Jump to content

Talk:Duke of Lancaster's Regiment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I wish the new regiment well, but this latest round in regimental amalgamations is still crass vandalism by the Blair bloodsuckers and their MOD lackeys. Geographical identity with our infantry regiments is becoming increasingly tenuous, and will do nothing for recruitment - which in the present climate is difficult enough. RIP KORB Sir Andrew de Harcla 14:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

The title for this article is incorrect! The correct title of the regiment is Duke of Lancaster's Regiment the bracket wording (King's, Lancashire and Border) is not part of the regimental title. See:- Ministry of Defence Website. Richard Harvey 11:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duke of Lancaster's Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloat and reorganisation

[edit]

@BulgeUwU: The content on Agnes Wanjiru contains plenty of detail superfluous to the topic of the article (the Regiment) and is not written in particularly encyclopaedic tone. Undue weight is also given to the incident as a proportion of the Regiment's history; if it is sufficiently notable then creating a separate article such as "Murder of Agnes Wanjiru" and linking to it with only a short summary in the history section may be more appropriate. At the very least it should be under the "Recent History" category rather than separate and before it. Eyudet (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree @Eyudet: when you consider both the collosal size of the media response, the wider implications on British-Kenyan relations, and the impact the murder has had on politicians and leading figures within the British military, the murder of Agnes Wanjiru is probably the event that the regiment is most widely known for. I would even argue that the murder could be considered the most impactful event in the regiment's history. Considering this I do not believe I am giving the subject undue weight, but it probably looks that way because the regiment is very young by British Army standards at only 15 years old. Perhaps you can rectify this percieved problem by writing a wiki page for the murder or by adding more information to the wiki detialing the regiment's other actions? BulgeUwU (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BulgeUwU: If the notability is indeed substantial enough to necessitate this much content then splitting "Murder of Agnes Wanjiru" off into it's own page seems warranted, especially given that some of the content (such as the opinion article comparing the case to Sundstrom or Mau Mau) and the significance reasons you mentioned (such as the wider implications on British-Kenyan relations) are not particularly relevant to the Regiment. Either way the article should at least be cleaned up to better reflect NPOV and Wikipedia style (reduce editorialising language, etc.) As you have raised no complaint with the categorisation of the murder as an element of Recent History, I have elected to restore that part of the edit. Eyudet (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Material such as the opinion article referring to the Mau Mau uprising and Sundstrom, precise details of the murder, family requiring counselling etc. are not pertinent to the topic of this article (The Regiment). They could be pertinent if the Murder of Agnes Wanjiru was split off into its own article but currently only serve to make this page WP:BLOATED. Only a concise mention of the murder and all material regarding the allegations of a cover-up should be retained, as relevant to the Regiment. Alternatively splitting the murder into its own page and retaining only a line or two in this article referencing it would also make sense. Eyudet (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Some kind of strange anti military agenda / slander going on here. Nobody in the Duke of lancs was ever charged with murder. It's disgusting. Possible russian interference? Militaryfactchecker (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is evidently not yet consensus on whether or not the current amount of detail of the Wanjiru murder case is excessive or warrants splitting off into its own page, are there any actual objections to reorganising it under the recent history section? Additionally, are there any objections to linking to other articles about the Payne/Mousa abuses or clarifying that it actually took place in a predecessor unit? Eyudet (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The incidents should be ascribed to the correct unit. The Death of Baha Mousa is already well-documented in the history of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment and that is the right place to cover that incident. The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment was only established in 2006. Dormskirk (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked only because my previous edit ascribing it to the correct unit was reverted. I will reinstate it now. Eyudet (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The soldiers responsible were prosecuted while they were members of the Duke of Lancaster Regiment, their commanders recruited soldiers involved in warcrimes hence why there needs to be mention on this wiki. BulgeUwU (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No they didn't. Best keep uneducated personal opinion of wikipedia BulgeUWU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.169.40 (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in the article, the regiment was formed from a merger of other regiments therefore the soldiers were not "recruited", simply retained through the merger; the prosecution and dismissal took place after the merger but the incident was before. The revised version provides a quick overview and links to the proper articles to cover it. Additionally @BulgeUwU:, seeing as you were the one to revert my original edit, do you have any opposition to reassigning the Wanjiru murder under recent history while we continue the WP:EXCESSDETAIL and WP:NPOV discussion? Eyudet (talk) 14:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This BulgeUwU seems to have a hatred./ agenda against the British military. Lots of editing done on British war crimes, and has a really strong belief that the alleged murder of a Kenyan was committed by a lancs soldier? No proof, no charge, no sentence? Militaryfactchecker (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining the manner of Agnes Wanjiru's death in 3 separate locations is excessively detailed for such a short article and nowhere near relevant enough to the regiment to warrant inclusion in the summary. In my opinion it is not relevant enough to warrant inclusion in the article at all, but the description in the Wanjiru murder segment should be more than sufficient if it is. Additionally given the closeness of the group chat issue to the murder issue I see no reason why it should constitute a separate section. Eyudet (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect to look at the talk page to see all my edits had been deleted by a guy called "Militaryfactchecker", accusing me of being a secret Russian. Weird. Anyway I think creating a dedicated page for Agnes's murder is the right way to go, with the extraneous being moved to the new wiki, with a single paragraph explaining the murder remaining on the regiment wiki and a shortened mention in the introduction. I'll get down to it sometime this year but I am extremely busy with other British military related pages at the moment. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're very suspicious mate. Why do you hate the Duke of Lancs? Militaryfactchecker (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You guys should just focus on WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS. (jmho) - wolf 16:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a split?

[edit]

If the Murder of Agnes Wanjiru is creating an imbalance on this page, and there is sufficent content and sourcing regarding the incident for an individual article, then perhaps it should be spun off as it's own article? There was a similar situation on the DEVGRU page a couple years ago, and that incident was spun off as it's own article. Thoughts? - wolf 09:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me if a consensus develops to do that. I think the material on the murder of Agnes Wanjiru will grow as investigations continue. Dormskirk (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support spinning it off into its own article, having previously suggested such an action above in the bloat discussion. Eyudet (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as an individual article. I would argue that the current amount of text and references are now especially disproportionate in the lead and better suited to move some of the content to its own standalone article as the material and references are there for it. Coldupnorth (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support.
The regiment didn't allegedly commit the murder. A single soldier allegedly did.
Militaryfactchecker (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, no other british army regiment has anywhere near the amount of information written about it's controversies on wikipedia. The majority of it was posted by BulgeUwU (now The History Wizard of Cambridge) who has admitted to having a bias. As he writes; "The soldiers responsible were prosecuted while they were members of the Duke of Lancaster Regiment, their commanders recruited soldiers involved in warcrimes hence why there needs to be mention on this wiki. BulgeUwU (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)"[reply]
The alleged murder of a single woman by a single soldier, which hasn't even been proven or prosecuted, does not warrant taking up such a vast amount of space on the wikipedia page. The page had no information about it's previous deployments before I added it. It needs trimming down and it's own article creating. Militaryfactchecker (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of a prosecution means nothing, it's common for the British military to avoid prosecuting their troops when they kill civilians, Bloody Sunday for the most well documented an example. I cannot find any other action by the regiment that ever raised such a large media reaction than the Killing of Agnes Wanjiru, hence why its size is justified. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This guy has a serious hatred and bias against the British Army. Cope? Militaryfactchecker (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out this History Wizard guy has had to change his username for a previous ban for biased editing. This guy has a serious agenda. I don't - I've left the alleged murder on there. Just shortened it. As it took up more than half the page. He also reverted back my other edits which had nothing to do with it. This guy has serious issues.
I believe the wikipedia page is perfect as it is and is unbiased, with the full facts on display and I believe History Wizard/UwUBulge needs another ban. Militaryfactchecker (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In the face of our disagreement, "Militaryfactchecker" decided that the mature thing to do was to go straight to my talk page to vandalise it with lyrics to a song praising the Ulster Defence Association and Ulster Volunteer Force, two entities which are legally prescribed as terrorist organisations in the UK. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant copium. Militaryfactchecker (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to provide more proof of BulgeUwU/History Wizard of Cambridge's dangerous bias/aggressiveness ; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1058416631
Even if the British Empire did promise their version of "independence" it would still be irrelevant because they spent the next 9 years shoving 100,000s of people into concentration camps to make sure it didn't happen. You need to learn to seperate the stated public goals of an Empire with their true goals, which in the case of the Malayan Emergency was to stop a revolution which threatened British corporate interests. BulgeUwU (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Militaryfactchecker (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update...?

[edit]

Isn't there a consensus to split the info about the murder off to it's own article? Someone gonna take that on? - wolf 07:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Agnes Wanjiru - new wikipage created

[edit]

I've created the wikipage "Murder of Agnes Wanjiru". I've begun with simply copy+pasting the material already on the Lancaster regiment wiki and will be making changes throughout the day and going through the sources again. Any help will be greatly appreciated. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duke_of_Lancaster%27s_Regiment&oldid=1207052460"