Talk:List of attacks on the Ulster Defence Regiment

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Northern Ireland Mid‑importance

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed deletion

The proposed deletion of this page would be wrong because:

1. It is a work in progress, a very comprehensive work which stretches over 22 years from 1970-1992, so far it is only up to 1973.

2. The intention of this editor is to include more detail on attacks which are purely military operations but thus far it seemed a better idea to list items then progress from there.

In the interim, to avoid further confusion I am restoring the {underconstruction} tag.The Thunderer (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were not intended as a memorial, the decedents' names (and, in some cases, even their religions) would not be included. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intention was to provide the barest information on those killed but enough to cross reference them with the Roll of Honour at the Palace Barracks website (year, name, battalion & company). Religion is only included where the fact is notable, i.e. first Catholic to be killed (which is very relevant if you read the main article at Ulster Defence Regiment which this page is effectively a sub-page of). I would certainly be interested in anything you could put forward at this early stage in the page development which would enable me to produce a more appropriate encycopedia entry. If you look at Ulster Defence Regiment Operations you'll see I have done a similar list there which is simply a catalogue of events and that's what this is supposed to be too, not a memorial. If you were even to look in again from time to time as the list expands perhaps you could throw a few more pointers my way? The Thunderer (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is no part of the purpose of Wikipedia to provide a list which can be cross-referenced to the "Roll of Honour"; that is the kind of memorial purpose I object to. This kind of day-to-day ultra-detailed data compilation might be appropriate for a UDR-specific wiki or Crown-employees-killed-on-the-job website; but I don't think it really belongs here. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is linked as a sub-page to Ulster Defence Regiment and is intended as a record of all the attacks which took place on the UDR. In some cases this is going to yield information on military style operations where shots are exchanged however one of the most notable facts about this unusual regiment is that it not engage in offensive operations against a uniformed enemy. Uniquely in the history of the British Army its members lived at home, not in barracks and were hunted down and assassinated. It is important to the reader that this is seen to be so, which is why a list of attacks should include details of off duty assasinations. With other regiments it's possible to list battle honours and provide a wikilink to the battles themselves. It isn't possible in this case. So to record a list of the actions they were involved in between 1970-92 IMHO it is necessary to list off duty casualties. If you don't want it to be seen as a cross refence to the Roll of Honour then that inference can be remnoved. As the page creator I thought it was a nice touch but it isn't necessary for the integrity of the page or the article it's linked to. I will make that change and see what your opinion is then. The Thunderer (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add - as 1972 was the worst year for casualties and I'm only up to 1972 (not 73 as I said above) then unfortunately it is currently going to appear unbalanced. Further information will prove the point - I promise. The Thunderer (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable BigDunc. Perhaps Orange Mike would like to comment now that you've done that. The Thunderer (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he will agree. BigDunc^Talk 18:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intention was never to make it a memorial but by continuing in the same vein a full list of attacks can be compiled within policy. Thank you for the head start. The Thunderer (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on criteria for inclusion

I intend to remove content from this article and I am looking for consensus on what criteria we should use for inclusion. Fatalities, large scale attacks, incidents which caused multiple press reports (significant?), incidents which have been cited by sources as significant or important... has been suggested by Kernel Saunters has any other editors got an opinion on what should or shouldn't be included. As the article stands I feel it is in breach of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. For a start I am going to remove all non fatalities, while we reach consensus on criteria. BigDunc^Talk 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done an initial trim of the article removed POV and non fatalities also added a citation tag. BigDunc^Talk 09:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert when I removed off duty? All UDR members had personal weapons and is stated I think in the main article that because they didn't stay in a barracks they could gather intel in the community. They didn't just become unarmed civilians at the end of the shift. BigDunc^Talk 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All sources I see make the distinction including Sutton. Whether a soldier is on or off-duty will reveal something of the nature of the attack. The UDR were a military force, not paramilitary as stated in the article so legally they did become off-duty. The organisation responsible is also useful, I see loyalists also killed at least one off-duty Catholic UDR soldier Kernel Saunters (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we need to decided on what consensus for inclusion we are going to use on this article, as it stands it is far to big and POV. I feel we should use the basic notability guides that the events should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Has anyone any suggestions? A name change has been muted by Kernel Saunters what do you have in mind? If this article is not changed I feel an AfD is called for as it breaches WP:NOTMEMORIAL BigDunc^Talk 17:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any similar articles on wiki that we could use as a template? What is the criteria on them or is this article unique? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this is a unique article or we would have articles like mentioned below by Otolemur crassicaudatus. BigDunc^Talk 20:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of the article? Having read it again, each of these incidents, on their own would not be notable at all. The ones that would meet the criteria on notability could be in the main body of the UDR article, but the rest is just filler. I'd suggest including what is notable in the main article, and put this up on AFD? What do other editors think? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose

Are we going to create articles on attacks on military units of all the 193 countries? Frankly speaking such ultra-detail article is a bit memorial, indiscriminate and outside the scope of general notability. In this way we can create Attacks on X police unit, Attacks on Y police unit and so on. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(editconflict)I agree that is why I placed Prod on it as it fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Maybe AfD would have been better. BigDunc^Talk 19:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the too much detail concern as well, I would suggest there would be approx. 250 entries given the suggested notability is applied. The article needs to change focus inc. a name change potentially Kernel Saunters (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that based on a (albeit sadly widespread) mis-reading of WP:NOTMEMORIAL? The relevent text reads "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives". Clearly it's about editors documenting non-notable individuals known to them personally, not about naming people in the context of something that is notable. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article was an ex-UDR member and it contained names and religons and a link to the memorial gardens before any other editor did work on it. BigDunc^Talk 12:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's clearly going too far, but the other side of the coin is that we've had editors try to use WP:NOTMEMORIAL as justification for removing the absolutely essential individual details from events such as Bloody Sunday (1972), so it cuts both ways. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know Nick I was involved in trying to stop the removal of the killed marchers on that article. Do you have any suggestions on how we could trim this article? BigDunc^Talk 12:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance it seems that the Company and Battalion details swamp the article a bit. I can see that there is usefulness in them in defining their differing involvement; perhaps it would be better to have annual aggregated summaries at the start of the article, then separate the detail by unit, thus:

* 1970 - 2 injured

* 1971 - 5 dead

* 1972 - 26 dead

Etc., then:

2nd Battalion:

* 27/02/72 - C Company member shot dead off duty. His daughter was also shot in the leg.

* 27/08/73 - A Company soldier while staking out a suspect car in the centre of Armagh, when the patrol comes under fire; one corporal also wounded.

I think a lot of the indiviudal incidents would similarly benefit from shorter summaries. Ranks where known should be in full, as I think most readers would struggle with the abbreviations. Likewise, non-wide-known military terms should be links (e.g. Brevet). Nick Cooper (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with both User_talk:BigDunc and User:Otolemur crassicaudatus and their comments on memorial aspect of the article. That User:Kernel Saunters has a concern as well should help resolve the issues involved. The issue I'd have is the inclusion of "off-duty." If the article is about attacks on the UDR, the inclusion of off-duty dose not make sense. On or off duty they were armed members of the UDR. Now I can expand on this, if editors feel I have not explained the issue I have well enough, but I hope you get what I mean? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce

I am going to reduce this article inline with The troubles in... articles with a criteria of resulting in two or more fatalities, unless significant and notable and backed up with reliable sources. BigDunc^Talk 20:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]