials were alleged to have been involved in the attack on the People's Democracy civil-rights march at Burntollet Bridge in January 1969. When the Northern Ireland Unionist prime minister Terence O'Neill subsequently accepted the need for a government inquiry into those events, the continuation of the B-Specials became unacceptable to Britain.
• The abolition of the B-Specials was deeply resented by hard-line Unionists in Northern Ireland. To these Unionists it represented the success of ‘criminals’ and ‘terrorists’ in the civil-rights movement under the leadership of the IRA against a legitimate force of law and order. For Irish nationalists it was just one small victory in the campaign for equal rights in Northern Ireland.

Mooretwin you say my text appears to repeat that which failed to gain consensus, what consensus are you talking about? You don't want any context at all and say it has no relevance here, is that the consensus you are talking about? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The consensus that I am talking about is consensus among editors.
2. I do want context: hence (a) why I have expressed support for the new structure, which includes a background section, and (b) why I have provided text to populate this section. Mooretwin (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus among editors to remove contextual information. There is support for the "background" section, and for the inclusion of contextual information which you have described as "of dubious relevance relevant to the article" and removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, I removed text which was of dubious reference to the article, i.e. that pertaining to the OO's relationship to the state. I remain opposed to its inclusion. As explained above, however, in the spirit of compromise I agreed to including this material so long as it was expressed in more NPOV and less strident terms. It was unfortunate that you objected to this and sought (and still seek) to enforce your version of the text into the article.

The version which I will now edit will contain both contextual information and background material: expressed in NPOV and dispassionate terms. This includes material the relevance of which I consider to be dubious, but nonetheless am consenting to if expressed in more moderate terms.

It would be helpful if you could:

1. Advise which parts of this text you object to, and why; and
2. Explain the rationale for any additional text that you wish to add. Mooretwin (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Domer48 has elected not to take part in discussion, has declined to answer either of the above questions, and has instead continued his attempt to force his preferred text into the article - even going so far as to claim that it has been agreed. This is not conducive to constructive editing at all. Mooretwin (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What you can't remove, you want to water down. We are not here to cater to editors sensibilities, or cover up the acts and actions of a paramilitary organisation. The question to be asked is what were the concerns of Nationalists with the establishment of the UDR? We know it was the inclusion of B Specials, so the question to be asked is what was the problem with them? Constantine Fitzgibbon, has recorded the extreme levels of violence employed by them against Catholics, comparing them to Adolf Hitler‘s Nazi party. Your attitude is to cover this up, and sweep it under the carpet, which says more about you and your POV pushing. The northern state was built and maintained on such sectarianism, but you wish to deprive readers of this information. This is not my opinions but the referenced sources provided above. Now David and I consider the context and background important, and David considers that the section needs more and I agree. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a case of "watering down", it's a case of providing balanced text in line with NPOV. NPOV is not served by deliberately picking out the most extreme assessments and posting them up as though they were mainstream views.

I agree that we are not here to cater to editors' sensibilities, or cover up the acts and actions of a paramilitary organisation.

Have you a source that says the "concerns of Nationalists with the establishment of the UDR ... was [sic] the inclusion of B Specials"?

Constantine Fitzgibbon may well have compared the B Specials to Adolf Hitler‘s Nazi party, but that is a ridiculously extreme assessment, and therefore not the best one to use in a short summary paragraph.

My attitude is not to cover Fitzgibbon up - if you want to use him, use him in the B Specials article where there is more scope for discussion than a short paragraph here.

You accuse me of "POV pushing": please have regard to [{WP:civility]] and WP:NPA. Please also understand that I am seeking NPOV - hence the need for a more balanced, and less extreme, summary.

There's no dispute about context and background being important. That's why we now are agreed on having a background section. In line with WP policy, however, it needs to be written with a NPOV, notwithstanding your desire to insert the most extreme assessment of the B Specials that you can find.

Finally, please desist from stating that content is agreed, when it is not. Mooretwin (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Contextual information

As I've said previously, some contextual information is needed here, this article should be reasonably standalone. I had previously raised issues over some of the statements, and as I've writen above was very disappointed to find that Domer had inserted this text exactly as he had originally proposed, despite all our previous discussions on the issue. David Underdown (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What text would you propose? Mooretwin (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again David Underdown. David if I remember right you had a problem with the reference format of the web site links. I was not sure what you were looking for, and asked you to do one, to illustrate this, and I would do the next. I the mediation still locked, or can we still access the discussion. In the mean time I'll add another reference to the text under discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I had problems with the reference formatting, but also with the content of what you were wishing to insert, as it seemed somewhat unbalanced, and putting in strings of quotes from various books, which inevitably loses some of the context from which they came. The content of the mediation has now been restored. David Underdown (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David I found our past discussion. Could you possibly fix the reference formatting on the Cain links, not sure how to do it my self. On the issue of balance, that can be addressed by adding additional sourced material that disputes or challanges the information presented. Using quotes is the only way to address the challanges to the information. If you wish to re-word it so that it reflects exactly what was being said please have a go. Post your revised wording here, and we can work through it together. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 16:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotes really shouldn't be necessary, or at least not to the same extent, if we can stick to a general description of the issues at the time. Off the top of my head this would give us something like:

Unemployment rates were higher amongst Catholics, and housing conditions generally poorer, particularly in areas like Derry. This was as a result of discrimination against Catholics, eg many employers requiring their employees to be members of the Orange Order (which did not admit Catholics), gerrymandering of ward boundaries, combined with the fact that local authority voting was based on property qualifications, led to their being little representation of Catholics, and those who were elected had often stood on a Republican, abstentionist, ticket, not acknowledging any validity of the Northern Irish state. Educational attainment also generally lower amongst Catholics as the state education system was exclusively Protestant, and the Catholic run schools did not have the same level of funding, though by the 1960s, post-war educational reforms were leading to the emergence of a better-educated Catholic middle-class, with more young Catholics such as Bernadette Devlin going to university. Nationalist events often banned on the grounds of public order, particularly if a Unionist counter-demonstration threatened. Bans enforced by the Police and B-Specials, themselves largely made up of Protestants.

Obviously that's very rough and ready, and would need references adding, but trying to give an objective overview of what was actually going on at the time seems to me to be far more in the spirit of NPOV, and gives people a far better feel for why people felt as they did, rather than seeking out quotes from one source or another and trying to trade them off against one another. David Underdown (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

CGC Category

I have re-added the category "Recipients of the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross" as the action was correct. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert by Kernel Saunters

Could any editor re insert the sentence that was removed by Kernal, "Despite being off duty UDR men all had personal weapons". I have the source here just need someone to add the text back for me thanks. Also as an aside instead of reverting would it not have been better to place a citation tag and not to be a smart arse about a typo I made in edit summaries. BigDunc^Talk 17:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Having a bad day? Please watch your civility and your language Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So will you self revert so I can add the source instead of still being a smart arse. BigDunc^Talk 17:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you lose the attitude please. Post it here and I will take a look. Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dunc, I'll add some text later referenced as per norm, and with much more detail. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Domer plenty of sources in any way. BigDunc^Talk 19:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dunc, I've added some text and a reference, feel free to add additionl reference if needs be. Looking a the text that was removed, that was referenced to Potter. Why was it removed in the first place? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above. BigDunc^Talk 21:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This statement "Despite being off duty UDR men all had personal weapons" is incorrect, inaccuarate and too general. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well dont fret about it, it is not in the article. And it is not incorrect as I have a reliable source which states the same. BigDunc^Talk 22:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gavin Lisburn, you say the information is inaccuarate and too general. I can if you wish expand upon it, which will address the too general bit, but you'd need to address the inaccuarate portion. If it is disputed please place that information in the article, with the correct references. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 22:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt very much that there is accurate MOD proof that all UDR personnel were issued with personal weapons as from my experience, this just did not happen. Also, if 40k served, were all weapons stolen? Just not right. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gavin Lisburn, are you suggesting I should expand on this information, adding additional information to support it? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Having spoken to a number of ex UDR soldiers, I can now state that not all UDR personnel were issued with personal weapons and that the statement is untrue. I have not read the reference in "Farrell 1983, p. 290" and will not comment. I have also looked at "Potter 2001, p. 79" and cannot see a reference to all UDR personnel have personal weapons. The page does state that " ... three thousand, two hundred .38 revolvers be released from ordnance ... ". In addition, the bottom of page 79 advises that all requests for personal weapons had to be justified in every single case and that some requests were turned down. Page 78 advises that 96 weapons were stolen between October 1971 and November 1973, a 2 year period. This does not equate to 'many' but more to 'some'.

I would propose changing the sentence "UDR personnel however all had personal weapons, many of these were stolen without resistance from members homes." to "A number of UDR personnel applied for and were issued with personal weapons. Some of these were stolen without resistance from members homes." retaining the same link to Potter pages 78 & 79. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

On page 80 of Potter it states the "police's attitude was that membership of the UDR was sufficient justification enough for the issue of FAC" so the only reason for not having a personal firearm was if they didn't apply for one as they were routinely issued FAC. BigDunc^Talk 17:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a subtle distinction between an issued personal protection weapon, and merely happening to own a personal firearm. If it was an army-issued weapon per the UDR Act 1969 (see below) implies that they were subject to military law at all times, and I suspect they wouldn't actually have needed a firearms licence in any case as they were holding the weapon on military rather than civil grounds. If they merely happened to own a personal firearm, then their actions whilst holding or using that weapon were purely a civil matter, and the UDR member did not come under military law unless actually on duty or training (this possibly offers an explanation to the increase in licences to ex USC men noted on the USC page, whilst in the USC they held a police issued firearm so probably didn't need a licence, having surrended that weapon, if they then bought thier own weapon it would need to be licensed, and since they had received training etc the issuing authority probably wouldn't see any reason to deny). David Underdown (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a suggested text to get around the inaccuracies of 'all have a personal weapon' aand 'all waepons were stolen' etc other than mine above? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Change made as above. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gavin, the origional text read "UDR personnel however all had personal weapons, many of these were stolen without resistance from members homes.Farrell 1983, p. 290. Potter 2001, p. 79. Per WP:NPOV if there is opposing views, both should be represented. Your change, has removed this. Did Potter contradict Farrell? I asked above should I expand on this information, adding additional information to support it and you did not respond. Now could you point to the inaccuracies with the sources, and no were in the article did it say 'all waepons were stolen' it said 'many of these were stolen' you have reduced this to 'Some' which is a big difference. What I suggest is, we put up both the Potter and Farrell references here and provide quotes from them, including any additional references and we address the issue of how these are reflected in the article? --Domer48_'fenian' 08:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am happy for you to make an addition indicating Farrells excerpt. However, please consider that if 40k people served in the UDR and all had weapons and 'many' were stolen or given up, then 'many' must indicate quite a sizeable number. Is there any other evidence to indicate a sizeable number of weapons gone astray? Hence the amendment to a more 'softer' word of 'some'. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gavin, The Irish News in an article in 1985 say that up until 1978 alone almost 500 weapons belonging to members of the UDR alone had either been stolen or gone astray. For the period 1987 - 1988 178 weapons were stolen [2] and there is a report in Hansard which gives more figures. I'll try dig them out. I'll post the quotes later from Farrell and you can let me know what you think. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Please note it is absoutely standard to use names to allow repeated refs to by identified, see WP:FOOT. This will in no way affect GA status - in fact the reviewer (in my experience) is likely to encourage it. David Underdown (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected again

This is getting slightly tiresome, and I'm pretty sure that I would find some 1RR vios if I looked carefully at the history for the last couple of days. Sort it out on the talkpage please folks, I will extend the protection if necessary. Black Kite 10:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It would help if other editors would take part in the discussion. The more involved, the more likely we are to achieve a resolution. Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is very disappointing that editors have elected not to take the opportunity provided by the protection to engage in discussion about the disputed text. It would seem that, having got the last edit in before protection, Dunc 'n' Domer see no need to seek consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps my last edit was in breach, for which I apologise. I ran into an edit conflict, and couldn't see any other way to save the work I had been doing up to that point. I intended to self-revert, but got called away from the computer before I had chance.

I should have handled things better yesterday, but it would have been helpful if there had been some notification before such a large series of changes. I could then have explained why named refs were being used beforehand, saving a lot of work. If you look closely at what I did you will see that I was also ensuring that we consistently had author year, p(p). pagenumber(s). - there was actually still quite a bit of variation in the punctuation and spacing. Also where ranges are given there needs to be an endash there, not a hyphen per WP:DASH.

I know I've mentioned this on Domer's talkpage (but it's not the first time this issue has come up). Could everyone please note that WP:DEADLINK specifically says that apparently dead links should never be simply removed. First one really should make an effort to find what the new url is - in the case of the British Army webpages that wasn't exactly a huge task. More generally more British government pages, even if you can't directly find a new url, all government webpages are now regularly archived, and http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/webarchive/ allows you to search for an archived copy of a given url. Combined with the retrieval date which should be present in the reference, you should then be able to track down an appropriate archive copy of the url. Rember alos that a website may simply be experiencing a temporary glitch, and the page will come back at a later time.

With specific regard to the reference to catalogue of The National Archives that was twice removed. It is stated that these were papers discovered at TNA, since the online copy is hosted by someone other than TNA, it seems particularly important to me to verify that there is actually a document in the online catalogue answering the relevant description (if you read our article here on TNA you will see there have been problems with fake documents being inserted into the archive in the past - NB I am not for one minute suggesting that anything like that has happened here, merely trying to illustrate why it is important to be able to link back to TNA properly).

On the formatting of Hansard refs, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/ is not a publisher in any sense. I changed publisher to Hansard, which gives readers useful information. On think further, that should probably really be work, the publisher is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, as shown by the copyright statement at the bottom ofthe homepage. David Underdown (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fitzgibbon

Whilst I've no objection to the full Fitzgibbon material going in the USC article, it seems too much here, where we're really trying to focus on the UDR, people can always go and read the USC article. We're trying to give an understanding of why the USC was so hated by Catholics, so I've made a precis of the material. Now I've not actually read the book, so please tell me if I've got the wrong end of the stick (though in itself that would sugges that the previous version wasn't as clear as it might have been). David Underdown (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again with the Nazi comparisons? Mooretwin (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Who Fitzgibbon? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Domer, Hitler's Nazi SA is entirely tautological, there's no need for both Hitler and Nazi. David Underdown (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

David you also removed "They were he says the armed wing of the Orange Order, which controlled the Northern State" why was that? In the discussion above you said "only one source seemed to use the specific words "an integral part of the state", and there, in context, there was rather more explanation of precisely what the authors meant by that." Now we have Fitzgibbon, but you still removed it? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I see it as a matter of giving undue weight. The majoritiy of authors do not go so far as that. We should be sticking in general to the middle o fthe range of opinion, not using outlying examples. David Underdown (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"undue weight"? "The majoritiy of authors do not go so far"? "The middle of the range of opinion"? First, you removed the text altogether, it is not mentioned at all now! So weight does not enter into it. Who are the Authors you are talking about, you say its the majoritiy of them yet name none. You talk about the middle range of opinion, yet remove all mention of it. Is it your view that middle range means no opinion at all? As to outlying examples, are you talking about the 11 Authors which supported the origional text. Please David, start to quote sources here, and not just opinions. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Of those sources you previously highlighted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment#Comments on Amended proposal. Most describe the relationship between the O, the wider state, andthe USC in particular in more objective terms. The quotes you've used from Fitzgibbon also seem to be more specifically about the early days of the USC - we really need to be concentrating on the situation in the late 1960s. Sure the history is part of the reason they were detested, but it's not directly relevant to this article. As I've said here we before, I think that we do need to set things in context, but we also need to keep reasonably focussed. We'd do better to describe some fo the social changes that were going on in NI in the alte 1960s, the Civil Rights movement and the State's reaction to that, the widespread rioting, Hunt and Scarman reports. You've never commented on the very scratch suggestion I made above incidentally. David Underdown (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As the person proposing that this text be added, perhaps - rather than demanding only that others explain their objections - you would like to explain why you think it is relevant in the first place to include commentary about the B Specials, and the Orange Order in the UDR article? That might be a useful starting point. Mooretwin (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that this text be added, it is in the article already. My rational is outlined here and here and discussed fully.

David on your proposed text, it fails to address the fundamental nature of nationalist disaffection with the state. The questions being: Why were nationalists reluctant to join the UDR? Why was the recruitment of B Specials into the UDR a factor? Why was the overlapping membership with the orange order a factor? The majority of recruits to the UDR were former Specials! Important and basic background information! Now state your objections to why information which adds valuable context should be removed? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you added the text at a point where I happened not to be around, despite the fact taht various objections had been made both on this talk page and during the mediation. None of which did you take on board at all. Note however taht I didn't revert, but have tried to use the talk page since, rather than simply reverting when I found that despite all that had gone before you added your text exactly as you ahd originally proposed it. David Underdown (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

David, your desire to seek consensus is admirable, but it might bear more fruit if you also edited the article. That might prompt more engagement in the discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Sure the history is part of the reason they were detested, but it's not directly relevant to this article." Well David, I disagree. Yes they were detested, I think it helps readers know why. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The UDR may have been detested by some of the NI population but to many others, the UDR was a crediible and worthwhile legal organisation with volunteers willing to lay down their lives, Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Operational task

I've restored the description of coutnering "armed guerilla-type attacks" the source (the Hansard record of the debate) describes precisely that as beign the oeprational task, the description of its duties, patrolling, guarding, establishing checkpoints is the means to that end, not the task itself. I've put these bits in quotes too as they are all taken verbatim from the record, to use the words as if they were our own verges on plagiarism, even if a reference is given. David Underdown (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

“ The nature of the new military force will be governed by its operational task. That task will be to meet what the Hunt Committee called "armed guerilla-type attacks". This calls for a force to guard key points and installations, to carry out patrols and to establish check points and road blocks. ”

As can be seen in the above quote from the debate, this is what the Hunt Committee called "armed guerilla-type attacks". However, the Hunt Committe report stated

“ As regards those tasks of a military character which have hitherto been carried out by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Special Constabulary and which are concerned with the protection of the Province from armed attacks from within or outside its borders, we consider that in principle and in practice this responsibility should properly rest with Her Majesty's Government at Westminster. ”

So it can be clearly seen that there is no mention of "armed guerilla-type attacks," in fact there is no mention of guerilla-type attacks at all in the Hunt Committe report. If you read the two quotes, they clearly say two different things. The UDR were to guard key points and installations, to carry out patrols and to establish check points and road blocks, and the protection of the Province from armed attacks from within or outside its borders, which had hitherto been carried out by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Special Constabulary, in principle and in practice this responsibility should properly rest with Her Majesty's Government at Westminster.

Based on this, and supported by the references used, the information should again be removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hunt Report was a recommendation, Callaghan and the NI Govt. agreed the task of the new force here Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kernel Saunters thanks for the link which I fixed for you. As your link illustrates, this was simply a COMMUNIQUE. What it dose illustrate though, is that the Hunt Committe did not mention "armed guerilla-type attacks," at all. If you read what it says though,

“ a locally recruited military force to protect key installations and to undertake such other tasks as might be necessary to guard against the threat of armed guerilla-type attacks. ”

Those other tasks could be to carry out patrols and to establish check points and road blocks? What your link does show however, is that the information in the article is not supported by any of the references. We need a reference which sets out clearly what their role was, which must be contained in some Bill or other. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The communique was a statement of intent and better that a report of recommendations. How that intent is translated into law exactly won't be found in a Bill but Act of Law namely the Ulster Defence Regiment ACT 1969 but I can't find a free copy on-line just now Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your quite correct Kernel Saunters, the Ulster Defence Regiment ACT 1969 would be the correct source to use. Would you also agree that this was just communique, and would itself not support the current text. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember that the CAIN website presents only excerpts from the Hunt report. The precise phrase may well appear only in one fo those sections which have not been put online. The present wording is perfectly well-sourced to the record of the debate. I do have access to the full text of the original 1969 Act (subscription only unfortunately) here. The relevant sections so far as I can see are:

(2) Any officer authorised in accordance with subsection (1) of this section to exercise the powers conferred by this subsection may, subject to the terms of his authority, call out the force or any part of it for emergency service in Northern Ireland if, and for so long as, it appears to that officer to be necessary or expedient for the defence of life or property in Northern Ireland against armed attack or sabotage, whether actual or apprehended. (3) The force shall be liable to be called out for permanent service in Northern Ireland in defence of the United Kingdom against actual or apprehended attack; and this subsection shall be a relevant enactment within the meaning of section 9 of the Reserve Forces Act 1966 (which relates to call-out notices).

which seems to me to be inline with the existing wording. Note that there is no mention of how such a defence is to be carried out. David Underdown (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok David, accepting that the CAIN website presents only excerpts from the Hunt report, and dose not support the text it should not be used, do you agree. The present wording is sourced to the record of the debate, but is contradicted by the CAIN website, so the only way to address it is to present the portion or a quote from the Hunt Report which supports the text. As has been pointed out above this communique also contradicts the the record of the debate. Dose the text of the original 1969 Act outline what the opperational task, the description of its duties, were? If so, they should be used. It appears that reference to "armed guerilla-type attacks," were contained in this communique and not the Hunt Report. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement in the Commons as recorded in Hansard is the latest in date. Whatever the ultimate origin of the phrase, (and looking at the precise wording again, it refers to the Hunt Committee saying, rather than specifically stating it's in the report proper) it's abundantly clear that at the time the bill was presented to parliament that was the phrase used in relation to the regiment's task. The only mention of anything approaching the tasking of the regiment in the Act proper is in the two sections I've already quoted above. I'm not entirely surprised - the Act is there to provide the legal framework within which the UDR would operate, and give it the authority to bear arms, the tasking is a matter of policy which can be expected to vary somewhat over time. As I recall the woridng was originally introduced to the article to solve the row over whether or not the UDR could be characterised as an "anti-terrorist militia". You did make any objection to the insertion of "armed guerrilla-type attacks" when it was suggested then. You then deleted it without comment or discussion in the past couple of weeks. David Underdown (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

David, in the discussion above, you set a very high standard in relation to my sources which you are right to do. Likewise the standard we set others, we must execpt ourselves. I'll just outline what we know, and correct me if I'm wrong.

1. We have the Cain Hunt Report website which presents only excerpts from the Hunt report but dose contain the excerpt we need. It dose not contain the wording "armed guerilla-type attacks."

   We have the the communique thanks to Kernel Saunters which dose have the wording armed guerilla-type attacks (no quotation marks) sourcing it to a Northern Ireland Minister.

   We then have the Hansard debate and Roy Hattersley saying "That task will be to meet what the Hunt Committee called 'armed guerilla-type attacks'."

Now we know that it is not in the relevant part of the Hunt Committee Report that we do have and that "The precise phrase may well appear only in one fo those sections which have not been put online." So we don't know weather it dose or not only that it may? You accept this point saying "the Hunt Committee saying, rather than specifically stating it's in the report proper." We do know that it dose appear in the communique but not in the Ulster Defence Regiment ACT 1969. So I'll ask the question, what was the Operational task set out by the Ulster Defence Regiment ACT 1969. If it is just what you outline above, the text is not supported. I'd also draw your attention to the quote which I did provide from the Hunt Report which would contradict the text also. You accept above that we do not know were "the ultimate origin of the phrase" originates, and we know it was not used in the the Ulster Defence Regiment ACT 1969, so it can not be used to describe what the Operational task of the UDR was. The only source which does outline its Operational task is the Ulster Defence Regiment ACT 1969. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The act is I feel actually something of a red herring. Operational tasking is not determined by act of Parliament. In brief the act provides that (my paraphrase follows):

1. Section 1
   1. The monarch may legally set up a volunteer force called the Ulster Defence Regiment, the size of which will be determined by Parliament from time to time
   2. members of said force will be considered to be members of the armed forces of the Crown
      1. Any member of the force who is the holder of an army commission, or anyone else assigned to the permanent staff of the unit is subject to military law
      2. Other members are subject to military law:
         1. when on active service or training
         2. or if in possession of arms and ammunition or certain other items prescribed of miltiary equipment
   3. When subject to military law, certain provision of the Army Act 1955 apply to members fo the force, otherwise the unit is not part of the regular forces within the meaning of that act
   4. General membership provisions
      1. Term of membership not to exceed 3 years at a time
      2. Maybe permitted to re-engage for further 3 year terms
      3. May resign at any time at 1 month's notice
         1. However, membership does not lapse and may not be resigned if the member is on permanent service as defined in section 2(3) or 2(4)
   5. Other than the limitations above, conditions of service will be determined in regulations from time to time, but will not be full-time, except for on occasions detailed elsewhere in the act, and is limited to Northern Ireland
   6. Men only
2. Section 2
   1. Secretary of State [for Defence presumably, not actually specified] may grant regular army majors and up written permission to exercise the powers listed in the following sections, this permission may also grant the original officer power to grant the power to other officers (again major or higher)
   2. Already quoted in full above
   3. Already quoted in full above
   4. Defines it as a reserve force within the meaning of the 1966 act mentioned in (3) for certain purposes
   5. Training obligations (may only take place in NI) in any year, may be attached to any other body of troops then in NI for these training purposes
      1. One or more longer periods no more than 12 days total
         1. No one perid longer than 8 days
         2. No more than two of over 36 hours consecutively (without consent)
      2. Other training, no more than 2 hours at a time (without specific consent)
   6. Basically people may eb excused from the training provisions if necessary
   7. Protects members' jobs in the same way as for other reserve personnel
3. Section 3
   1. Members of the force may be court-martialled under the Army Act 1955
      1. If they fail to appear for a call-out
      2. Disobey orders, or regulations made under this act
   2. Anyone (including non-members) commits an offence liable to a fine of £50 and/or imprisonment for up to 3 months if tried by magistrates, or £500 and/or 2 years in Crown Court if
      1. They encourage a member to go AWOL
      2. Assists desertion or AWOL
      3. Protects someone who is a deserter or AWL
4. Section 4
   1. Terms used in the act
      1. "prescribed" means defined in regulations
      2. "orders" means orders by the monarch under hand of the Secretary of State (except in 6(2)
      3. "regulations" are regualtions made by Secreatary of State
5. Section 5 - Parliament pays the necessary costs
6. Section 6
   1. cited as "the Act 1969"
   2. Act comes into force on a date determiend by the Secretary of State and confirmed by Statutory Instrument

So we can see that the Act doesn't directly define the chain of command or anything. In practice, the recommendations of the Hunt Report are carried out since the Secretary of State can grant written permission to the GOC NI to exercise the call out powers (and presumably delegate them to more local commanders). The closest it comes to defining the operational task is the reference to the conditions for call out "defence of life or property in Northern Ireland against armed attack or sabotage" - I wouldn't be averse to changing the wording in the lead to that I suppose. In general though operational matters are a matter of policy, determined by the politicians, and implemented by the army command responsible (for example there has never been any legislation introduced taht determines the task of the British Army in Iraq or Afghanistan), and the best we have for that is Hattersley's statement to the Commons on the introduction of the Bill, even if he mis-spoke slightly on the origin of the phrase, the intent is perfectly clear. As Kernel Saunters has pointed out, we have three or four stages here. The Hunt Committee in its report recommends a number of things (which may or may not include the phrase "armed guerilla-type attacks"). Then we have the joint communique from the UK and NI governments setting out their initial response to those recommendations (which definitely does), then comes the process of implementing the response to the recommendations, the passage of the bill through Parliament, and thus becoming an Act is one stage of that, and in his introduction of the bill, setting out it's purpose, Hattersley also uses the phrase, though possibly misattributing it.

One other document of interest is the minutes of a cabinet meeting discussing the report http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=7980519 (free download) which states in relation to the new military force: "Their task would be similar to that which the Army and the USC had had to perform in blocking the frontier during the Irish Republican Army (IRA) insurgencies of the 1950s". David Underdown (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a good solution, and I've no problem with it at all. On your final point though, does the Hunt report say the exact opposite? The Hunt Committe report stated

“ As regards those tasks of a military character which have hitherto been carried out by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Ulster Special Constabulary and which are concerned with the protection of the Province from armed attacks from within or outside its borders, we consider that in principle and in practice this responsibility should properly rest with Her Majesty's Government at Westminster. ”

Thanks David for your reasonable responce, and Kernel Saunters for providing such an important link. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No there's no contradiction with Hunt, because the key point is that the GOC NI was responsible to Westminster, not Stormont, therefore the chain of command for the UDR goes through the army to Westminster, bypassing Stormont. If you read the Cabinet minutes I linked to, you'll see discussion of this very point, and to what extent Stormont should be able to influence the new force. The power to call out the UDR is limited to officers of the regular army in the rank of major and above (and only when that power is specifically granted to them in writing). For these purposes UDR officers are not considered regulars (though a regualr army officer on attachment to the UDR would count I think). David Underdown (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why the replacement of the text please Domer? Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)