Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment/Archive 5

Background

This section has been edited in contravention of consensus. The version that preceded the current version read as follows:

• Disbanding of the Ulster Special Constabulary or "B Specials" was one of the demands of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association during the late 1960s. 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. Together, the B Specials and the RUC were viewed by many nationalists as the “Protestant armed wing of the Protestant political establishment.” 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.
• Following the 1969 Northern Ireland Riots policing in Northern Ireland was reviewed by the Hunt Report.

It now reads:

• According to Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd, the ethos of the Northern state was unashamedly and unambiguously sectarian. The Northern Ireland civil rights campaign which began in the mid-1960s attempted to achieve reform by publicising, documenting, and lobbying for an end to abuses in areas such as housing, unfair electoral procedures, discrimination in employment and the Special Powers Act. Their main demands had been for measures to bring an end to the religious discrimination, their catch-cry being ‘one-man, one-vote.' The summer of 1968 then saw the first of a series of civil rights marches while in Britain, concern was raised at these reports of gerrymandering, job discrimination and triumphalist use of British national symbols. The security forces were and remained disproportionately Protestant and frequently sectarian.
• Internationally, there was concern with civil and minority rights with Northern Ireland part of this international trend. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association therefore secured much wider international and internal support than traditional nationalist protest. According to the authors of Northern Ireland: 1921/2001 Political Forces and Social Classes, the one area which exemplified the formation of the northern state was the constitution of the security forces. They say that the strategy pursued by the Unionist middle class along with the British governments diplomatic strategies were responsible for the establishment of a sectarian-populist flavour in the Northern Ireland. With the formation of the Northern state, the establishment of an independent paramilitary force had been anticipated. This populist Protestant self-assertiveness and official endorsement would shape the Catholic attitudes to both the security forces and the state.
• Disbanding of the Ulster Special Constabulary or "B Specials" was therefore one of the demands of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. The security forces membership heavily overlapped with the Orange Order, likewise the ruling Ulster Unionist Party, and were therefore according to Constantine Fitzgibbon, the armed branch of the Order, which he says controlled the new mini-state. Together, the B Specials and the RUC were viewed by many nationalists as the “Protestant armed wing of the Protestant political establishment.” Many in the RUC, and virtually all the B Specials, were according to Ruane and Todd, defenders of the Protestant community first, defenders of the protestant state second, and normal policemen third. The clashes between marchers and loyalists they say, forced them to take sides, undermining any claims they had to be normal policemen. As the civil rights campaign began it was attack by loyalist mobs, the RUC and B Specials looked on or actively took part in the attacks.
• Following the 1969 Northern Ireland Riots policing in Northern Ireland was reviewed by the Hunt Report.

The objections raised about the new text were as follows:

1. Generally, it is a nationalist interpretation of events with no allowance given for alternative perspectives.
2. Selection of most extreme citations available, and absence of alternative perspective is contrary to WP:NPOV, e.g. "the ethos of the Northern state was unashamedly and unambiguously sectarian" and
3. Includes narrative only about nationalist opposition to B Specials, but doesn't mention unionist support for B-Specials as counter to IRA. Narrative also expands into wider civil rights issue rather than on B Specials.

Mooretwin (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This section has been edited in contravention of consensus? Please show us were this contravention of consensus is? Generally, it is your cry of nationalist interpretation which results in edit wars. So stop crying and add alternative perspectives, just make sure that they are both WP:V and WP:RS. Please support your POV that only the most extreme citations available were used or drop the nonsense. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please show us were this contravention of consensus is? ... Well, the absence of consensus is the contravention of consensus. There was a dispute about this section which was not resolved. You got me banned, and while I was banned, you went ahead and edited the section without gaining consensus for the changes. Mooretwin (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, it is your cry of nationalist interpretation which results in edit wars. ... WP rules require NPOV, therefore an exclusively nationalist interpretation does not comply with this. Failure to seek or agree to consensus leads to edit wars. On this occasion, I have attempted to start a broader discussion in order to preclude an edit war.

So stop crying and add alternative perspectives, just make sure that they are both WP:V and WP:RS. Please support your POV that only the most extreme citations available were used or drop the nonsense. ... I shall when I get the time (Unlike others, I don't have endless time to devote to WP). In the meantime, I would hope that other editors might contribute so as to bring new perspectives in. Maybe a RfC is in order? Mooretwin (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

So there was no contravention of consensus! End of story and your nonsense. To suggest that Ruane, Todd, Ryder, Kearney, Fitzgibbon Collier, Sambanis, Bew, Gibbon, Patterson, Moloney, Dillon, Coogan, McKittrick & McVea are all extremists is idiotic drivel. Any and every reference you don't agree with is an exclusively nationalist interpretation. You in a juvenile whimper also say I got you banned? Don’t be ridiculous, you got yourself blocked. The defence of they made me do it does not work here or have you not noticed. So I’ll not be pandering to your contrived disputes. Provide referenced sources which challenge these authors. Your only back and causing trouble on articles, and to think I declined to edit this article while you were away says alot about WP:AGF. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA. I'll not respond to personal abuse. I think a RfC would be useful. Mooretwin (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. RfC is useful, but with only "I don't like it" to go on, seems more like time wasting. Why not, like I suggested get yourself some conflicting sources and add them? If you consider my remarks describing your comments as juvenile and idiotic drivel as a personal attack, I'll withdraw them when you lend something useful to the discussion. If I had described you as idiotic and juvenile you may have had a point. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

First, there was a contravention of consensus because there was no consensus for your changes. Second, I didn't suggest that Ruane, Todd, Ryder, Kearney, Fitzgibbon Collier, Sambanis, Bew, Gibbon, Patterson, Moloney, Dillon, Coogan, McKittrick & McVea are all extremists. Third, I didn't get myself banned: you chose to report me - I wouldn't have been banned otherwise. Fourth, I already said I would provide sources when I have the time. Mooretwin (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

93.97.194.138 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I have corrected the title given to Roy hattersley in 1969. At that time he was Minister of State for defence, not Secretary of State. Minister was the number two position in the Defence Department. The post of Secretary of State was held by Denis Healey the 1964-1970 Labour government.throughout

There was no consensus for the above text, which (as noted above):

1. Generally, is a nationalist interpretation of events with no allowance given for alternative perspectives.
2. Selects the most extreme citations available, and disregards alternative perspective, which is contrary to WP:NPOV, e.g. "the ethos of the Northern state was unashamedly and unambiguously sectarian" and
3. Includes narrative only about nationalist opposition to B Specials, but doesn't mention unionist support for B-Specials as counter to IRA.
4. is as much about the wider civil rights issues as it is about the B Specials.

I attempted to restore the previous text, which is adequate and balanced, but the editor who imposed the contentious text above has reverted. Mooretwin (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest following dispute resolution: get a WP:3O, an WP:RFC, or post at WP:NPOVN. Note: it is misleading to describe a reversion to a prior, shorter version as "blanking"[1] - please don't do that. Rd232 ^talk 09:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've gone for an RfC - hope I've done it correctly. I'll also post a notice on the WP:NI page. Mooretwin (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

So this is where the party has moved to now the PIRA intro is sorted out. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC - Background section

There is long-running dispute over the Background section of this article. Domer48 wishes to include a long section as follows:

• According to Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd, the ethos of the Northern state was unashamedly and unambiguously sectarian. The Northern Ireland civil rights campaign which began in the mid-1960s attempted to achieve reform by publicising, documenting, and lobbying for an end to abuses in areas such as housing, unfair electoral procedures, discrimination in employment and the Special Powers Act. Their main demands had been for measures to bring an end to the religious discrimination, their catch-cry being ‘one-man, one-vote.' The summer of 1968 then saw the first of a series of civil rights marches while in Britain, concern was raised at these reports of gerrymandering, job discrimination and triumphalist use of British national symbols. The security forces were and remained disproportionately Protestant and frequently sectarian.
• Internationally, there was concern with civil and minority rights with Northern Ireland part of this international trend. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association therefore secured much wider international and internal support than traditional nationalist protest. According to the authors of Northern Ireland: 1921/2001 Political Forces and Social Classes, the one area which exemplified the formation of the northern state was the constitution of the security forces. They say that the strategy pursued by the Unionist middle class along with the British governments diplomatic strategies were responsible for the establishment of a sectarian-populist flavour in the Northern Ireland. With the formation of the Northern state, the establishment of an independent paramilitary force had been anticipated. This populist Protestant self-assertiveness and official endorsement would shape the Catholic attitudes to both the security forces and the state.
• Disbanding of the Ulster Special Constabulary or "B Specials" was therefore one of the demands of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. The security forces membership heavily overlapped with the Orange Order, likewise the ruling Ulster Unionist Party, and were therefore according to Constantine Fitzgibbon, the armed branch of the Order, which he says controlled the new mini-state. Together, the B Specials and the RUC were viewed by many nationalists as the “Protestant armed wing of the Protestant political establishment.” Many in the RUC, and virtually all the B Specials, were according to Ruane and Todd, defenders of the Protestant community first, defenders of the protestant state second, and normal policemen third. The clashes between marchers and loyalists they say, forced them to take sides, undermining any claims they had to be normal policemen. As the civil rights campaign began it was attack by loyalist mobs, the RUC and B Specials looked on or actively took part in the attacks.
• Following the 1969 Northern Ireland Riots policing in Northern Ireland was reviewed by the Hunt Report.

I object to this for reasons noted above, and prefer a shorter version as follows:

• Disbanding of the Ulster Special Constabulary or "B Specials" was one of the demands of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association during the late 1960s. 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. Together, the B Specials and the RUC were viewed by many nationalists as the “Protestant armed wing of the Protestant political establishment.” 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.
• Following the 1969 Northern Ireland Riots policing in Northern Ireland was reviewed by the Hunt Report.

It has not been possible to reach a consensus, so other views are welcome. Mooretwin (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been no long-running dispute over the Background section of this article. You have removed referenced text three times since 2 September, text that has been stable up until then. --Domer48_'fenian' 00:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No-one, other than you, ever consented to your text. I objected to it. Only because I got bored with the edit-warring and temporarily gave up has it been "stable". Wikipedia is not supposed to be a edit-war of attrition, where one editor "wins" by being more persistent and determined than another. It is supposed to be about collaboration and consensus. It is clear that the views of other editors are required here. Mooretwin (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been no long-running dispute over the Background section of this article. You have attempted to remove information which you simply don't like. While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, the article would benefit from the contribution of other editors. Your preferred text is, in my view, flawed for the reasons noted above and was inserted without consensus. You welcomed my suggestion for a RfC earlier, so I'm not sure why you are complaining now. Mooretwin (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I have previously listed my objections to the text you eventually inserted as a fait accompli largely over what seems to me to be rather selective treatment of sources. Unlike Morretwin, however, I think the main issue is taht there is insufficient context to allow people to understand the issues that were at stake at the time. The text wet right through a mediation process, and there was never susbtantive agreemtn on what it should be even at the end of that. David Underdown (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Generally, is a nationalist interpretation of events with no allowance given for alternative perspectives. Complete nonsense, backed up with nothing to support claims.
2. Selects the most extreme citations available, and disregards alternative perspective, which is contrary to WP:NPOV, e.g. "the ethos of the Northern state was unashamedly and unambiguously sectarian" Apart from the assumption of bad fait which I’ll ignore for now there is nothing stopping anyone from putting in alternative opinions. However, there is none to date that I have found which challenge or contradict them.
3. Includes narrative only about nationalist opposition to B Specials, but doesn't mention unionist support for B-Specials as counter to IRA. The section does give the Unionist position on attitudes to both the security forces and the state.
4. is as much about the wider civil rights issues as it is about the B Specials. The civil rights issues were as much about the security forces and the state as they were about the wider civil rights issues.

In May Mooretwin you said that only the most extreme citations available were used and said you would provide sources to support this, were are they?

As with the previous assumption of bad fait, the accusation of selective treatment of sources will be ignored, reminding editors that personal attacks are not considered to be alternatives in the absence of an alternative sources. The the suggestion of insufficient context is one area I am more than happy to address. By suggesting that there is insufficient context means expanding on what is there already not removing information which attempts to give context. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• As Domer points out if Mooretwin has sources that can be used to counter any of the reliable sources used here then he is welcome to add them I don't like it is not a reason to start an RfC. BigDunc 18:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If more sources were provided and more material, the section would get even bigger. This is an article about the UDR: not about the civil rights movement or the history of Northern Ireland. We need a basic background section, written from NPOV - not with the most extreme assessments available to one editor. Mooretwin (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While your canvassing is unhelpful [2][3], it does illustrate the fact quite well that in the absence of a valid arguement you must do it. However, the to suggest bad faith of editors should stop. If this is the type of situation you wish to create, it will be very unhelpful. Now you opened a RfC and still insist on edit warring, making the same accusations again, while still not providing the sources you said you would. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I came across this page on the RfC page. I am very wary of stepping into this tiger cage as I am not an expert in this area. However, I feel that a couple of general comments can be made, which may (or may not) prove helpful.

A background section is only useful if it summarises the key bits of information the reader needs to understand the rest of the article. I don't think this background section manages this. Primarily I think it fails because it needs to put the UDR into the context of The Troubles as a whole. It does mention the NICRA (which it Wikilinks twice), but needs to explain how the UDR contributes to the long-running distrust between communities. A "Main article:" tag would be useful here.

A casual, and non-involved reader may easily be confused with the way the background section is written, in particular the first sentence which is very bold and provocative, but then is not fully explained. The opinion of Ruane and Todd should be put into some sort of context; is it an opinion of a consensus of critics, or is it one held by the majority, or even a significant minority (see WP:DUE)? A much more powerful way of using this citation would be to use it to explain what the opinions about the "northern state" were, say by the supporters of the NICRA, (assuming the origninal text supports such a use). In other words, use the information to support the text rather than being a point in itself.

I'm aware that there is much controversy over events in Northern Ireland, and I am wanting to avoid offence both intentional and unintentional, but I'm not clear whether the opinions of all sides are being explained fully here. Mentioning authors in the text without context does limit their usefulness to the uninformed reader. Similarly it should be made clear which explanations or opinions of events, systems, organisations and governments are supported by a majority, and which are not (again WP:DUE should be a guide here.

Best of luck! Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. What do you think of the alternative text?:

• Disbanding of the Ulster Special Constabulary or "B Specials" was one of the demands of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association during the late 1960s. 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. Together, the B Specials and the RUC were viewed by many nationalists as the “Protestant armed wing of the Protestant political establishment.” 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.
• Following the 1969 Northern Ireland Riots policing in Northern Ireland was reviewed by the Hunt Report.

Mooretwin (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is merit in it; the text seems straightforward and to the point. I think it can go further to put the UDR more into the context of events and the history of Northern Ireland (the current version mentions international pressure and fleshes out some of the grievances from one side). I don't think either version is there yet; try to think of what an otherwise uninformed reader would need to have explained in order for them to understand the article.

I do not have enough expertise in the topic, or knowledge of the sources, to be able to critique them thoroughly.Major Bloodnok (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. While I appreciate that you don't feel that you have sufficient knowledge, could you be a bit more specific as to what else is required and where, and I will see if I can improve it along those lines? Mooretwin (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well lets look at the facts as they stand:

1. The Northern state was unashamedly and unambiguously sectarian. This can be supported by quite a number of sources which can be added if required. If there are any sources which challange this they should be added. I have looked, and can't find them.
2. The unambiguous sectarian nature of the state gave rise to the Northern Ireland civil rights campaign, which in addition to addressing the sectarian based abuses in areas such as housing, unfair electoral procedures, discrimination in employment, the Special Powers Act, gerrymandering, job discrimination and triumphalist use of British national symbols, the police were and remained disproportionately Protestant and frequently sectarian.
3. With the formation of the Northern state, the establishment of an independent paramilitary force had been anticipated. The constitution of a sectarian security force was the one area which exemplified the formation of the northern state, and it's official endorsement would shape the Catholic attitudes to both the security forces and the state. Natural then than the B Specials and the RUC were viewed by nationalists as the “Protestant armed wing of the Protestant political establishment.”
4. It is obvious also that the Disbanding of the Ulster Special Constabulary or "B Specials" was therefore one of the demands of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. Likewise the responce of the state towards the civil rights campaign which began to be attack by loyalist mobs, with the RUC and B Specials looking on or actively taking part in the attacks.

What I think is missing possibly is, more context on abuses in areas such as housing for example. To give a Nationalist a house, was to give them a vote, therefore depriving them of political power was a must. For those who had a vote gerrymandering them out of it was the order of the day. This would all highlight the attitude of the Nationalist community to the state, and the state forces there to uphold it. When we look at the abuses carried out by the B Specials to then find this same group transfare wholesale to the UDR Nationalists knew exactly what to expect from the new force. Now this is all open to challange, so alternative views with sources would be welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid an article about the UDR is not an appropriate article to be discussing housing, and especially a strident and provocative (as acknowledged above) analysis, which the author admits is "open to challenge". This is largely the problem with the current background section, which was imposed without consensus, and continues to be imposed each time the new text is reverted.

With regard to your other points, the shorter text already explicitly states that disbanding the USC was a civil rights demand, and also that the "Protestant armed wing of the Protestant political establishment"! Mooretwin (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, I don't admit that the text is "open to challenge" it's a statement of fact. Now you indicated a number of times that you would provide sources which challange the current text, were is it? Now on the wider point, to understand the attitude of Nationalists to the establishment and actions of the UDR we must provide the context for it. Were Nationalists justified in their attitude towards the UDR, was there a valid basis for it? If there was a valid basis readers need to be aware of it. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The background section should explain what the attitude of the Nationalists were to the establishment as Domer48_'fenian' has said, and I think in large part that is what is evident from the longer version. I think there are neater ways of writting it, but the overall thrust of the argument is obvious. I think the main part missing is any sort of explanation of why from their own POV the establishent (as its described) did these things (their view of the Nationalist community for example). If there are significant debates about scope, scale and direction of policy by the authorities then that should be explained too. If these two sides can be summarised then I think that would improve the section as it appears to be missing from either version.

The other issue is of course how much detail to put. Examples for sure, but the reader should be directed elsewhere for an in depth discussion.

Again - I intend no offence; if i have not mentioned important sections of the community in this analysis it is an inadvertent omission rather than anything more sinister.Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The shorter text already does all that. It says that USC disbandment was a civil rights demand. It says the B Specials were all-Protestant and had overlapping OO membership, which in turn overlapped with the Unionist Party. It says nationalists viewed them as the “Protestant armed wing of the Protestant political establishment.” It says they were said to have looked on or actively took part in attacks by loyalist mobs. That seems like a pretty comprehensive explanation of why nationalists may have been justified in their attitude. Mooretwin (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So what your saying is not that it lacks context, but in fact has too much context? Why was USC disbandment a civil rights demand? Why were the B Specials an all-Protestant force? Why would overlapping Orange Order membership be an issue? Why is overlapped with the Unionist Party, the Orange Order and the UDR not an issue worth mentioning? Why was there one party government? Reasonable questions to ask in my opinion, and questions a reader not aware of the issue to ask? --Domer48_'fenian' 11:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that it lacked context. The objections are noted above. One could continue to add background ad infinitum by arguing that the reader may not understand everything, but this is an article about the UDR, not the civil rights movement, not a history of Northern Ireland. The reader can link to articles about civil rights, Orange Order, the Troubles, etc.

In the shorter text, it actually - like the long one - also lacks a unionist perspective, which ought to be added. Mooretwin (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no intension of adding ad infinitum to the section, I was responding to two editors who suggested that it need more context. While I'm of the opinion that it covers it pretty well and gives a short overview, I'm open to suggestions if editors feel that it needs more. Your saying now that it does not lacked context, just that it lacks a unionist perspective, which ought to be added. I have a number of times now asked you to provide the sources which challange the text, which you said you would, obviously providing a unionist perspective and you have yet to do so. You keep saying this is an article about the UDR and not about the civil rights movement and I agree. This article only deals with the civil rights movement in the context of the establishment of the UDR and Nationalist attitudes to it in a short summary style. All editors here have said it needs context, to date your the only one suggesting removing clarifying context. Your proposed text provides hardly any and I'd suggest you offer an alternative proposal or expand on your current suggestion. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The required context, as far as I can see, is that getting rid of the Specials was one of the civil rights demands, and the reasons for this. This context is provided in the short text. An additional line to say that unionists thought the Specials were OK would be useful.

Your long text is written from a nationalist POV:

1. It uses “provocative language”, by quoting the most strident assessments of NI available – “unashamedly and unambiguously sectarian”. If such an overall assessment of NI is necessary (which I do not believe), it would be preferable to have a more moderate one. You also wheel out your old favourite, Constantine Fitzgibbon, who provides the most strident criticism available of the Specials.
2. It also goes beyond the issue of the Specials, and takes the opportunity to talk at some length about housing and the franchise –. You even want to add more in about housing!

Mooretwin (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, civility cost nothing and if you must revert to your personal attacks discussion is pointless. I've offered reasonable suggestions, and can do not more. If you wish to continue to discuss the issue avoide personal attacks on editors. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This RfC appears not to have worked as Domer48 is unwilling to budge on his imposed text. What is to be done, then - continual edit-warring, or give up and let Domer48 have his way? Neither is in the spirit of Wikipedia. What about 3rd opinion or mediation? Mooretwin (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (from an uninvolved Englishman): the presetn text shows an excessively strong Nationalist (or even Republican) POV. I presume the quotations are accurate, but they need to be balanced by statements from Unionist authors emphasising the role that they were regarded as having by the Stormont government, which (I think) only deployed them when there was civil unrest. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Peter for your comments. Before we talk about "strong Nationalist (or even Republican) POV" we would first have to establish that the authors are or have strong Nationalist (or even Republican) views. While I'd welcome alternative views, I would not be prompted to describe them as statements from Unionist authors. That the UDR were not only deployed when there was civil unrest we may need to clarify, but it is my view that this is obvious from reading the article.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you prepared either to edit your text, or to accept edits to your text that reduce the nationalist emphasis contained within it, as acknowledged by two uninvolved editors? Mooretwin (talk) 08:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What one of the uninvolved editors stated was ... but they need to be balanced by statements from Unionist authors... so up to you Mooretwin get alternate sources. BigDunc 08:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an admission that Domer48 (and you) are content for articles to have a nationalist bias, and believe that the responsibility lies with others to achieve NPOV. Interesting. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What is needed is not so much a unionist view as a neutral view. Instead of the selection of Ruane and Todd's provocative statement, we need a neutral, more measured assessment. We also need to strip out the (what comes across as) soapboxing about irrelevant civil rights issues. My version refers to the relevant civil rights issues about the B Specials. If you want a unionist POV, however, then you may wish to insert say that the unionist community saw the USC as the defenders of Northern Ireland from an IRA terror campaign.. Mooretwin (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have sources which refute two respected academics in Todd and Ruane then add them to what you say is a biased addition. They are not the rabid Nationalist/Republicans that you are trying to portray. BigDunc 10:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made no attempt to portray either Ruane or Todd as republicans, rabid or otherwise. The issue (or one of the issues) is the choice of that particular "provocative" assessment for use in the background section of this article. The issue is that, when seeking to provide a short summary, it is not NPOV to choose for exclusive use one of the most extreme or provocative assessments available rather than a more measured and less provocative assessment. Todd and Ruane's views may be interesting to add, among the views of others, into an article about the history of Northern Ireland, or the civil rights movement, but it is not appropriate to select this single source, and only that source, here. Mooretwin (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So we agree then that Ruane and Todd are not "strong Nationalist (or even Republican) authors, rabid or otherwise. You just find there view as a provocative assessment, and you would like it toned down. I note that you are not suggesting that what they say is untrue, just that you don't like the way that they say it? --Domer48_'fenian' 12:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm unaware of anyone claiming that either was a "strong Nationalist (or even Republican) author". The issue, which has been articulated several times, is not my personal view on the veracity or otherwise of Ruane and Todd’s assessment, or even how they have chosen to express their view (my personal view on either irrelevant): it is the fact that this one view (described here as “provocative”, and certainly at the extreme end of the spectrum of criticisms of Northern Ireland), rather than a more moderate assessment, has been chosen to describe the situation in Northern Ireland. So, really it’s more a case of “I DO LIKE IT” from you: selecting an assessment which best fits with your own personal views on Northern Ireland, rather than one which is less strident and more balanced. The motivation behind the text which you imposed appears more to be about articulating a particular POV rather than about providing, in neutral terms, relevant and helpful information. Mooretwin (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Per my comments above. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Domer48 is unprepared to agree to any compromise on his text. Consensus has not been achieved, however, and so it will have to be reverted. Mooretwin (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Again if you have sources to refute notable academics put them in because you don't like it is not good enough. BigDunc 09:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The above comment doesn't address the criticisms of Domer's text. The background section of an article about the UDR is not the place for a debate about the history of Northern Ireland. All that is needed is basic relevant facts. There's no consensus for Domer's text. Mooretwin (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't see any for it's removal. BigDunc 09:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Were are the sources that dispute the text in the background section that Mooretwin keeps telling us they have, but never give? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A background section on the UDR is not the place for multiple sources to support differing views about the nature of Northern Ireland. Most of what you added, without consensus, is unnecessary. You have shown no willingness to take on board the views of others. You do not own this article, so please revert your text and collaborate with other editors to seek consensus. (Note that collaboration does not mean ganging up with other like-minded editors to force a partisan interpretation into the article.) Mooretwin (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added in an opposing view to Ruane & Todd as requested. This merely demonstrates that a background section on the UDR is not the place for a debate about the nature of Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And I have added the bit that you forgot to add. BigDunc 18:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't forget to add it. I deliberately didn't add it since Ruane & Todd are not quoted as saying that unionists said discrimination was fictional, and you wanted an opposing view to Ruane & Todd. The article needs neither Ruane & Todd nor Paseta: this is an article about the UDR, not the history of Northern Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice addition Dun, as editors trying to force a partisan interpretation into the article should be discouraged. That Ruane & Todd are not quoted as saying "that discrimination was never as calculated as nationalists maintained" either but was added shows how one editor deliberately didn't add it because it did not support their partisan interpretation. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If Domer thinks that editors "trying to force a partisan interpretation into the article should be discouraged", why is he insisting on his partisan background section being forced into the article? I don't have a partisan interpretation. On the contrary, I am seeking to moderate Domer's partisan interpretation. I offered an alternative text, which Dunc 'n' Domer rejected (surprise), so I added in an alternative view on Northern Ireland (as requested). Is Domer saying that Paseta is "partisan"? Interesting.

No-one said that Ruane & Todd were quoted as saying "that discrimination was never as calculated as nationalists maintained". If they were, why would I have added in Paseta saying the exact same thing?

Ruane & Todd say that "the ethos of the Northern state was unashamedly and unambiguously sectarian". I was asked for an alternative perspective, and this was provided, since Paseta says that discrimination was never as calculated as nationalists maintained, which is clearly a different perspective to that of Ruane & Todd. Paseta's comments about unionists are not relevant, since the background section does not suggest that discrimination was fictional. On the contrary, it suggests that it was deliberate and unashamed.

If you want a dog's dinner of a background section, though, put in the full Paseta comments. Do you want other perspectives to challenge the rest of the background section, too? Or would it be better to keep it simple and to-the-point? Mooretwin (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you want to be a dick, the source you cited Mooretwin doesn't mention Ruane and Todd, so you cannot use part of a sentence only under the belief that "nationalists" refers to them. BigDunc 08:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No-one said the source mentioned Ruane & Todd! We can use part of a sentence if we consider only part of it to be relevant. Mooretwin (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Domer48 being cited in the background section, but we did see an editor who deliberately didn't add part of a sentence because it did not support their partisan interpretations. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No-one said Domer was cited in the background section. Paseta's observation about unionists was not added because it was not relevant. I do not have any "partisan interpretations", therefore that could not have been a reason for not adding it. On the contrary, my interest is to remove partisan interpretations from WP: hence my concerns about this background section, which has been drafted deliberately to support a particular partisan viewpoint (see criticisms above). There is no question about unionists denying discrimination, therefore Paseta's views on such denial do not appear to be relevant. Her views, however, on discrimination are relevant because they indicate disagreement with the views of Ruane & Todd, which were deliberately chosen as the most strident and provocative available. Mooretwin (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So its not mine but Ruane & Todd's views that you suggest are partisan interpretations. I can add equally or more determined points from additional authors if you wish, but you'd first have to be able to support your view that Ruane & Todd's interpretations are partisan. I can assure you they are not the most strident and provocative available, but having provided some supporting evidence to back up your opinion on Ruane & Todd I'll be more than happy to provide sources that are more strident and more as you say provocative. Now, on a final point, stop with the accusations and the assunptions of bad faith. You have more than illustrated your partisan views, and you ability to be slective in how you present information which does not support your POV. Paset does not contradict or challenge anything in the background, regardless of your removal of some of the sentence. I don't have to assume good faith with you, but at least I can be slective. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms of your text, which was added without consensus, are noted above and remain valid. I'm glad that you acknowedge that the view of Ruane & Todd that you have added is strident and provocative: that is progress. Please stop making accusations and assuming bad faith. I have not illustrated any partisan views. On the contrary, I am seeking to achieve NPOV. Unfortunately, so far you have shown no willingness to collaborate to achieve this. Mooretwin (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll not be wasting time on your trolling. Your a POV pusher, plain and simple. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remain civil and refrain from attacking other editors. The irony of your accusation surely can't be lost on you. Mooretwin (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Unambiguously" and "unashamedly" are low value descriptive adjectives that are discouraged on Wikipedia. They should not be in the article, and I have removed them. Irvine22 (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

All your argueing but that is not the important thing. The section as it is or as Mooretwin proposes it is not good enough, I could write all that myself. There's no direct background such as direct influence of the Hunt report or progessing views of British Army commanders. These are the things that are the background of the UDR. It would be further interest, and the only step toward making what is currently in the section appearing relevant. Why does the section end tantalisingly? You should start of saying "The UDR was formed as a result of the Hunt Report" and then you can go on to say "Hunt Report" many times not just at the end. Also the words UDR and even Defence are missing for the section. Who the heck are all these people mentioned, "Says this" or "Says that"? Let's have it what is a Joseph Ruane, a Jennifer Todd, a Senia Paseta and a Bernadette Fitzgibbon please. I think not to cut out the Catholic viewpoint but to add the Protestant and British ones please rather than a load of opinions from figures we might not recognise. ~ R.T.G 10:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to re-write. It would be most welcome. Mooretwin (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This page under article probation

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

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

New Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Potter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Information deleted without discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

Reliability of Potter

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

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

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

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

MOD reference used in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

Difficulty

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

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

Reverted to Oct 21 version

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The calm before the storm

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

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

Proportion

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

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

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

Links to Glenanne gang

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

Miami Showband killings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable Members

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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