Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Protestant or Loyalist

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

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

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

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

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

SonofSetanta's recent edits

I've reverted several of these.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits to new Background section

While I see the logic of this, it has had the effect of taking out of that paragraph any mention of nationalist discontent - not to say anger - regarding the Specials. All that was left was "mistrust", apparently arising out of the religious affiliation of the members. This would not make sense to the great majority of readers worldwide - especially Protestant readers - who would ask why Protestantism should be a reason for mistrust. I am editing the section in line with my suggestion here, not because I want it my own way, but just as a basis for any future edits that people may think state the case better. Scolaire (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point Kernel Saunters (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

PIRA intimidation of Catholic xxx UDR soldiers

Is this a suitable RS for the intimidation of Catholic UDR soldiers (and policemen) by Republican terrorists?--FergusM1970^{The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on.} 15:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Or this? That the UDR began as a reasonably integrated force and lost many Catholic members through intimidation or targeted murders is an important fact in the Regiment's history and I believe it should be in the article.--FergusM1970^{The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on.} 15:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have changed UDA to UDR as I feel that is what the writer meant. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If they pass WP:SOURCES then they are permttable. The sources seem fine to me. It is highly relevant to the article and as it had a direct impact on the membership of the UDR and its representation in the eyes of both communities then it is fully merited in being added to the article. Obviously some would prefer to erase the fact the PIRA targeted Catholics. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently some would prefer to erase the fact that PIRA did anything illegal, distasteful or despicable.--FergusM1970^{The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on.} 20:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that your edit has been stable for over 24 hours. The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for making random provocative comments. Scolaire (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed, due to being totally lopsided. The place for exploring why the Catholic membership left is best explained in the article itself not the lead due to there being several reasons why it happened. For example Terror: From Tyrannicide to Terrorism by Geoffrey Robertson, Brett Bowden and Michael Davis on page 234 state "It was planned that the regiment would aim to recruit a significant number of Catholics and initally a considerable number of Catholics did join. However, a number of factors led many of these to resign while the supply of Catholic recruits dried up. Most of the command staff of the UDR were former 'B' Specials as were many of the rank and file and this could create an antagonistic atmosphere for Catholics. This 'chill factor' was added to by the disastrous British security decision to support the Unionist government's introduction of internment without trial in August 1971 and the disaster of 'Bloody Sunday' in Derry on 31 January 1971 [sic] when British paratroopers shot dead thirteen people during a civil rights demonstration. The Provisional IRA also set out to intimidate and murder Catholic members. The result was that by the end of 1972 Catholics made up 3.8 percent of the total."

Equally Potter in A Testimony To Courage dedicates pages 56-62 to the effects of internment on the UDR including Catholic membership, similarly pages 67-69 for Bloody Sunday. Then in his conclusions chapter on page 375 he states "Mainly the Regiment lost its Catholic members for the same reasons that the security forces as a whole lost the confidence of the Catholic community - the Falls Road curfew in 1971 [sic], followed a year later by the one-sided application of internment, and then the tragedy of Bloody Sunday".

Obviously simply leaving "suspicion and disenchantment among the Catholic community grew" isn't particularly fair either, so I've removed that too and tidied things up a bit. Just to summarise - there's four sourced reasons. Intimidation by the IRA, intimidation and shunning within the Catholic community, sectarian attitudes within the UDR and actions of the British Army. Obviously the second and fourth of them are slightly linked, but you'd still need to explain why so I don't believe the lead is the place for including all four of those reasons. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I see this has been ignored claiming the information was "sourced". Well that wasn't the reason it was removed, as said above. Wikipedia policies don't act in isolation from each other, WP:NPOV is important especially when one source is only being used to add one of several reasons it gave for the Catholic membership dropping. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing POV about including the fact that PIRA intimidation forced Catholics out of the UDR. Instead of removing this reason for declining Catholic membership, why not add the others that you think are relevant?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 12:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read posts before replying, you may find you don't need to ask questions that people have already answered then. The [rhetorical] question is actually why you failed to add all the reasons from Terror: From Tyrannicide to Terrorism when you added the source in the first place? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is FergusM1970 edit here on 18:53, 11 August 2012 and this here is the reference they used. Having reviewed the edit I made this revert here. The source cited a number of reasons, but these were slectively used and did not reflect source. I reviewed their later additions here and here. Now check out the sources used here and here and count the number of reasons given for the reduction in numbers. How many reasons are given in the editors edit here. It certainly lacks any attempt at balance, and undue weight like this should not be in the lead of all places. I pointed this concern out here on 20:00, 12 August 2012 and the editor was well aware of it. This makes this edit here on 16 August 2012 all the more disruptive.--Domer48_'fenian' 09:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This edit did add more of the reasons, as requested, but it also had the effect of making early recruitment approximately half of the lead, when the remainder of the regiment's history consists of two very brief sentences. I've moved it down into the "Formation" section, where recruitment of Catholics has never been adequately dealt with. Scolaire (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I added a small bit to the sentence: " The regiment was intended to be nonpartisan, and it began with Catholic recruits accounting for 18% of membership, however due to various circumstances by the end of 1972 the Catholic membership made up around 3% of the regiment's soldiers." and corrected the grammer near the end. Maybe its verbose, but i feel it adds a bit of context to the dwindle which is now in the body of the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Though when the above editors complain about undue weight in the lede - what about the stuff of loyalist collusion? Surely it ranks as notable as PIRA intimidation of UDR members? Likewise should it not be left to the body of the article? Arguments don't add up. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I never mentioned undue weight. What I said was that including all four reasons in the lead is excessive detail, and having just one or two is problematic. Even Potter's hagiography says the main reasons for Catholics leaving/failing to join were the actions of the British Army, not IRA intimidation. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

New Edits

I am returning to edit this page.

I can see much to be getting on with. The structure is sound but there is too much slant which seems to suggest that the UDR was an anti-catholic force along with the RUC and USC. This needs to be clarified. Collegiality the article needs to be more matter-of-fact.

There has also been a strange practice of double quoting sources.

I seek opinions on the "background" section of the article. My opinion is that it is a treatise of the Northern Ireland Troubles and is largely un-neccessary and too long.

After making a few minor changes I will now leave the article until Monday. I hope I will receive some constructive comments and perhaps a few editing partners to ensure non POV editing and balance. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the passage that was removed (not by me), beginning "These were never sectarian forces": this was a direct quote from a 1971 pamphlet by Martin Smyth, which is definitely not a neutral source. CAIN has a disclaimer at the top saying "The views expressed in this pamphlet do not necessarily reflect the views of the members of the CAIN Project." The fact that Smyth denied they were sectarian could, of course, be stated briefly and neutrally.

I am in broad agreement with the removal of the welter of "Potter says" and "Potter notes" qualifications. However, there needs to be some housekeeping done because in some instances where "Potter notes" has been removed, "He also says" has been left in a following sentence, and one sentence currently begins, "During this period Potter Ian Paisley announced to the press..."

I've read the "Background" section, and I'm satisfied that it describes the background to the creation of the UDR i.e. the pre-existing security forces and the disbandment of the USC, and not the Troubles in general. There are no digressions about Captain O'Neill or the Civil Rights movement, for instance. It does seem to be quite long. I wouldn't like to be the one trying to edit it down, though, because each fact you removed would disturb the NPOV in one way or another. Bear in mind that this section went through a lengthy, collaborative process in January-February 2012 (the sandbox is here, and the edit is here: -2,671 bytes!), so it is one section where we have a high assurance of neutrality, and one that we ought to be wary of tinkering with. I have edited one sentence that seemed to me to be somewhat loaded.

I will make no comment about the "anti-Catholic" suggestions until I see the specifics. Scolaire (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming aboard. I note your objections to various items which I had changed on Friday and see your valid reasoning behind them. I do think they require further discussion but in the fullness of time. I will take up some of the slack by doing some of the housekeeping you refer to with the removal of the Potter and Ryder comments.

I suggest we take the article section by section from the top and examine everything. In keeping with that I have read the opening section and suggest the following:

1. We should make it clear the the UDR had no overseas commitments with the British Army and only served

in Northern Ireland. I think this is notable.

2. The UDR was the only regiment in the British Army to be on permanent operational duties from the day if its formation to the day it was amalgamated. I suggest this is notable enough to be the final sentence in the opening section, as I think it used to be?

3. Is this sentence correct? The UDR replaced the Ulster Special Constabulary ("B-Specials") along with a separate police reserve, to assist the regular Armed Forces The reference seems to suggest the new force was to assist the RUC, not the "armed forces".

I am in possession of all three published histories of the UDR and can research where necessary. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Housekeeping complete. No edits made other than those required to remove Potter quotes. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

As usual, I would caution against starting with the lead. The lead should reflect what is in the article, therefore any content should be added to the body of the article before being added to the lead. With that caveat, my response is:

1. Agreed. Is it in the article? If not it should be added (and sourced) there first. If so it should go in the lead straight away.

2. I'll have to take your word for it. If it is sourced, then I would proceed as for (1).

3. Hunt recommended that "a locally recruited part-time force, under the control of the G.O.C., Northern Ireland, should be raised as soon as possible for such duties as may be laid upon it. The force, together with the police volunteer reserve, should replace the Ulster Special Constabulary." It doesn't – or at least what's on CAIN doesn't – say who it would "assist". The BBC report does indeed say "to aid police at local level". Possibly it should say both that it was to aid the police and that it was under the control of the GOC. Again, what, if anything, does it say in the article?

Scolaire (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your points. I see entirely what you mean with regards to the lead. In response to your thoughts I would say:

1. The article mentions under IRA Campaign that members of the regiment lived "at home". There are other hints at this throughout but it looks very much like this fact will have to be spelt out properly to qualify the hints.

2. I'll try to source this fact.

3. I think I need to do more reading and web searching. It's a moot point but it could be easily qualified by using the term "crown forces" which is ambiguous enough to cover both police and army but "under the control of the GOCNI certainly does qualify it as a miltary force. Were the military in primacy at this time? I need to confirm that.

I've actually been mulling it over quite considerably and that has raised another issue in my mind for the lead. At the moment it currently states that the regiment was raised in much the same way as other reserve British forces. I believe that statement to be incorrect. My reasoning behind that is: the UDR wasn't a reserve force and it wasn't raised in the conventional way. Instead there was a comprehensive campaign of TV and newspaper advertising and a strong political debate which went on for months. Very different to how a regular regiment or TA unit would be raised and with the total absence of a "parent unit" which would be the norm for the reserve army. Another spectre which has raised its head is: could the UDR be defined as a militia unit? Is there a parallel with other units raised this way in Ireland such as the Irish Volunteers (18th century)? Certainly with my current train of thought I can identify some of the essential ingredients i.e. locally raised volunteer force, living at home, callout for emergency, patrolling the streets at night, no connection with the regular army or police. I'd very much appreciate your thoughts on this. In the meantime what I propose to do is copy the lead to my sandbox at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SonofSetanta/sandbox and invite you (and others) to view, comment upon and agree/disagree. Should this throw up any items which should be inserted or modified in the main body of text we can achieve that before replacing the lead - if indeed we agree to do so. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft now at my sandbox, fully reffed and awaiting your comment and suggestion. May I suggest that if you accept the militia/volunteer input that we add suitable categories to the footer? SonofSetanta (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you say "I see entirely what you mean with regards to the lead", and then follow that with "draft [lead] now at my sandbox, fully reffed and awaiting your comment and suggestion." To put it plainly, I don't want to read any draft lead and I don't want to collaborate in changing the lead until any and every issue regarding the article proper has been addressed. You have already raised three questions (now four), none of which are satisfactorily answered within the article. What you need to do is to edit the appropriate sections, having first found reliable sources, so that they provide the information required. Those sections would be: for #1, the "Operational role" section; for #2, either "Operational role" or "Structure", I'm not sure, and for #3 and your latest query, the "Formation" section. The "Formation" section at the moment, as far as I can see, is almost all about how many Catholics were in the force initially; this is undue weight to my mind. It should be drastically slimmed down, leaving enough information about the attitude of the old Specials, the nationalists etc., but no more, and then filled out with the kind of factual and relevant information that you have brought up. That section is the one I would suggest you start with. Then, after it has been edited to everybody's satisfaction, the lead can be updated to reflect any new or altered content.

With regards to your militia/Volunteers idea, either somebody has already expounded this in a published secondary source, and you can use it, or nobody has, and you can't because it would be original research. --Scolaire (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your further advice. I understood your points regarding the lead entirely. My mindset was fixated on it however which is why I went ahead and rewrote it in my sandbox. It has been cathartic and it can sit there on my sandbox until you feel you can return to it. No offence was intended and I hope none was taken? For now I will concentrate on the "Formation" section as you suggest. As before I will do this in my sandbox and invite your comments on progress. With regards to the connection between this regiment and the various volunteer and militia movements; Potter makes reference to it in his book, which is a start but there is another book which is more pointed on the subject and I'd like to discuss that because it has been rubbished in the past on this page. I'm referring to "Echo Company" by Ronnie Gamble. When previously trying to use this as a source I have been dissuaded by others because it was described as a "self published" book. I have a copy of it here and have read the "Background to the Project" notes on page 7. They state quite clearly that the history was commissioned by The Royal British Legion, Coleraine Branch, and awarded to Gamble because of a previous book he had written about the history of a territorial Royal Artillery unit. In my view this small volume is a valuable resource on life at company level in the UDR and also provides valuable information on the connection with the Irish Militias and volunteer movements. Can you give me your views on the use of this as a source please? If necessary I can also invite comment from some of the experienced MILHIST editors. I feel I should point out that I have no hidden agenda in making this request of you. I simply feel that, with so few published sources, we should try to make use of them all. For now: "Formation". I shall advise you later of progress. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's published by the Regimental Association of the Ulster Defence Regiment, and it's about the Ulster Defence Regiment, so yeah, it's self-published. The kind of books you should be looking for, in your library or wherever, are Security Forces in Northern Ireland: 1969 - 92, Battle for Ulster: A Study of Internal Security, Brits: The War Against the IRA etc. These all have "previews" on Google, but I suspect the interesting details are not shown. Remember that this is an encyclopaedia article, a tertiary source. It is not a new history of anything. Whatever this article needs is likely to be in those kind of books; whatever is not in books like those is likely to be original research. Just concentrate on getting down what's factual, verifiable with reference to those kind of sources, and relevant to an article of this nature. TBH I don't think that speculation about the resemblance of the UDR to the 18th-century Volunteers is relevant to an article of this nature. Scolaire (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean and after consideration I will drop the idea of introducing a connection to the volunteers or militia until such times as I can properly researched it. With so much to do on the article it would be foolish to pursue this avenue of thought now. With regards to "Echo Company" I will need to seek a second opinion at MILHIST. This isn't to try and decry your school of thought but to my mind using first party sources in military articles is common on the wiki. With regards to the other titles you refer to I'll research them and possibly order them in. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

At the end of that fairly substantial period of editing in my sandbox I think I have created a reasonable and factual account of the "Formation". I have created two other sections below that to hold the information about Catholics and B Men, some of which I've edited slightly. I've also moved figures on Catholic casualties to the "Casualties" section and in the course of that realised there was no section for the UDR's very unique "Aftercare" service which is why the title is there as a reminder. I've tried not to use Potter too much but it's difficult as his is really the only book which contains the necessary facts. I would very much appreciate your comments or amendments at this stage. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said on my user talk page, please don't think I'm going to dedicate part of every evening to working on this article. Be bold, but just don't be upset if somebody reverts you or changes your stuff. There was an "Aftercare" section added some years ago, and it was deleted as not important enough for the article. I wouldn't recommend adding it again. Scolaire (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. I was reluctant to take bold action given the previous history of edit-warring on this article. I will take your advice and publish my changes and if edit warring does occur will simply cease editing until a collegiate response takes place. With regards to my proposed "Aftercare" section: I think it would need another request to MILHIST in the future to establish if they think this unique factor should be included. I can't emphasise my gratitude to you enough for the assistance and guidance you have given thus far, especially as the subject matter isn't directly in your area of interest at the moment. With some trepidation I will now publish my changes and hope it doesn't spark off anything unsavoury. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Pressing on

Having published the new material I now intend to follow your advice and continue with re-examining the "Structure" section. Back to the sand box. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Scolaire I need to ask your opinion on several things. What would your thoughts be on the logistics side of things? Do you think it would be beneficial to include the mundane like information about rations and cookhouses, messes, drinking clubs, char wallahs and the like? Also, if information is received from say the Ulster Defence Regiment Association, how does one make that available as an online source? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Dates and days souldnt generally be highlighted. Also in the section "awards" bullet pointers are running through the picture on the left, have tried moving, but probably need to put at the end of the section. Will try now. Murry1975 (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me right on that then. I didn't know that. Are you happy with the way I've separated the text on each memorial now? The bullet pointers aren't running through the picture on my browser. Could it be that it's a browser specific problem? I'm using Mozilla Firefox (up to date). SonofSetanta (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry SoS, its in the Awards, honours and decorations section that they run through. The seperate headings are good. I will move one pic left, this shuld bring the other one out of the ref section. Murry1975 (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Also linked the National Memorial Arboretum instead of the disam page National Arboretum, I think its the right one. Murry1975 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved the pics in awards to a gallery at end of section, this removes the overlap. Murry1975 (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It was the awards section I was referring to with regards to the bullet points but in all honesty what you've done improves the aesthetic proportions of the section. Perhaps the pictures in the "Memorials" section could be a bit smaller though, would you agree? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made them slightly smaller , 200 and 175 px, I am not sure. Let me know. Murry1975 (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

For the time being I think that'll be fine - thanks. As far as I know there are other notable UDR memorials which could possibly be included. They would help balance the aesthetic properties of that section. For now I'm working in my sandbox on the "Infiltration by paramilitaries" section which is chronologically incorrect, too wordy and contains too much repetition of the same information. I'd be delighted for your opinion there or if there's anything else you feel like getting stuck into I'd be grateful. I published a new lead, "Formation" and "Structure" sections and I don't think anyone has proof read those yet apart from me. A second eye would be very welcome. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Will get to it at soe stage. More pics might be a problem, we would lose some detail by making them smaller to include them, but thats for another day. Murry1975 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

No rush on it I agree. I wasn't thinking of more pics necessarily but some more text? AFAIK there's at least one stained glass memorial window in a major church or cathedral. I would suggest that's notable enough for inclusion? A picture of the National Arboretum memorial might be worthwhile though. My sandbox is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SonofSetanta/sandbox#Infiltration_by_paramilitaries in case you want to look in. With such potentially controversial material it's always better to have at least a second opinion. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Gavin. Re your checking of the links in the "Subversion" section. At the moment I can't find any sources which confirm that "a thousand members resigned", plus one of the CAIN links in that section turned out to be dead. What I can find is a source in Potter which states that by the end of 1975, 171 with suspected dual membership were discharged so, for the moment anyway, I have rewritten that sentence to reflect what I've got. That's in my sandbox of course, that section is far from ready for publishing. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

171 is a lot different than 1,000. Wonder where it came from? Some-one will revert! Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

If a source can be found to corroborate 1,000 then I have no problems with reverting it myself, as I'm sure you don't either? The fact remains that I've scanned Potter and Ryder today and done a Google. I can find nothing to back it up except Potter's statement concerning the 171. I'd be very interested in your comments regarding the revamped section I'm about to publish with the title, "Attitudes to subversive elements within the regiment". I've done my best to create an encyclopaedic section out of a lot of outdated, poorly constructed and POV material. Much of it seemed to have been orphaned by previous edits. Some of the more controversial material is contained within this. See what you think. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I have made a few suggestions. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I have seen them Gavin and will act upon them. Thank you. May I ask you though to keep your suggestions here on the talk page so we have a full collegiate discussion open to all. Comments in my sandbox will likely be deleted as I move on to other stuff. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Billy Hanna

Would anyone know whether UVF Mid-Ulster leader Billy Hanna was expelled from the UDR for UVF activity or remained in the UDR until his murder in 1975?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe Billy Hanna was the sergeant guard commander who was on duty when his UVF comrades raided the arms store at Lurgan TA Centre when the UDR company there was part of 2 UDR based in Armagh. He was discharged from the UDR as a direct result of his collusion with the UVF in this raid. This link gives a little more information http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sdYcw7Zs3W4C&pg=PA554&lpg=PA554&dq=billy+hanna+UVF&source=bl&ots=ONilLIoSxo&sig=lPJ5g_xjHnHLJ0EdVq8ZcjPqtcc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1NLSUc3eMKSw7AbZhICoBQ&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=billy%20hanna%20UVF&f=false

I've noted from various sources that he is sometimes referred to as a captain in the UDR. This isn't the case and I believe the confusion has arisen because there was also a Captain Gordon Hanna who was killed by an under car IED. I will make further enquiries. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Echo Company by Ronnie Gamble ISBN 978-0-9558069-0-2

I am going to introduce this book as a source for the article. I am aware there have been previous objections to its use which have condemned it as "self published". As a result I have researched the book and found it to be held in most Northern Ireland libraries as well as others in GB. Linky: https://opac.librariesni.org.uk/02_Catalogue/02_004_TitleResults.aspx?page=1&searchTerm=Echo+Company%2c+the+history+of+E+Company+5th+Battalion+of+the+Ulst&searchType=1&media=&referrer=02_002_AdvancedSearch.aspx

For those who are unfamiliar with the book: it was commissioned by the Coleraine branch of the Royal British Legion, written by an ex company sergeant major of E Coy, 5 UDR, and it is one of four books he has written, three of which are military histories.

I have been informed that the major objection to its use in the past is that it was published by the UDR Regimental Association. I don't see that as an obstacle as they are an official, government sponsored body and let's face it, who would know more about the UDR than its own regimental association?

The book is also published online at http://ecohcoy.tripod.com/ and I have received permission from the author to use photographs from the site to illustrate this article.

Before using any material from the book I'll let this section lie here for a while and invite comment. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Continued edits

I have greatly slimmed down the "Background" section by removing material which I considered to be over and above what was necessary to describe the events, sympathies and actions leading to formation. I have kept what I consider to be "core information" which is useful to contextualise the removal of the B Specials and raising of the UDR in its place. My reason for doing so was that, in my opinion, the "Background" section was too long and spent too much space outlining political argument and comment, all of which was factual but gave undue weight to the B Specials and the campaign to disband them.

In addition: every time I read a passage I'm finding grammatical errors, repetitious use of the same words, spacing issues and over wordiness, all of which I think are an obstacle to raising the article to A Class within the wiki. I'd really appreciate it if someone else were to share that task with me. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No doubt the article is already in good shape.Just a few tweeks needed here and there.I've noticed the "Uniform" section could do with a few sources. DColt (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Also I think including the former SDLP politician Danny O'Connor in the Catholic recruitment section would be quite informative to readers. DColt (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've done a lot over the last week. Doing my best to keep the balance and remove the undue weight which was there before. If it's to be raised to A Class it needs to be very tight and well reffed. I'll be getting to the "Uniform" section soon.

Thank you for the information on Danny O'Connor. You wouldn't happen to know what rank he held would you? It's important in the sense that there are two categories for "notables" - one for commissioned officers and the other for non-commissioned ranks.

Don't be afraid to get stuck in yourself. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@Gavin. Was there a back page to the application form? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You can see the reverse in the top left of the scan / picture. Also, the applicant would have had to append his / her signature at the bottom of the text to make a legal application, hence I would say there were definitely more questions. (not sure how the wiki email @ thing works. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I see your point re the image. For e-mailing try this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/ SonofSetanta (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've looked around countless sources and even put an ear out but I can't get any confirmation of what rank he was.My gut tells me he was only non commissioned.He was working as a security guard also around that time and everywhere I've seen his UDR membership mentioned no rank was disclosed.For instance when Ken Maginnis is talked about he is always called a UDR Captain. DColt (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything myself but noticed that Danny O'Connor is already referenced here: Category:Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers. I've e-mailed the SDLP and asked the question but don't hold out much of a hope of any reply. Ken McGuinness I know was a major in either 6 or 8 UDR - the Tyrone battalions. SonofSetanta (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Place him in the OR's section unless provern to be an officer. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Can someone place the memorial pictures in a gallery from L to R; it is making a mess of the references. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on it Gavin. I've just put the other two pictures up. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Done - happy now? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If the first UDR soldier died in 1971, how did the first Catholic UDR soldier a year previously? Possibly means the first soldier who died on duty (KIA) as opposed to being killed whilst off-duty? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted - corrected. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Political comment section

I'm currently working on the "Political comment" section at my sandbox - User:SonofSetanta/sandbox#Political_comment. It's particularly pertinent that I get this right as per weight, perspective and as concise as possible. I would really appreciate anyone else mucking in at this stage with comment, suggestion, sources or actual text. Getting this wrong could spoil the entire article. Is the title agreeable to everyone? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ulster banner

This flag was not used offically for most of the UDRs active service and as such souldnt be used. Murry1975 (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I left you a message on your talk page about this, as well as thanking you for your help. The original Government of Northern Ireland was only "prorogued" not abolished, so officially (AFAIK) the Government Flag could still be flown over public buildings etc. The UDR was amalgamated in 1992, way before the Good Friday Agreement finally saw the flag being changed to the Union Flag. That said they were still British Army so I think it's appropriate to have the Union Flag in the infobox and I would ask you very kindly (with bells and sugar) if you could put the Government of NI flag in too? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for the Ulster Banner in the info box. UDR was a regiment of the British Army and allegience was to the monarch represented by the Union Flag.Gavin Lisburn (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think what needs to be taken into consideration is the "UDR Contract" which guaranteed that the regiment would only serve in Northern Ireland, so it wasn't "with the colours" as other line infantry units were. It was a locally raised militia. Therefore I think the flag of the Government of Northern Ireland is pertinent. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's grievously important at the minute. We can always revisit this discussion later. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Another one well spotted

Keep at it Gavin. The more pairs of eyes the better. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Nickname

I have removed the 'nickname = Uncle Dermot's Rangers' as it is without source.Gavin Lisburn (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No gripe. I didn't like it anyway. I don't think "Dad's Army" is suitable either because that was only in the early years. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree.Gavin Lisburn (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Area of Resonsibity (AOR)

I think the correct term is TAOR - Tactical Area of Responsibility. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It certainly is. I just didn't feel the need at the time to write that. I'll change it, if you haven't already. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox badging

Because of difficulties with the copyright people I have had to create a free image which will now identify all the UDR articles until such time as we can establish if the correct badge can be used again. At the moment it's a breach of copyright apparently. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks very like all my images are coming under intense scrutiny at the moment so I've again changed the infobox badge to one which is perhaps not as attractive but in indisputably a free image. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion and vote requested

Another user has objected to the free use image currently employed by me on all the UDR articles. Would everyone with an interest please go to Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_Badge_of_the_Ulster_Defence_Regiment.jpg, join the discussion and vote as per your preference? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The page referred to has been deleted? Has the issue been resolved? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

with regards to this image it was resolved by the use of the image currently shown in the infobox, making the above redundant. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A Class Review

The article requires specific points to be address to pass A Class. They are detailed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ulster Defence Regiment. In spite of everything which is going on surrounding images I would be really pleased if other editors would have a look at the review and see if they can help get the article up to the correct standard. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have started the work recommended by User:AustralianRupert. In making these recommendations he has stressed that many of them are based on his own recommendations and that it would be pertinent to have some discussion about those changes here so if anyone feels I am doing something wrong please step in and either change the content or let me know your views. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: I CAN FIND NO MENTION OF LT ...

2.126.247.98 posted this comment on 16 October 2012 (view all feedback).

I CAN FIND NO MENTION OF LT COLCNEL D H BOWEN MBE COMMANDING 4TH FERMANAGH BATTALION UDR 1973

Any thoughts?

Mo ainm~Talk 10:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I've tried Google, nothing. Nothing in Ryder, Potter or Gamble. I e-mailed the UDR Association but they say they have nothing on Col Bowen although I think they mistook the enquiry for a request for a photograph so I have repeated it. If something is found though it would probably be best to post the answer on the page for 4 UDR as Bowen doesn't seem to be notable beyond the fact that he had command of 4 UDR in 1973.

What's your opinion on this article at the moment? Any suggestions? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Equipment?

Should 'fast boats' not come under 'transport'?Gavin Lisburn (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Now why didn't I think of that? Probably because I'm still fannying about with the image gallery of weapons. I'm on my sandbox now trying to perfect my technique. Would you please do the honours? SonofSetanta (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Done Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Re Ulster Defence Regiment categories

My object in remiving some categories from articles about individual battalions of the UDR is to have the main category Category:Ulster Defence Regiment in the category Category:Militias in Europe (but not Category:Militias as well) rather than having each individual battalion in the category, to the extent that about half of the category content was articles about UDR battalions! I am part-way through this. The same could apply to Category:Military history of Northern Ireland and other categories that the battalion articles are in; put the main category only in some of these categories. Likwise also Category:Defunct Irish regiments of the British Army as the UDR has now been amalgamated out of existence. PS: But does thus mean that every territorial regiment of the British Army should be regarded as “Militia”. Hugo999 (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I see exactly where you're coming from but can I ask: why not the Category:Militias? Unlike in GB where the militias were disbanded in 1908 of the formation of the Territorial Force they actually continued in Northern Ireland under the dual naming convention of "Supplementary Reserve/Militia" until 1953, including the award of the Militia Efficiency Medal. So there's a much recent history of militia in Northern Ireland for a start. Right up to Options for Change you had 4 Royal Irish still using the title "North Irish Militia" and that was during the UDR's history. I wouldn't say that meant we had to treat the TA as milita because they were raised specifically as a reserve to the regular army which means they are regular forces. The UDR was raised through a specific act of parliament which specified they would only be required to serve in Northern Ireland - not with the colours. This type of contract became known as a "Home Service" or "Internal Security" engagement and in fact was duplicated in the formation of the Home Service Force raised in GB in the 1980's. The big difference there being that HSF units had parent regiments from the regular army which the UDR didn't have. So I think the UDR meets all the criteria to be known as a militia, or irregular force. I've seen similar comments by modern authors, even from John Furniss Potter who wrote the regimental history. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW the UDR wasn't amalgamated out of existence. It was amalgamated yes, but the name was kept in the subtitle of the new RIR. There was a big difference there too however because although the RIR kept its 1st Battalion and two TA battalions they were unique in the army that they had 9 "Home Service" battalions as well which were whittled down as Op Banner started to wind up and then finally disbanded completely about 5 years aqo. Leaving the RIR like all other regiments with General Service and TA battalions only. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Re why Category:Militias in Europe not Category:Militias; “because its there” as someone said about Everest; ie if there is a regional category use it. But Category:Militias in Europe etc are not linked to any European military category (although it could be) so all the regions could be upmerged to Category:Militias as serving no purpose. PS: Shall I resume removing categories from the battalion articles now as there is no debate about that? Hugo999 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I would agree - I used the category Category:Militias in Europe because it was there. Is there a British (or Irish) militia category? Do you not think that leaving the Category:Militias on the battalion pages is maybe wiser? After all a reader who comes to a battalion page may not necessarily go to the parent article? Just playing devil's advocate is all. I think you probably know a lot more about categories than I do. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I think having all the UDR Battalion articles and all the American (state) militia articles in the main overall category would lead to a huge category with other articles getting lost. In general articles should not be in both subcategories and the main category. With exceptions; eg films appear for the appropriate year category eg “1990 films” as well as subcategories by country/type etc. But this is as a finding aid to avoid having to look for a 1990 film in several subcategories, and I don’t think that is the case here. NB: No country category for United Kingdom militia (or for many countries). Hugo999 (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to bow to your superior knowledge Hugo. It's nitty gritty like this which will get the article raised to A Class. Thank you very much for taking the time to do the work and discuss it. SonofSetanta (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)