Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment

Guidelines for interaction

1. Please assume good faith, focus on content, not contributors, and observe Wikiquette.
2. Avoid needling, pressing a point, or nitpicking.
3. Don't react. If someone says something that bothers you, resist the temptation to respond in anger.
4. Ask open questions (what..? how..?)
5. Stick to the facts. If called for, make observations based on fact, and in neutral language.
6. Use I-messages rather than you-messages. Here's a brief primer on I-messages [1]
7. Remain civil at all times.

Terms of editing

Participants agree to the following terms of editing:

• I agree that, until further notice, I will not edit articles that the other participants have edited prior to 5 November.
• I further agree to discuss any issues or concerns I have with other participants here.

If all 4 editors taking part in this mediation agree I will agree. BigDunc^Talk 16:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. David Underdown (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Thunderer (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I Agree: --Domer48_'fenian' 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There has been considerable discussion about the letter and the spirit of the agreed-upon terms (see Archive 2 - "Terms of editing & discussion"). The mediators believe that participants are now clear on the intent of the terms, which are all about avoiding unnecessary disputes. There are two key ways to do this: a) Edit elsewhere (i.e., following the Terms of Editing), or b) collaborative editing that follows WP behavioural policies and guidelines (a shorthand version of these policies occurs in the Guidelines for Interaction, above). The combination of these two agreements along with the committment and energy of participants may just turn this dispute around. We shall see. Sunray (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Today there were further violations of the agreement by Thunderer. Fortunately, these were relatively benign — mostly friendly edits to the articles, rather than edit warring. However, they were violations, nevertheless. Would all participants be able to stick to the agreement from here on out? Sunray (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Issues for discussion

1. How editors of the UDR page relate to one another
   1. Groundrules for interaction
   2. Reverts
   3. Consensus
2. How content of the article is determined
   1. Article outline - Are the current contents sufficient or should there be changes?
   2. Subarcticles - Determination of sections needing summary style and the a plan for the development of subarticles.
   3. Sources - What are the groundrules? (Gamble example)
   4. NPOV - How to determine the best balance of views and ensure that there is not undue weight given (e.g., History section)
3. Action plan
   1. Establishing collaborative editing of article
   2. Goals for article class

Issue #2 - Guidelines for content

Moving along. Let's take a look at content issues now. I would like to have an open discussion on agenda under this heading. I see the need for an article outline. Several other content issues have surfaced above. Let's set an agenda of things we want to discuss. Sunray (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Note: This has been done, (see "Issues for discussion," above).

Manual of Style for Military Articles

I'd like Domer and BigDunc to become familiar with this please.

Unit or formation

The opening paragraph (or lead section) should concisely convey:

1. The formal name of the unit, its abbreviation, and its nickname(s).
2. What is the unit's country or allegiance?
3. What service (Air Force, Army, or Navy) was the unit part of?
4. When was it formed?
5. If the unit no longer exists, when was it disbanded or deactivated?
6. In what notable battles, operations, or wars did the unit participate?

The article can be structured along these lines:

1. The unit's history. Why was it formed? Who formed it? Where and how has the unit served in peacetime and war? Who has commanded it?
2. If the unit still exists, where is it now? What higher-level formation is the unit assigned to, if any? What is its current role?
3. The unit's traditions. What mascots does it have? What anniversaries does it celebrate?
4. What gallantry awards (such as the Medal of Honor, Param Vir Chakra, or Victoria Cross) have been awarded to members of the unit? What unit awards (such as battle honours or presidential citations) has the unit received? Thunderer (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also WP:PERFECT is very valid here particularly with regards to neutrality Thunderer (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Article outline

To be honest I consider the outline of the article to be almost complete apart from making minor additions and perhaps another few photographs. I have asked for advice from Milhist on this. At least one political point I have inserted is slightly incorrect and I'd also like to see if we can thin out the allegations of propaganda about the regiment from Republican sources by making a blanket statement which indicates to the reader how and why opposite factions would feel a need to use it as a political tool. Any progress should be made under the supervision of an experienced Milhist editor such as David Underwood in my opinion, in order to raise the standard of the article.Thunderer (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That depends what you mean by "almost complete." I see some problem areas which may even contribute to some of the conflicts between participants. I will elaborate on that further in time. I agree that input from Milhist is important, but if it is to ever be a featured article (and I would suggest that as the ultimate goal), we will need to take wider view. But let's get other agenda items up before we go into that. Sunray (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd take your advice on the problem areas. One of the major issues is that sections have been rewritten time and time again and that has affected the structure and flow of the article. Thunderer (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion there are a number of aspects which the article needs to address if it is to be a good and reliable reference piece. I'll give my suggestions and see if anyone else can add to the list:

• Formation - why was it formed and how was it formed?
• Citizen army - why was this unusual?
• Weaponry & equipment - what did they use, why and how?
• Structure - from command level down to section level, departments, admin - including rank structure and establishment.
• Duties - what did they do and why?
• Women - why did they use women, how did they incorporate them, what did they use them for?
• Effectiveness - how successful were they in the implementation of their duties?
• Training - how were they trained, who trained them, where did they train?
• Incidents - what were they involved in. Did they engage in firefights? Were they any good at it?
• Amalgamation - why were they amalgamated? How were they amalgamated?
• Distinctions - what distinctions did they achieve as units and individual distinctions - and why?
• Post amalgamation - is there an OCA, the unique Aftercare service?
• Political overview - what views did various political parties have on the regiment and why?
• Public image - what views did the public have on them and why?
• Service image - how did the rest of the armed forces and police regard them and why?

Thunderer (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You have put some thought into this and it looks good to me. I would like to read what the others think of it. I Do you mean these as additional sections? If so, will they re-organize or replace the material that is there now. Or is this a new structure for the article? Sunray (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any fixed views on how the sections should be organised. I'd very much like David's input on that. I do think some rewriting is necessary. My own prose tends to be repetitive and sometimes includes the wrong adjectives for this style of reportage. What I would like to see is a cohesive article which flows fluidly from section to section and is interesting to a reader and also plain enough for those who have English as a second language. Thunderer (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that this is a new structure for the whole article, right? Sunray (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No - just suggestions for some of the information which should be included in my opinion to provide the necessary encyclopedic references for someone who wishes to use the article as an accurate and fullsome reference piece.Thunderer (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the article will be three miles long!. Would you be able to take a look to see how this information would be combined with existing sections. Sunray (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The information is already there. I believe it's now a question of refining it and following the guidance of Milhist to ensure it fits with their appraisal of what an A Class (or above) article should be. That could mean removing exisiting sections and creating sub-pages, as has already been done with some lists. Thunderer (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you please answer my question? I asked if what you outlined above would be the new article outline. Despite your responses, I still don't know whether that is your intent. I have some input on the article outline that I want to share with you. Sunray (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have answered your question - in detail. I'm not making any changes to the article outline without guidance from an experienced Milhist editor. I'd be very interested in your input though.Thunderer (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Yes you actually did answer. Sorry. I am proposing that we start working on a draft outline. David is an experienced Milhist editor. You are an article editor with experience in this subject and I have edited a few military articles in my time. We can do a draft outline and then flash it up on the page; ask for input from others (Milhist is not the only project interested) and you've got me interested now. I've worked on plenty of GAs and FAs. So how about you show us how your points above would be integrated into the existing article outline? I'm sure other participants will join in once we get going. Sunray (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe everything I have listed above is already contained within the article with the possible exception of the views of other service and police personnel. The two major areas of concern for me are:

1. My own poor reporting skills mean the article doesn't read as well as it could and I've maybe put too much weight on one subject and not enough on another. I have the reference books however to provide more material to correct that if more experienced editors can guide me.
2. The question of image is the contentious one. D & BD can correct my assumption if it's wrong but I believe, particularly with regard to D that they believe there isn't enough material in the article which shows how the minority community of Northern Ireland viewed the regiment. My personal view is that much of that opinion is warped due to prolonged and constant propaganda by minority political parties, particularly Sinn Fein whose agenda was to discredit Crown Forces where possible leading to any relevant truths being exaggerated, other allegations maliciously invented with the ultimate aim to have the regiment deemed politically unsuited to the campaign, disbanded and the Crown Forces put under pressure by the loss of 9,000 experienced anti-terrorist troops. That this took place is relevant, it's part of the history, but I haven't been able to suggest a way in which it can be presented fairly and honestly.

As a British ex-serviceman and an Ulster Protestant it has to be recognised that my input on #2 could be influenced by my own background and subconcious prejudices so I'd prefer that the solution came from a neutral editor. I had guessed you were interested in Milhist so perhaps you are the man? If you could take opinions from all of us and formulate a section which either compliments or replaces existing sections on the subject? Can I be Sunray Minor - please, pretty please? ;) Thunderer (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL. "Sunray minor." That would relate to a military interpretation of the name. I usually go for the ecological one, but must 'fess that I am aware of the military meaning. For those less aware of military call signs, "Sunray" is the name often assigned to the commander of a unit and "Sunray Minor" is the deputy. I hasten to add that in an egalitarian world, such as WP, it carries no weight whatsoever! Glad that someone on this page is able to joke, though. Sunray (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as I can be something which doesn't involve peeling spuds or polishing brass, swords, spurs or boots I'll be fine. I had enough of all that crap when I was in the regimental nick! ;)Thunderer (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Around here, a "promotion" nets you a mop and pail, so it is a little different Sunray (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now that we've established that I am the senior soldier around here - what are your suggestions regarding my suggestions? Thunderer (talk) 02:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I really don't understand why you made that list. Would you be able to explain that? With respect to your two points:

1. There are lots of folks with editing skills, so I wouldn't worry about that. The fastest way to upgrade an article is to get lots of people with different skills working from an Outline and "To do" list.
2. Interesting comments on the image of the regiment. There have been several comments from participants concerning WP:NPOV and you have talked about WP:UNDUE. With all that in mind, I wonder what participants think of adding a section on how the regiment was viewed by Unionists and Nationalists. In fact, that might be a great way to get into a more collaborative mode.

My own preliminary reaction to the article is that it needs some tightening up. Two things struck me right off the mark:

• The first sentence says that UDR "was a regiment." So I looked for information about it being disbanded, and was left up in the air. There was a proposal, but I could find no mention about the final disposition.
• There is are sections for "Male personnel" and "Female personnel." The section on women is appropriate as the Greenfinches were unique. However, the section of "Male personnel" is problematic. There are a few men mentioned, mostly from "E" Company. This begs the question of inclusion. If you cover one, you must cover all. With several companies and hundreds of men... you see the problem.

I haven't had time to read through the article completely, but it looks like there will be a need for some major editing and pruning. Sunray (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuation

1. I made the list so you and the others could see what I consider to be essential points to be carried in the article.
2. I would be delighted to see others working towards getting the article tightened up and going up the validity scale.
3. I've tried to have a section such as you've mentioned in the past to isolate all the political views together but thus far I haven't been able to convince others that these views should be restricted to one area and not pervade the article.
4. The UDR WAS a regiment that is correct. It was amalgamated with the Royal Irish Rangers in 1992 to form the Royal Irish Regiment - 3 battalions of General Service Infantry and 8 battalions of Home Service Infantry (Home Service being the name given to the UDR personnel whose contract only required them to serve in Northern Ireland). The regiment was never disbanded but the Home Service battalions were in 2007 when it was decided they were no longer needed. The rest of the RIR was reduced to one GS battalion and one Territorial battalion.
5. with the "male personnel section I am trying to illustrate the different types of men who joined, from professional soldiers to farmers. Unfortunately the information and photgraphs is scant at the moment as, by the very nature of the conflict, it was necessary to hide the faces of the men in most pictures. I hope more will be forthcoming.
6. I would be very interested in tightening up the article and pruning it, especially if we can convince the other major participants what exactly is needed - that includes me (I).Thunderer (talk) 09:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from the inside cover of Chris Ryder's UDR book:

But the UDR is also the army's most controversial regiment. Although at the outset one in five members was drawn from the Catholic community, terrorisation and murder of Catholic members by the IRA and frustration at the Regiment's lack of impartiality have turned it into an overwhelmingly Protestant force. Catholic confidence in the Regiment has been further undermined by repeated instances of UDR soldiers taking the law into their own hands and becoming involved in crime and Loyalist terrorism. Protestants, however, afraid that the British government might give in to IRA intimidation and abandon the Protestant community to an uncertain fate in a united Ireland, regard the UDR as their last line of defence. This book examines the history of the UDR, its role as a peace-keeping force in Northern Ireland and the unique courage of its members, who serve their community to fight terrorism despite the constant risks involved. It also discusses the events in which members have brought disgrace on the Regiment and concludes that given the controversy which surrounds it, the weight of public opinion against it and the aim for troops to be taken off the streets of Northern Ireland, the Ulster Defence Regiment should be disbanded and its duties taken over by an expanded Royal Ulster Constabulary.

This shows how controversial this regiment was and also shows that negative content has to be included in the main article. As it stands the article is in breach of NPOV due to the POV fork that was created when content was moved from the article, without discussion, and in doing so removed almost all negative information from the main article. BigDunc^Talk 20:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Ryder. The controversy isn't the regiment itself. It's the actual Irish situation which creates controversy and caused the USC to be disbanded and the UDR formed. It's a political and internal security situation. It is certainly to be noted that the regiment was raised in these controversial circumstances and that it's very existence was controversial but there was nothing actually controversial, although plenty unique, with the regiment itself and it should have a simple regimental history. If you want controversy, see the history of the Inns of Court Regiment - I mean the real history, not the wiki entry, because nobody has bothered to write that one up yet - maybe one for me in the future.Thunderer (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be prepared to change many of the quotes to "Instrument of Peace" by Chris Ryder but that will be done over time.The Thunderer (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Chris Ryder Book says that the incidence of crime among UDR members is greater than the population as a whole. Why was that not included in the article? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I did change quite a few quotes to reduce dependancy on Potter. I was also going to change more. I did actally include the UDR crimes figures with two reports. One which showed the % higher than the national average and then a further study which showed it was under the national average for the age groups who served. Those are still there on one of the pages. Thunderer (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The information on the article is WP:SYN, and the further study was challanged and the information was removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why this correctly referenced information was removed. The authors are both respected academics, authors and award winging journalists. They meet our policies on WP:V and WP:RS so what is the objection. The information is factual and can be supported by an additional number of sources.

"The regiment was formed in 1970 after recommendations from the Hunt Report (1969),[6] which suggested disbanding the part time "B Specials" an all Protestant police force, membership of which heavily overlapped with the Orange Order,[7][8] and seen by Catholics as the strong arm of the "Protestant ascendancy".[9][10] Nationalists had been faced by official state forces that regarded them as hostile, and being attacked by irregular Protestant mobs, while the RUC and B Specials turned a blind eye, or were active participants.[11][12][13][14][15] They were to be replaced according to Hunt, with a force that would be "impartial in every sense and remove the responsibility of military style operations from the police force."[6]" --Domer48_'fenian' 22:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is what's wrong with it: Nationalists had been faced by official state forces that regarded them as hostile, and being attacked by irregular Protestant mobs, while the RUC and B Specials turned a blind eye, or were active participants. This in itself is controversial and POV. For a start it refers to Nationalists. The early troubles which arose from marches by protest groups were not in themselves Nationalist marches. It can be argued that Nationalist and even Republican influences were behind it but that is according to the POV of whatever you read. The same goes for statements of 'state forces being hostile. The only state forces involved were the police, not even the special police (until much later and then only on a small number of occasions). This type of argument is warranted on dissertations about how and why the Troubles started and on the varying and different opinions of the various factions involved, bearing in mind that the Civil Rights Movement and student groupings contained more than a fair sprinkling of Protestants. The very answering of your question takes some careful time and consideration and I'd like you to consider that to explain this argument on an article about a regiment of infantry would detract from the concept of what the wiki is about. The article concerns the UDR, not the actual Troubles. It is pertinent to mention the lead up to the Hunt Report and the other reports. It's also pertinent to examine the fact that the minority population were less trustful at working class level of the police but only on a small scale because if you put in too much weight then you have to explain to the reader all of the reasons why this was; the fact that the Catholic establishment had consistently refused to take part in the mechanisms of the state; the fact that the Catholic establishment actively promoted resistance against the state; the fact that the Irish Govermnent harboured sentiments which condoned civil disturbance in the North in the hope of unseating the Stormont Administration and forcing a United Ireland; the fact that the IRA (later called the Official IRA) and the Wolfe Tone Societies were the promoters of the Civil Rights movement to foment civil disturbance; the fact that Sinn Fein and other Republican organisations kept up a campaign of propaganda against the Northern State which included the accusation that Northern Ireland wasn't a voluntary cecedence from the South but rather an occupation of Irish soil by the British and that vilification of the police (in particular) formed an agressive part of that propaganda to the point where many of the minority believed it and still do.

Now if you want the article to be consumed by that sort of argument then we do have a problem (as we know we have) because the guidelines for this type of article urge us to keep it as concise as possible and stick to the subject matter, albeit with a nominal amount of background. With this type of argument though the background, which will keep repeating itself throughout the article, starts to become the main subject. We should be concentrating on the Ulster Defence Regiment - not the socio-political influences which led to its raising and were a constant source of political accusation throughout its existence.

If you want to have an article which deals with this type of socio-political argument it should be started and could be linked to the UDR page as a means of further reading.

That is what I believe is wrong with the way the article has been approached. Thunderer (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possibly to provide references which support your opinion? The references I've used are respected academics, authors and award winging journalists. While your views on the conflict are important, could we keep the discussion on track and address the issue I raised. What is the problem with the sources used, as they reflect the reality that existed and not just the views of a section of socity. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything we need to know is in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. However these sources don't reflect the reality. They reflect an author's opinion and the language used is not correct for the style of reportage needed. To my mind it's almost like Marxist rhetoric, no offence. The reality was quite different in fact as official reports of the time bear out.Thunderer (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion Thunderer is irrelevant we deal with verifiable and reliably sourced content. BigDunc^Talk 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There's that "YOU" word again Dunc. I think we all need to adopt a less confrontational attitude towards this. I am firmly of the belief that it will get us further and faster. Thunderer (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well stop pushing your opinion. BigDunc^Talk 11:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But that works both ways Dunc. I believe my opinion is a valid interpretation of the guidleines laid down in the Manual of Style. I believe that overloading the article with opinions about the Northern Ireland Troubles isn't the way forward. I believe it is an article about a military regiment which needs to be treated as such and, while noting controversial points, doesn't put any undue weight on them. I believe that sort of political commentary belongs elsewhere. (I've said "I believe" so many times I feel like bursting into song but I'm sure you both get my drift?).Thunderer (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer while your intitled to your opinion "these sources don't reflect the reality" they are in fact both WP:V and WP:RS. That they are factually correct and not simply based on their own opinion. Now please place any contradicting information here, as our opinions and views are not relevant. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to place contradicting information here. I don't want to see this discussion or the article becoming over-ridden by political argument which shouldn't be on a military piece. Thunderer (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer the only contradicting information that has been provided to date is an opinion, were as I have provided quite a number of sources from academics, authors and award winging journalists.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But that's my point Domer. What does that information tell us about the Ulster Defence Regiment?Thunderer (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It might explain why any and all negative information keeps getting removed. The removal is not based on any policy, simply the opinion of an editor. The only question is, are these sources WP:V and WP:RS, if yes, are they relevent to the subject matter, obviously they are. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer, I'm not opposed to having the historical truths in the article. I just think the way it's being approached at the moment gives too much weight to the Nationalist point of view and that too much of the propaganda put out is being seen as truth. I don't think we need that type of speculation or spin in the article. To be honest, and I'll reply to David separately, I think we should leave the dissemination of these facts to him. Provide him with the information and allow him to decide what is relevent to this article. Does that sound reasonable? Thunderer (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer I think you are being naive in thinking that the history and role of the UDR can be separated from the politics. The disbandment of the USC and raising of the UDR was a political act. The regiment's raison d'etre was the Troubles, without them it would not have existed in anything like the same form, probably there would have been TA units just as in the rest of the United Kingdom. To be blunt, you might just about get through Good Article skirting the issue, since GA is very much dependent on a single reviewer, and if you happened to get one who didn't know much about the situation you might get away with it. However, if you went for A-class within MILHIST, I for one would oppose its promotion without considerably more attention to all political views, and I suspect that a number of other project members (some of them former/current serving personnel, just like yourself) would do the same. There are problems with some of the suggestions currently on the table - the Hunt Report specifically rejected some of the more lurid allegations against the USC, particularly about B-Specials standing by and allowing attacks on Catholics to proceed - the offical line being that they were simply inadequately trained in public order issues, and sometimes inadquately supervised by full-time RUC officers. You've been happy to describe me as an experienced MILHIST editor, and this is me trying to get that experience across. It would be nice if you could also get my name rigth Underdown, not Underwood, and please try to hold back on the barrackroom language. We all need to carefully examine how our responses to others might be percieved by others, we may not intend to be inflammatory, but taking a step back, and not responding to everything immediately may help everyone to make a breakthrough. David Underdown (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

David, first of all let me apologise for consistently getting your name wrong. I won't do it again. I also think you're picking up my views incorrectly and that's probably my fault for not expressing them properly. I'm not against having a political overview, what I am against is having half truths or propaganda from the Nationalist side and there is much of it. It's been pushed for so long that many people believe the agenda to be fact which in many cases it isn't, so I'm pushing for a more clinical analysis rather than taking opinions from authors, from either viewpoint, whose agenda is pro or anti - UDR. I would prefere that you, as a neutral editor, assumed command of this particular agenda and , possibly along with others, create or edit a section which covers this controversial subject adequately but without and slant. Would you agree? Domer and Dunc would you agree to this?

As to barrack room language, to be honest I haven't been using any ;). What you've seen is just a grumpy old fecker being sarcastic ;) Thunderer (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No I wouldn't agree David is part of this mediation and is not an outsider (so to speak). Also I see a lot of respected journalists and authors being portrayed as pushing nationalist propoganda. Gamble and Potter anyone, the bastions of neutrality. BigDunc^Talk 14:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

David is from Milhist Dunc and only here to help. He didn't require mediation and in fact should be viewed as a mediator. No-one is saying that Gamble and Potter are neutral sources either. Potter in particular though, basing his book as he does largely from official records, is an authority on the subject - if very 3 UDR in approach. Gamble is a very useful source for the inner workings of the regiment and deals with 5 UDR, plus as a member of the UDR Association he is able to interact with Home Headquarters and perhaps supply information from other battalions which, as far as I can see, is badly needed. Thunderer (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sections removed

the lead is just an interesting and concise summary Domer. It doesn't have to contain everything but it does note the attempt at cross-community membership. When Milhist suggested breaking sections out into other pages I took out the ones which were lists and the ones which contained most controversy as I see them as the ones which will take up most space. To examine the subject matter of these sections in more detail would add too much weight in the article about controversial issues rather than concentrating on the regiment itself but that doesn't mean I don't want the controversial aspects explored and explained. Of course I do. My intention all along though has been to present a good clinical article on the UDR with offshoots for other pages, using the Irish Guards page as a model. I think the Recruitment page could probably do with its own lead in which gives more background. also we have a separate page on which to examine the issues of the B Specials more closely but by the same token I don't think that should become a separate history for them, it should be used as a complement to the UDR site - not the USC site. Thunderer (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that Thunderer, so I've move those comments and opinions to Issue #2 - Guidelines for content section. Whilst Milhist suggested breaking sections out into other pages, no discussion took place on the Article Talk Page or with the other Editors on the Article. The point you make is an interesting one “I took out the ones which were lists and the ones which contained most controversy as I see them” which I would suggest was a major part of the problem. No consideration was taken of what other the Editors thought, no discussion had, and no opinions were sought. Milhist never even suggested which ones should be moved. I would suggest that by removing all the sections “I took out the ones which …contained most controversy as I see them” the balance and neutrality of the article was and still is damaged. Neutral point of view is one of our corner stones, and an article that has been sterilised of all negative content is not in keeping with our policies. I would suggest that this discussion be continued in the above mentioned section, and will place our posts be placed there? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an attempt on my part to sterilise the article. Reference is still made as regards the controversy but in order for those sections to be expanded without putting undue weight into the main article I made the decision under consultation to move some, but not all, of the controversial sections to their own pages. At the talk page I wanted to discuss the section on allegations of propaganda by Sinn Fein, where I have cited An Phoblacht as a reference. I feel this section could be better worded as well as exapanded and could benefit from a page on its own but that is a matter for discussion becaise I felt at the time if I moved all of the controversial items out then I would appear gulity of trying to sanitise the article - which I promise you I'm not. Thunderer (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly provide a diff were this "consultation to move some, but not all, of the controversial sections" took place? I've indicated above that no discussion took place and it should be clarified. I agree with your comment "I made the decision" above, because as I've suggested no one else was consulted or asked for an opinion. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus building excerise

• Proposed text for the article:

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

Reasons to Support

• All of the information is correctly sourced and referenced. Nationalist concerns are not mentioned, only that that they had some. These concerns were very real, and will give context and background to their issues with the UDR on recruitment.--Domer48_'fenian' 14:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Reasons to reject

Suggested amendments

1.Source 1 and 11 don't actually seem to contain the the things they are supposed to reference, I think the url you intended was http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/hunt.htm 2.As general background, I'm not sure we actually gain anything by mentioning the Orange Order here, it simply raises more questions (as an aside, was the proportion of membership higher amongst B-Specials than amongst the general Protestant population?) 3.The Scarman Report states

3.2 Undoubtedly mistakes were made and certain individual officers acted wrongly on occasions. But the general case of a partisan force co-operating with Protestant mobs to attack Catholic people is devoid of substance, and we reject it utterly.

So we must be careful not to seem to repeat this allegation without balance. Equally Scarman does point out specific occassions on which the RUC and USC response was inadequate and did not prevent Protestants attacking Catholics. 4.As I commented on the article talk page (and quoted a comment that had been made during a GA review of one of "my" articles). Sometimes sourcing a short sentence with a host of sources, rather than strengthening your case, may actually subtly undermine it by the appearance of desparation. 5.I think I also commented that it might be better simply to quote more fully from the Scarman report

In 1969 the USC contained no Catholics[14] but was a force drawn from the Protestant section of the community. Totally distrusted by the Catholics, who saw them as the strong arm of the Protestant ascendancy, they could not show themselves in a Catholic area without heightening tension. Moreover they were neither trained nor equipped for riot control duty.

David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments on excercise

Not outright rejection, but I wonder if it might be better to return to this area later, rather than start out with one of the areas which has already proved difficult to resolve. Bringing up precisely the same example time and time again doesn't seem to me to be a particularly helpful way of proceeding. David Underdown (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

David this is just an example, that you consider it difficult may be a positive. On this excercise we will deal with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. It will require calm discussion and problem solving skills. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't have any objections to dealing with it now. This gets right to the nub of the matter and if we can sort this out objectively I believe we can then move on to other things and other articles. Good idea of yours Domer. Thunderer (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Thunderer for putting forward a rational in the above discussion. Could it now be possible to provide referenced sources to support the rational you provided. For example according too xyz, when the "state forces" opposed violence in the streets in 1968/9/70 it wasn't against Nationalists per se it was against protest groups like the Civil Rights Movement who were not Nationalist in any sense and even contained many Protestants who were seeking better conditions, and this is supported by abcd. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've said above Domer, I don't want to get into that. I'd much prefer that someone else commented on the opinions and views put forward and took the decision to write the piece, under discussion with us so that all views can be put forward.Thunderer (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My rationale would be to forget Nationalism. That's a political entity and state of mind. Concentrate on the minority community - Catholics. When the "state forces" opposed violence in the streets in 1968/9/70 it wasn't against Nationalists per se it was against protest groups like the Civil Rights Movement who were not Nationalist in any sense and even contained many Protestants who were seeking better conditions. Ok there was a Nationalist, even Republican agenda behind that and of course that should be included but any article which includes the statement "Nationalists were faced with hostile Crown Forces" would be seen immediately as POV pushing. Thunderer (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer, even the Scarman report indicates that police and army believed (incorrectly) that they were dealing with IRA inspired violence, and to some extent reacted accordingly, and did believe the crowds to have hostile intent. David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some truths here but also some innacuracies.

1. The violence was IRA inspired. The Civil Rights Movement was under the direction of the IRA with several IRA members being on the management committee. It is universally accepted now and admitted by the IRA that the CRM was formed to "foment civil disturbance in the Northern statelet".
2. The minority population were actively dicoruaged by church and political leaders from joining the police or specials although Doherty is emphatic that there were some Catholics in the specials. There is a recorded percentage for those in the police.
3. Membership of the Orange Order was almost universal amongst the Protestant working classes.
4. There's no doubt that the allegations of the police and specials co-operating with mobs is propaganda.
5. The assertion that the specials were the "strong arm of the ascendancy" is propaganda although in my opinion there is some truth in it. It's more to do with the successes of the specials against the IRA since 1920 however.
6. Specials were not supposed to patrol Catholic areas except in times of great emergency when they were deployed to protect Catholic property, in both Catholic and Protestant areas. It is true that they were not trained in crowd control. In Belfast they patrolled quiet areas to release police for crowd control. In the rural areas they operated as a paramilitary gendarmerie or milita, setting up roadblocks, denying access to areas for terrorists, guarding key installations etc.

Those are truths. Many of which, as you've correctly noted, are mentioned in Scarman, Hunt and Cameron. The propaganda issue is the main one we need to be careful of in my opinion. It's too easy to repeat rhetoric as accepted fact because it's been repetitiously alleged for 50 or more years.Thunderer (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again Thunderer for your views and opinions, could you possibly add some references to your contrabution. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I could Domer but to do so would take the argument away from the subject matter of the Ulster Defence Regiment and into territory which I feel isn't relevant. I feel that the deployment of the police 1968-1970 is a matter for insertion on the RUC and USC articles. Yes a brief background on Hunt would be necessary to show why the UDR was raised but as they were not involved in the 1968-1970 civil disturbances I don't feel there should be much info on it. I certainly don't feel there should be any emphasis on anti-Catholic or anti-Nationalist policing because the UDR were not involved in policing at all.Thunderer (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer on the section titled "Reasons to reject" could you please confine yourself to policy based reasons such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Of course if there is any other policy based reason please add it, thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about! I am impressed with the way participants have taken on some difficult issues and worked on them. Neither mediator had to intervene once, which is a milestone. What I like about this, is that while you still, obviously, have issues with each other, you are working out a process for dealing with them. Brilliant! Sunray (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If Thunderer can provide some reliable and verifiable sources for his claims above then maybe we can get somewhere. Domer has provided plenty of sources for what he wants added so Thunderer could you now provide sources for your counter claims. BigDunc^Talk 20:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out in my suggested ammendment below, there is actually an error in your referencing. For source 1/11 you've given the url for the "Subversion in the UDR" report, not the Hunt Report. In addition, WP:CITE says you should give full information for websites, i.e. a title, publisher, date etc., rather than just bare urls. David Underdown (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You've still not changed the url for the first source?? Since the Hunt and Scarman reports are hosted copies of (extracts) from the original HMSO published documents, I'd tend to recognise them as teh original publisher, and probably also include Hunt Report in teh link title, and also credit CAIN seeing as there is an article on it. The ref to the Scarman report needs similar amendments. I assume you're still thinking about my othersuggestions below? David Underdown (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you David for the considered comments on the “Suggested amendments” section. I will addresse the Cain references. On the Orange Order, I consider it to be very important, based on a number of very salient considerations. I base this on my reading among other publications “Northern Ireland: 1921 / 2001 Political Forces and Social Classes,” by Paul Bew, Peter Gibbon and Henry Patterson, Serif (London 2002) ISBN 1 897959 38 9. As it is currently presented, it simply mentions the Order and leaves it at that. There is no need to elaborate but if feel it needs to be expanded to explain the relevance I can do so?

To answer your question, while a large number of Specials were members of the Order; to bolster recruitment the Lodges were actively targeted. On the Scarman Report, balance is important as is WP:WEIGHT. I would use Widgery as an example, when I suggest that third party sources are preferable. On the point about the number of sources use for a particular sentence, I would offer an alternative perspective. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and should be seen as such. They defiantly should not been seen as desperation.

Again on Scarman, “Totally distrusted by the Catholics, who saw them as the strong arm of the Protestant ascendancy” dose that really sum up Nationalist fears? I hope my comments help, and welcome additional views. David thank you also for using sources as the basis of reply it really helps. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I see this word "Nationalist" creeping in again. I don't feel it's relevant. The 1968-1970 disturbances were caused by Civil Rights Protests which had nothing to do with Nationalism. I certainly feel the distortion between Catholics and Nationlists isn't needed here, it portrays all Catholics as Nationalist and that wasn't true then and isn't true today. Thunderer (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Moloney, Dillon, Bowyer Bell and Tim Pat Coogan use the term now they are respected authors. Can we have a source that says different to what they are claiming instead of opinion. BigDunc^Talk 12:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need a source to tell us that not all Catholics are Nationalists? Isn't that a well known fact? Thunderer (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationalists had been faced by official state forces that regarded them as hostile,... do you dispute this statement and if so why? BigDunc^Talk 12:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I dispute the statement because:

1. It was a mixture of Protestants and Catholics who were faced with the police - not state forces.
2. Not all the Protestants and Catholics in these protest marches were Nationalist.
3. The police and USC were deployed to protect Catholic property, both residential and business.

The inference in the statement is that the "state forces" i.e. the police, were hostile towards "Nationalists" but how could they tell the difference in a protest march who was Nationalist and who was simply Protestant or Catholic and if they were protecting Catholic property, some of which may have been owned by Nationalists, how does that make the police or USC "hostile" towards Catholics or Nationalists? Thunderer (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What protest march? The statement doesn't refer to the civil rights marches it refers to the feeling of the nationalist community. BigDunc^Talk 12:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems you're misreading it Thunderer, or at least not reading it in the same way as me. To me it's saying that the security forces believed that members of the crowds they were facing had hostile intent toward them, not that the security forces were per se hostile to those they were facing. The hostile feelings aren't necessarily reciprocated, though obviously the commanders of the forces would need to bear that aspect in mind when planning and carrying out operations. David Underdown (talk) 13:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem then. There were no Nationalist confrontations per se 1968-1970. The confrontations were between Catholic and Protestants, the police/USC and Catholics and the police/USC against Protestants. (more USC against Protestants). There may have been Nationalist inspiration, particularly in Derry but the actions there, such as the "Battle of the Bogside" were most definitely Catholic -v- police and I don't think specials were used. (but could have been in reserve). Ergo it's not correct to assert that all of these people were Nationalist. It might interest you to know that I had many Catholic playmates and friends in Northern Ireland and still have. Very few of those are actually Nationalist. I also served in the British Army with many Catholics from North and South of Ireland. Very few of those were Nationalist, although strangely some were, and still are. Thunderer (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)David, thank you for your observations. My issue is a fairly simple one. If it is accepted that all of the people who were in confrontation with the police and USC were "Nationalist" it implies that all of these people were in these disturbances with the objective of attaining a United Ireland. That isn't the case. While there was a Nationalist influence for sure, and a Republican one, it is most important to note the differences between the terminology. Most of the people involved in the confrontations were there because they were campaigning for better Civil Rights. It is very true that the section of the community most affected was the Catholic working class minority, but not all of these (by a long shot) were Nationalist. In fact, given the poor living conditions for the working classes in the Republic of Ireland at the time, most would have preferred to live in Northern Ireland. Plus, Nationalist doesn't equal Catholic. Many Protestants are Nationalists. So I would suggest staying well away from the contentious term "Nationalist" and stick to the more correct "Catholic". Thunderer (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No were dose it mention or imply anything about the civil rights march. This is about how the UDR was precived by the nationalist community based on their experiance of the B Secials. Now again, this discussion is a fact based discussion based on sourced text from referenced material. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Are we talking about the same thing here I asked about this sentence Nationalists had been faced by official state forces that regarded them as hostile... it doesn't mention Catholics, Protestants or marchers. Thunderer you have a dislike for Nationalists (the word not the people) so in the context of this sentence do you agree or disagree with what the referenced sources are saying and if you disagree can you give a counter arguement with sources and not just opinion thanks. BigDunc^Talk 14:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes Domer, but the 1968-170 confrontations were all as a result of protest marches which then degenerated into sporadic civil disturbance. It wasn't Nationalists against the police - it was Catholics. The discussion is certainly about how the formation of the UDR was viewed by Catholics and their community leaders. The views of ordinary Catholics would be different to those of a Nationalist. Nationalists, by their very name, would be naturally opposed to anything organised by what they perceived as the artificial state of Northern Ireland.Thunderer (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunc I do not have a dislike for Nationalists. What I'm saying is that not all Catholics were Nationalist and that the civil disturbances of 1968-1970 were by ordinary working class people who did not aspire to Nationalism. There is a tendancy in the political side of the Republican movement to try and group all Catholics into the Nationalist ideal but it isn't correct. "Nationalist politicians" is a fair term when applied to the SDLP but the NILP was not Nationalist. So when referring to the ordinary man on the street we need to avoid terms such as Nationalist or Loyalist, because this applies to the Proddies too. I'm a Proddie but I'm not a Loyalist (in that sense of the word) and I'd be very offended if anyone suggested I was.Thunderer (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a source which states counters what is being said and not opinion. BigDunc^Talk 14:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A source has already been supplied - Scarman.Thunderer (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So could you show me where in Scarman that it states that official state forces didn't regard them as hostile and that can be added. BigDunc^Talk 14:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes here under "Suggested Amendments". The text from Scarman says: 3.2 Undoubtedly mistakes were made and certain individual officers acted wrongly on occasions. But the general case of a partisan force co-operating with Protestant mobs to attack Catholic people is devoid of substance, and we reject it utterly.

Note that Scarman uses "Catholic" not "Nationalist".Thunderer (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So Scarman doesn't say that the nationalist community were regarded as hostile but states that he found no evidence to suggest that they co-operated with Protestant mobs. Completly different I would say. BigDunc^Talk 14:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

He found no evidence that the police or USC co-operated with Protestant mobs. This is also contained in Doherty. In fact the general concensus from Scarman, Hunt and Cameron is that the understrength RUC coped very well but that organised violence as part of a conspiracy by the Stickies put them under a pressure they couldn't cope with which is why the USC was drafted in as a reserve during the Battle of the Bogside, but were never used because Westminster allowed the army to be sent in. The various recommendations made by all three were to try and prevent the deployment mistakes, increase the number of Catholics involved in internal state security and to remove the possibility of crowd control from the "gendarmerie" reserve, which was why the UDR was never allowed to deliberately become involved in crowd situations. What could happen when a untrained unit like this DID get dragged into a crowd or mob situation is amply illustrated in Armagh when a 2 UDR patrol became surrounded by a mob in the city centre. One of the lads pulled a rifle, perhaps trying to take it from the soldier and it went off, killing the young lad outright (as such a powerful weapon is bound to do). The soldier should never have had the rifle cocked and then it would never have gone off but he obviously panicked, possibly fearing for his own safety, and cocked the rifle turning it into an indiscriminate and unsafe danger - he could just as easily have killed one of the other soldiers in the patrol.

In this instance I think if we stick to Scarman then we can't ever be accused of POV. For that reason though I find the use of the Scarman quotes with regards to the UDR to be unneccessary. It's enough to inform the reader that the UDR was a new beginning and intended to be a suitable replacement for an outdated, ill equipped force os special constables which would be more readily accepted by Catholics who might join in good numbers as a result. I also think it would be acceptable to find a quote which showed that Protestants, especially Unionists and Loyalists were opposed to the new force because they wanted to keep the USC and keep it Protestant only to deny Catholics any input into the state because they didn't trust Catholics any more than Catholics trusted the existing police services. Thunderer (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, this section under discussion has nothing to do with marches or civil rights so can we please drop it. Thunderer while your opinions and views are intresting, would it be possible to attribute your observations to actual sources please. Now I will get a source which says Unionists were not happy about the disbandment of the USC. That they rioted for two days and killed the first policeman of the "Troubles" is probably not what your looking for I'd imagin? --Domer48_'fenian' 15:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary Domer this has everything to do with Civil Rights marches because we're trying to ascertain the correct information to put in the lead about why the UDR was formed. We can all clearly see now that it had nothing to do with Nationalist clashes with the police - it was Catholic and Civil Rights marchers who the confrontations were with. I haven't put my own views or opinions in, I've been sticking to cold, clinical, historical fact. A source showing Unionist displeasure with the disbandment of the USC or the inclusion of Catholics in the UDR would be excellent - that's the sort of information we really need. As for Unionists killing the first policeman, I think we'll find that the same constraints apply. It was Protestants who killed the first policeman, whether or not they were Unionists or Loyalists is a matter of conjecture although my guess is that the shot would have been fired by a Protestant terrorist who classed himself as a Loyalist and belonged to one of the extremist groups, probably the UVF in those days, but that's an historical fact although I don't think it's relevant here. What IS relevant are the views and perspectives of both communities in Northern Ireland, political views from all parties (obviously including the Nationalists) and good hard facts which can't be considered POV by any Catholics, Protestants, Nationalists, Loyalists, Republicans, ex UDR soldiers, policemen (whether regular, reserve or special) and which, having agreed upon we can continually monitor to ensure that no editor who DOES have a POV from either side can contrive to slant towards one political or community viewpoint or another. That's what I'm looking for - cold historical facts which don't attempt to colour the article with Nationalist or Unionist assertions unless they are obviously solid facts. Thunderer (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationalists had been faced by official state forces that regarded them as hostile,.. were have you disputed this with cold, clinical, historical fact. I can see lots of opinion but not a source which disputes this statement. BigDunc^Talk 16:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Scarman. Catholics, not Nationalists.Thunderer (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We are not discussing what Catholic feeling was but Nationalist and it is backed up with sources. The Scarman ref you used is nothing to do with the question in hand. BigDunc^Talk 16:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is the issue which is at hand. There were no Nationalist confrontations with the police or USC. Simple as that. Nationalism is a political term. There is no such thing as a Nationalist community in Northern Ireland, depsite assertions by political parties to the contrary. There is a Catholic community, some of whom are Nationalist. Anything else would be pure POV pushing, an attempt to have wordwide readers believe that all Catholics in Northern Ireland are Nationalist.Thunderer (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you source these statements are are they opinion? BigDunc^Talk 16:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well yes of course I can source them, otherwise I wouldn't venture to speculate on them. It's certainly not my opinion because if it were I would absolutely and categorically say so. The fastest way to provide verification for it would be to examine the article on Irish Nationalism which is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland project, although I do have the Richard English study on Nationalism here and could probably quote something which would suffice.Thunderer (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) So can we see sources for your claims that

• There were no Nationalist confrontations with the police or USC.
• There is no such thing as a Nationalist community in Northern Ireland.

And we don't refrence other wikipedia articles.BigDunc^Talk 16:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunc you know me, I don't accede to demands. As for not using the wiki as a source of reference; the article contains enough references itself and if it's good enough to be on the wiki and part of that project then it should suffice for answers. To be honest though I think we've taken this as far as we can without intervention by one of the mediators and I suggest we wait until they review this dialogue and give an overview. Thunderer (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit break

This discussion is certainly civil enough. However, because there are strong differences of opinion, we should probably refocus the discussion to one of hard evidence. How about we begin to write a section on this? Everything that is not self-evident would then have to be sourced. I think that the benefits would be significant. With the vetting from various perspectives, we could certainly produce a neutral and informative piece. Would you be willing to work on that? Sunray (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The section has be written above by Domer with hard evidence. Plenty of verifiable and reliable sources and I have asked for editors to put any counter arguements here of course with hard evidence and not just opinion. BigDunc^Talk 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have placed what I consider to be a summary of the issues of concern, and suggest we direct our focus on them. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary of discussion

There are four issues to come out of the discussion on the proposed text.

• The CAIN reference raised by David.
• Mention of the Orange Order.

• Unionist reaction to the disbandment of the Specials and views of the UDR. Thunderer suggests we include information on this.

• Scarman: This raises a number of questions, were, when and how to use it.

Comments on summary

What I would suggest is that we deal with fixing the References, the Order and Unionist reaction first and then deal with Scarman. Views and comments are welcome. The proposed text is simply a summary as to the background history of the UDR. It attempts to explain Nationalist reservations of the new force. A major part being the past actions of the B Specials, and the fact that the majority of the new members of the UDR were ex-members of the Specials.

David if it is at all possible could you reference the first one of the CAIN references, so I understand exactly what the format is and I will then repeat the process.

There is a difference of opinion on including the Orange Order, with David suggesting it be removed, while I suggest it be retained. There are a number of options and editors could suggest more:

1. Remove it and not mention it?
2. Retain it and expanded and address its relevance?
3. Leave it as it is?

Thats my take on things to date, comments on the summary are welcome, and suggestions on addressing the issues. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Orange Order issue is much more relevant to the USC, not the UDR. I am totally opposed to any suggestion that the views of ordinary Catholics were Nationalist but the views of Catholics should be noted and the reaction of Nationalist politicians. The past actions of B Specials don't have any relevance here either and would be much better discussed at the USC talk page. The lead should have a brief summary of Hunt and mention, as it does, that the UDR replaced the B Specials. Thunderer (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As you, yourself have said, we need to ensure proper weight is given to the things we are describing in the article. It is not as important whether we think Catholics in Northern Ireland were/are nationalists. That is up to the sources. Nevertheless, your statement that the views of Catholics and Nationalist politicians should be noted seems apt. Sunray (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It would appear from both David’s and Thunderers observations that option 2 would command the most support. That mentioning the Orange Order requires additional information to make its inclusion relevant. I will put something together which will be brief and succinct. While Catholic and Nationalists are mentioned, the addition of “a view shared by their political leaders” or “politicians” should not be a problem as there are numerous sources for that. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need to include the Orange Order - what relevance does it have to the UDR? The issue of Nationalism from a political point of view is important, the views of the Nationalist and Catholic politicians. If however we start examining the Orange Order with regards to the USC we're exploring territory which belongs in another article, especially as to counter that POV we would need to include a dissertation about how the Wolfe Tone Societies and the IRA formed NICRA with a view to destablising or at worst embarrassing the Stormont Government. The whole article then starts to look like a history of the 1968 Troubles. I don't feel that's how it should be. Thunderer (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer have I not indicated in the above post that I intend to address the questions "Why do we need to include the Orange Order - what relevance does it have to the UDR?" Please bear with me on it as I wish it to be as brief and succinct as possible. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok Domer I will. That sounds very reasonable to me. Thunderer (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Slowly thinking this through, I'm beginning to think that in order to adequately address the question of why the UDR was formed we need a brief outline of some of the issues we've touched on in these disucssions. Essentially we are looking at what circumstances had come about which changed the status quo and meant the the retention of the USC wsa no longer tenable. So brief explanation of why the Civil Rights movement came to fore, civil unrest in 1968 and 1969, who was involved (this would include thigns involving Orange marches and so on, which then makes the issue of overlapping membership between them and the USC more relevant), how did the civil powers react both in terms of immediate intervention, and commissioning the Hunt and Scarman reports.

More generally, it still seems to me that the text as originally proposed puts too much emphasis on the Catholic/Nationalist point of view (whichever), making it seem that this account is undisputed and incidents were frequent and ongoing, which is not what the offical report found. Now I take the point about trying to use third-aprty sources - but remember that Scarman's conclusions had judicial weight, so we can report them in much the same way as we would the verdict of eg a murder case. I see where you're coming from with the comparison with Widgery, but I think over time Scarman has demonstrated that he was perfectly willing to discomfit the establishment when necessary. Similarly [[John Hunt, Baron Hunt) had wide experience of similar situations in his service in India (and to a lesser extent in Greece).

On the issue of formatting references, this is how I did it in the John Hunt article (coincidentally I'd done a major expansion on him a whileback. At the time I didn't fully realise the significance of the breif mention in the sources I had of his involvement in Northern Ireland, so I expanded it as a result of these discussions): {{cite web|url=http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/hunt.htm|title=Report of the Advisory Committee on Police in Northern Ireland|publisher=[[HMSO]], online copy hosted by [[CAIN]], by permission|month=October|year=1969|accessdate=2008-11-11}} On second thoughts {{cite book}} might be better, and we probably also ought to add the authors' names. Basically take a look at these templates and fill in as much detail as possible.

Unfortunately I'm now going to be away for a few days-I probably won't be back online until Monday. David Underdown (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the sound of what you're suggesting. I'd be very interested in seeing what you propose.Thunderer (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you David for your well considered response. Would one possible solution not to be to re-add the Recruitment to the Ulster Defence Regiment to the article were the various issues you raised could be addressed. As you can imagine it’s very difficult to cover all the points you raise in a short paragraph. While I know the forking of this section originally caused a great deal of concern, because of no prior discussion with editors, but in the changed circumstances and atmosphere it might just be possible. Its just a suggestion, but one I think should be looked at.

I will have a go at the references to CAIN later today, thanks again for that. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There were two main reasons that section was given its own page. 1: It was too long for the article and 2. It could do with further expanding which would make it even longer. I feel there are a number of issues which aren't sufficiently explored in "recruiting" but that's for another time. If we deal with this mediation successfully and set an agreed patter of how we edit with regards to the POV question, other articles will be easier to deal with. Thunderer (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively it could be made shorter and more concise. Would you not agree? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well actually on this occasion no. The issue of recruitment is central to the entire sectarian argument. Hunt was trying to create a non-partisan force whereas both Protestant and Catholic hardliners didn't want it, for different reasons. The success and failure of the recruitment campaign is one of the most interesting aspects of the regiment's history. It's also relevant to the USC. Of particular interest to readers would be the almost reverse situation in 3 UDR where the number of Catholics was 30% and led to accusations from Protestant groups about favouritism for promotion and so on. All of this in one of the battalions which saw most action and suffered high numbers of casualties. I'd particularly love to have more information on C Company in Newry which seems to have been almost totally Catholic, mostly ex-regular soldiers, who'd been in the TA unit which was disbanded several years previous. There's a very interesting point about how they didn't mix with the ex-B Specials at first - not because of the religious divide but because the Catholics were soldiers and all knew each other socially, whereas the policemen were a different social group. This really deserves its own page and lots of expansion. Thunderer (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Thunderer, and could I just say that I agree that the issue of recruitment is central to the entire issue of sectarianism. The success and failure of the recruitment campaign I completely agree is one of the most interesting aspects of the regiment's history, and therefore ask, why was it removed from the article? The current Formation section dose not address it at all.

But I digress, I have re-worked the proposal (see "Amended proposal" below) taking in the points raised in the above discussion. I have added a footnote at the beginning which addresses the politicians views, which ties in with Hunt. I have change the sequence of wording on the Orange Order based on the sources which adds clarity, and have just the CAIN references to do. David the issues you raised will require a major rewrite of the Formation section, or alternatively a merge with the Recruitment to the Ulster Defence Regiment. Having read over both sections they could be made shorter and more concise. This could possibly form the bases of our next discussion? Feed back is welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Amended proposal

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

Comments on Amended proposal

While the footnote (ref no.1) appears on the edit preview, it dose not appear here? Any suggestions? While I got it to appear, obviously it needs fixing. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's better but I would suggest this:

The regiment was formed in 1970 after recommendations from the Hunt Report (1969),which suggested disbanding the part time "B Specials" an overwhelmingly Protestant police force whose membership had also heavily overlapped with the Protestant onlyOrange Order. It was therefore seen as the strong arm of the "Protestant ascendancy" by most working class Catholics. They were to be replaced according to Hunt, with a force that would be "impartial in every sense and remove the responsibility of military style operations from the police force." Thunderer (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It dose not address any of the Nationalist fears, would need to be referenced also. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The first statement didn't address any Nationalist fears either but it isn't Nationalists we're interested in. It's been proven beyond doubt that Nationalists are a minor sub-sect of the Catholic community. What exactly were the fears of the Catholic Community? (if you don't mind). Possibly here we have an opportunity to look at genuine Catholic feelings. what did Gerry Fitt or Paddy Devlin say though, or Austin Currie - the major Catholic politicians of the day? Thunderer (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer as has been pointed out below, WP:SYN has no place in the article. Sunray described it as WP:OR, so I'm content to leave it at that. I don't find the comments on Bernadette at all amusing and suggest you strike the comment. It lends nothing to this discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree please strike the comments regarding Bernadette Devlin McAliskey they are not funny and very unhelpful. BigDunc^Talk 18:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer: The comment about Bernadette Devlin is inappropriate, IMO. Would you be willing to remove it right away? The format would be to replace those words with Comment removed by author. Sunray (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No need, I've removed the comment as it is completely inappropriate. Please try to keep personal feelings to yourself in the future and stick to discussing article content. Shell ^babelfish 08:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The revised version doesn't seem to take account of the issues I've raised before around the balance of stating simply "RUC and B Specials turned a blind eye, or were active participants". This seems a little simplistic to me, and lacking in sufficient context. One issue I've been struggling with all the time is actually getting to hold of the books being cited. I've now managed to have a quick look at the Moloney and the Coogan. Moloney seems to give a more nuanced picture, and whilst I'm certianly not saying that the Coogan isn't a reliable source, he does certainly seem to approach matters starting from a fairly strong pro-Republican position. This is very much an initial impression, so I may be misjudging things. It's important to realise that all sources have biases, and this is not in itself a reason to exclude any particualr of the sources being suggested, but in order to ensure we are presenting as neutral a point of view as possible, we do need to ensure we use a range of sources. Saying that the Orange Order was an "integral part of the state" also seems a little simplistic, as best I understand it, there was no official requirement to belong to the Order, though the social benefits of being a member were undoubtedly substantial. David Underdown (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Having as I mentioned now had a chance to look inmore detail at some of the sources for the proposed text, I find that there is another major problem. At least one section is (unacknowledged) practically a verbatim quote from the Ed Moloney book, which on p. 43 has:

Faced on the one hand by official state forces taht regarded them as hostile and on the other by irregular Protestant mobs that often went on the rampage while the RUC and B Specials turned a collective blind eye

leaving the text as proposed would leave Wikipedia wide open to accusations of plagiarism. David Underdown (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your closer look at this, David. I was going to comment on the reference to the Orange Order. It seems like the kind of statement we should avoid in the article. Also, I agree we need to be careful when using material from a source. As a general rule, if any four words in a row are the same it can be regarded as plagiarism if they are not contained in quotation marks. Sunray (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both David and Sunray for your comments. If I could just make some observations, perhaps you could respond. David, this is the second occasion you have drawn attention to minor problems in the text. The first was the reference to Cain, and the second was the quote from Ed Moloney. On both occasions would it not have been more constructive to first fix the reference and second to apply quotation marks? Sunray, based on the quoted references below, I think you’ll agree that reference to the Order is very apt, and not to mention it would go against the balance we are trying to establish.

On sources, our opinions of Authors are of little importance, unless we can point to alternative sources which challenge their work. So our impressions should not enter into our comments. David, would you not also agree that "integral part of the state" is well supported, and can be agumented with a whole host of additional sources. Please assume good faith when I say that it is possible to replace every source here with alternative sources, or I can just add the references to them. I think I’ve addressed the issues raised, or is there anything else?

“The main demands were for measures to bring an end to religious discrimination, and the catch-cry ‘one-man, one-vote’ was chanted at the civil rights marches. The other main demands were for the disbanding of the all-Protestant reserve police, the B Specials (membership of which heavily overlapped that of the Orange Order), and the repeal of the Special Powers Act, which permitted the Northern Ireland government to impose unfettered emergency security measures.” Drumcree: The Orange Order's Last Stand, Chris Ryder & Vincent Kearney, Methuen Publishing London 2001, ISBN 0 413 76260 2, Pg.45

“This was the beginning of an alliance between Tories, the unionist business classes and the Order. As in the late eighteenth century, Orangemen were once again co-opted as part of a wider game. Orange lodges provided the framework for a citizen army, the Ulster Volunteer Force… The new state of Northern Ireland, having been established with such a large contribution by the Order, from the outset took on a distinctly Orange coloration. An Orange lodge was established within the new police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, while Orangemen made up the bulk of a new militia, the B Specials. In many areas the B Specials were based in Orange halls…The power of the Order during those years has been described by two senior Methodists: “Membership was an indispensable condition of political advancement. It protected the employment of Protestants by its influence over employers, which is a polite way of saying that it contrived systematic discrimination against Catholics. Local authorities were dominated by members of the local lodges.” Through the Minefield, David McKittrick, Blackstaff Press Ltd 1999, ISBN 0 85640 652, pg.30

“Predictably the matchers were attacked by Paisleyites and members of the Ulster Special Constabulary (the B Specials), a part- time paramilitary force which was anti-Catholic and anti-Republican in character.” Martin Dillon, The Dirty War, Arrow 1991, ISBN 0 09 984520 2 pg.4.

“Blaney, Boland and Haughey argued that events were slowly heading for all-out civil war with the Catholic population in the North being left at the mercy of Loyalist mobs, the RUC and the B Specials.” Martin Dillon, The Dirty War, Arrow 1991, ISBN 0 09 984520 2 pg.7

“The attacks by Loyalist mobs, aided by B Specials and police, on Catholic areas of Belfast exposed the inability of the IRA to defend Catholic areas.” Martin Dillon, The Dirty War, Arrow 1991, ISBN 0 09 984520 2 pg.8.

“The Ulster Special Constabulary, the heavily armed auxiliary force later known more often as the B Specials, was exclusively Protestant… The political, legal and policing worlds were thus inextricably linked: one community governed, judged and policed the other… RUC officers carried revolvers and sometimes heavier weaponry, while the armament of the B Specials included handguns, rifles and submachine guns. The police had at their disposal the Special Powers Act, a sweeping piece of legislation which allowed arrests without warrant, internment without trial, unlimited search powers and bans on meetings and publications, as well as providing far-reaching catch-all clauses. Most of these provisions were used sparingly but their existence, together with the large numbers of police and B Specials, brought Catholic complaints that policing had a military character and very often an intimidating effect.” David McKittrick & David McVea, Making Sense of the Troubles, Penguin Books 2001, ISBN 0 14 100305 7, pg.11.

“The Orange culture was separatist and anti-ecumenical. Although its regulations told its members to abstain from uncharitable words or deeds against Catholics, they were also pledged to ‘resist the ascendancy of that church’ by all lawful means. They were also warned not to attend ‘any act… Orange lodges provided the framework for the Ulster Volunteer Force, and from the start the new state took on a distinctly Orange complexion. An Orange lodge was established within the RUC, while Orangemen made up the bulk of the B Specials, who in some areas were based in Orange halls… Politically too, Orangeism became an integral part of the state… The power of the Orange Order during those years has been described by two senior Methodists: ‘Membership was an indispensable condition of political advancement. It protected the employment of Protestants by its influence over employers, which is a polite way of saying that it contrived systematic discrimination against Catholics.” David McKittrick & David McVea, Making Sense of the Troubles, Penguin Books 2001, ISBN 0 14 100305 7, pg.14.

“Eventually, on 4 January 1969, it flared into open violence at Burntollet Bridge, in what would be regarded as one of the key events of the civil rights era… The police were accused of standing by as the ambush took place, and even of helping to engineer it, while a number of off-duty members of the B Specials were said to be among the attackers.” David McKittrick & David McVea, Making Sense of the Troubles, Penguin Books 2001, ISBN 0 14 100305 7, pg.48.

“From eye-witness accounts and the mass of press photographs taken in the hours that followed, about 100 of these 200 men were subsequently identified as being members of the Ulster Special Constabulary — the B Specials.” Ulster, The Sunday Times Insight Team, Penguin Books Ltd, ISBN 0 14052.296 4, pg.66

“In the six north-eastern counties, now beginning to settle down to the idea of partition, the IRA were smashed. The remnants that had survived the brutalities of the preceding years had to content with the B-Specials, a large and well armed Royal Ulster Constabulary, the British army and the full force of the Protestant ascendancy controlling business and industry.” The I.R.A., Tim Pat Coogan, HarperCollins Publishers London 2000 ((Fully Revised & Updated), ISBN 0 00 653155 5, pg. 39.

“Protestants if they were militantly minded (and in the North in the 1920s and 1930s it was difficult not to be so), joined the B-Specials. So there was an armed ‘them and us’ situation.” The I.R.A., Tim Pat Coogan, HarperCollins Publishers London 2000 ((Fully Revised & Updated), ISBN 0 00 653155 5, pg.160.

“The youthful Traynor and his family regarded the B-Specials as being outside the law. They seemed able to shoot anyone they wished and to get away with it. During the Anglo-Irish war there were sound reasons for Traynor’s opinion of this group’s immunity, and very Sound reasons also for fearing another organization known as the Murder Gang’. This flourished in Belfast during the period, carrying out assassinations and reprisal raids on Catholic strongholds. The gang was composed of former British soldiers, members of the UVF, and some sprinkling of RIC men and B-Specials.” The I.R.A., Tim Pat Coogan, HarperCollins Publishers London 2000 ((Fully Revised & Updated), ISBN 0 00 653155 5, pg.161-62.

“Backing up the RUC, the B Specials had one thousand men full time and 11,600 part time. Standards between B-Special units and within certain units varied considerably. Many had more enthusiasm than training or more sectarian spirit than military discipline.” The Secret Army: The IRA, J Bowyer Bell, Poolbeg Press Ltd. Ireland 1997 (revised Third Edition), ISBN 1 85371 813 0, pg.293

“The Unionist reaction to agitation in the streets had been honed on decades of practice in dealing in quiet isolation with “subversives”. Come down hard with the RUC and, if need be, the B-Specials, blame the IRA and/or communist agitators, deplore the fact that demonstrations will lead to sectarian violence (i.e. Orange mobs and pogroms) which the RUC will be powerless to stop, and above all give not an inch—no surrender…English MPs could see for the first time— often in living colour—the excitement of RUC baton charges, the howl of an Orange mob, and could hear the long litany of Nationalist grievances. Viewers in Leeds and Coventry were stunned to learn that the police were armed in Ulster, that people could be detained without trial in Ulster, that peoples religion determined their housing and their job in Ulster. English politicians were stunned at the mess at their own back door. And the Unionists were stunned to find themselves at stage centre under the eye of the television camera and the Mother of Parliaments.” The Secret Army: The IRA, J Bowyer Bell, Poolbeg Press Ltd. Ireland 1997 (revised Third Edition), ISBN 1 85371 813 0, pg.355.

“Catholic Bogside sealed itself off in a state of siege, defending Free Derry from both the Orange mobs and the B-Specials…The Protestant mobs seemed determined to break their way into the Catholic districts alongside the RUC and B-Specials… There is little doubt that the well-armed B-Specials, certainly, and the RUC, perhaps, would have run amok; and London simply did not have the troops on hand to control the situation.” The Secret Army: The IRA, J Bowyer Bell, Poolbeg Press Ltd. Ireland 1997 (revised Third Edition), ISBN 1 85371 813 0, pg.364-66.

--Domer48_'fenian' 11:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment on sourcing issues

I'm sorry, my feeling from the way this was set up was that we shouldn't directly edit the proposal, but use the comments section you had set up. My comment yesterday was restricted by lack of time, below is a fuller exposition of what I see as the issues.

I don't see the issues of sourcing and attribution as being minor. Simply sticking things in quote marks does not by itself resolve the issue-it's still not clear to the casual reader which quote comes from which book. At the very least the relevant ref should directly follow the quote, better still we should say Ed Moloney in his book says "blah". Even better we should precis the available sources in our own words, picking our way through the POV minefield. On th ematter of point of view, we can see differences in the quotes above in the treatment, for example McKittrick and McVea are much more non-committal about whether or not B Specials were involved comparee to many of the other sources, I assume the Sunday Times Insight book quote is also referring to the same incident? I note that we're not told who made these identifications in that case. From these additional quotes you've provided I can see at elast one other phrase in your initial proposal which is also affected. The likely biases of the authors is entirely relevant to trying to produce a balanced article, particularly when we use large numbers of such quotes.

On the matter of the Orange Order, I see McVea and McKittrick do use the word "integral", though (to me) this would impy a much more official inclusion than seems to have been the case, something more like the perks which accrued to Party members in communist regimes, which were enshrined in law. The ties between state and the Orange Order, whilst undoubtedly real don't seem to have been enshrined in legislation in quite the same way. Merely to say it was "integral" without the more extensive context included in the full quote is in my view likely to be understood.

I'm inclined to agree with this. It's well thought out and you've expressed it better than I could have. It's easy to find quotes from either faction which can quickly slant the article and a poor choice of phraseology makes it worse sometimes. I do think there's room for the type of comments you allude to but not in the lead or main article. It needs to be on a sub-page expressly for exploring that issue. Thunderer (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

David I agree completely with attribution, however when you have a number of sources saying the same thing it can cause problems. If we can agree that one reference will be enough that’s grand. I’m less sure what you mean by “picking our way through the POV minefield.” That the view across the board is the same, reduces any problems on POV. You say that “we're not told who made these identifications in that case” however the quote says “From eye-witness accounts and the mass of press photographs” who “were subsequently identified as being members of the Ulster Special Constabulary.” You go on to mention “The likely biases of the authors is entirely relevant to trying to produce a balanced article,” and the point I’d make is thaat all of these sources are third party ones, unlike Potter and Gamble for example. What would you suggest there?

On the Orange Order, here is another quote, which says exactly the same in another way:

“Protestant comnninity. In its anxiety to re-establish a militant basis for resistance to republicanism which could operate independently of the British, the Unionist leadership had been obliged to concede a portion of its power to the orange section of the working class. Having done so, it strove to confer institutional and official status on the arangement. Popular Protestant practices of workplace exclusivism became linked to efforts by Carson and Craig to reconstitute the UVF and secure British government approval and funds for it and UULA-based constabularies in Belfast. One Unionist argument in trying to persuade the British to finance the constabularies was that, unless such organisations were officially sanctioned, wild and enraged protestants would take the law into their own hands. Since ‘the younger and wilder the better’ was in some areas a criterion for membership, this was ironic.”

“The formation of the state had been anticipated by the formation of one of its most critical apparatuses — an Independent paramilitary force whose populist flavour of Protestant self-assertiveness was not to be diminished by its new status The official endorsement of this spirit was to shape both state formation and Catholic attitudes to it.” Northern Irelan 1921 / 2001 Political Forces and Social Classes, Paul Bew, Peter Gibbon, Henry Patterson, Serif (London 2002) , ISBN 1 897959 38 9, pg.19

Now I can, like I’ve said already provide additional sources, but I’ve not seen one produced to-date to contradict any of them. Could editors possibly start to supply contradictory quotes? Thanks David for your considered response. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

On the neutrality/balance issue, I've mentioned here the fact the McVea and McKittrick take a notably "softer" line than some fo the other sources, and their is also the repeatedly pointed out issue of the conclusions Scarman actually came too, which do, to me, seem worthy of mention. I know you feel this is a primary source, but with a bit of additional seraching I've found The Times, Friday, Apr 07, 1972; pg. 1; Issue 58446; col A "Scarman tribunal rules out Ulster conspiracies", Robert Fisk, which is a contemporary report of reaction to the publication to the report, and also a leader in the same issue pg. 15; col A "The Anatomy Of Anarchy".

ON the wider attribution issue, that's why it's important we should precis from a few of the available sources, rather than compile a cut and paste job of quotes from them. David Underdown (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's much better. The source Domer found, although well written, again focuses the mind on the political entity of "Republicanism" when in fact what the Unionist government of the 20's was trying to was to prevent incursion by Free State forces and the anti-treaty element of the IRA and ultimately to prevent a civil war. Certainly nationalism and even republicanism were factors but again a high preponderance of Catholics living in the new state of Northern Ireland wouldn't have been in favour of an all Ireland state so we have to rule republicanism invalid as a state wide influence. I think the development of the constabularies had more to do with the fact that Stormont saw the border as a weak point and also needed to control the race riots in Belfast and Londonderry/Derry. The British executive seemed to have a reluctance to deploy troops in Northern Ireland as it may have been provocative to the new Free State so allowed the cration of a gendarmerie instead - and funded it. It also allowed Stormont to channel the energies of the UVF and bring them under state control rather than having this experienced and well trained militia allowed to reform as a vigilante force in opposition to the democracy. Thunderer (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again David for your contribution. I can detect your leaning towards the “softer” line but would just point out that McKittrick is also the author of “Through the Minefield” which is hardly soft. What I’m suggesting is that we can not get into cherry picking his comments. Again, using sources to illustrate the point:

“The strategy of class alliance pursued by the Unionist middle class together with the diplomatic strategies of the British government were responsible for the establishment of a Northern Ireland state with a sectarian-populist flavour…It was not simply the establishment of a sectarian Protestant force, the B Specials, as an integral part of the security system of the new state which is worthy of note, although this was remarkable enough, but the issues of control which logically followed. It is indeed most unusual to find a regional government in possession of a paramilitary police force over which the central government had so little direct influence, and even more remarkable to find that efforts to establish a certain professionalism in the force were constantly blocked.” Northern Ireland 1921 / 2001 Political Forces and Social Classes, Paul Bew, Peter Gibbon, Henry Patterson, Serif (London 2002) , ISBN 1 897959 38 9, pg.19

Yes David your right Scarman is a biased primary source, but a quote from the Times here would be welcome. On Scarman though, I have a quote that may also help:

“The British government later set up a commission of inquiry into the events, headed by a senior judge, Lord Scarman which concluded that 1.6 percent of all households in Belfast had been forced to move between July and September 1969 and that Catholics had suffered most. Over fifteen hundred Catholic families, Scarman said, had been forced from their homes, five times the number of Protestants. That summer hundreds of Catholic families sought refuge in the safety of ghettos like West Belfast, as the biggest forced population movement in Europe since the Second World War began.” Ed Moloney, A Secret History of the IRA, Penguin Books (2001), ISBN 0 141 01041 x, pg.68.

So I would like to ask, is the information in the text correct? Do we need to expand on the current text even further, and if so what do you think should be included? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on exercise as a whole

I would like mediators feedback on the "Consensus building excerise" and is application in reaching consensus? This is an outline of the format used.

Propose text for the article

Create sub-headings such as:

• Reasons to Support
• Reasons to reject
• Suggested amendments
• Comments (for contents of sub-headings)

Summary of discussion

• Comments on summary

Amended proposal

• Comments on Amended proposal

Insert Amended proposal

The major weakness in this in my opinion is the closing. Who makes the call? If one editor decides they are not happy with the outcome, can they prevent is insertion? Dose this application comply or conflict with Wikipedia:Consensus?--Domer48_'fenian' 16:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationalist Community

As defined by Professor Richard English in his book "irish Freedom" ISBN1-4050-4189-7, page 12. Our people - those whome we know, and those in the greater imagined community - are a special group. And nationalists often take this further with extended notions of communal descent. page 487. According to this argument, mass literacy and new print technology combined to facilitate this imagined community, to produce a large scale public opinion central to nationalist movements. He also refers on page 445 to the Benedict Anderson volume on Imagined Communities ISBN 0-86091-329-5, which coins the phrase regarding community that it is: a community socially constructed, which is to say imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of that group [as a means to achieving identity]. Therefore from these works we can conclude that the concept of "Nationalist Community" is an imagined ideal, coined (Marxixt fashion) as part of the overall nationalist ethos of community, struggle & power the first two as a means to achieving the third. Thunderer (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

These sources are interesting, but I'm not sure where you are going with this commentary. What significance do you draw from the term "imagined community?" Whether or not community is a social construct, does that make it less real to its members? Also, Im not sure what you mean by "coined Marxist fashion." It seems to be a bit of OR thrown in to somehow call into question the concept of nationalism. The use of sources in this manner is not likely to advance us in working collaboratively on the UDR article, IMO. Surely it is not up to us (in working on the article or this mediation) to question concepts such as nation or religion. I appreciate you sharing your POV, but let's keep trying to agree on what will go into the article. Sunray (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue of Catholic and Nationalist has been confused. The assertion that there is a "Nationalist Community" is a political one - spin in other words. It has been repeated so many times that people believe it's true. I believe I have amply demonstrated the the use of the term when referring to Catholics in 1968-170 is incorrect. We should be referring to the "Catholic community" or the "minority community". Let's say we were to agree that such a thing as a Nationalist Community actially exists, it would be as a sub-community of the Catholic/minority community. Therefore Nationalism does not represent the views of all Catholics in Northern Ireland. Thunderer (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems to me to be useful comment. You have stripped most of the POV from it and focussed on facts. It is a fact that nationalists would be a subset of the Catholic community. Sunray (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

But it is a waste that statement doesn't refer to the Catholic community but the Nationalist one, so don't really see where it this is going. BigDunc^Talk 17:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is where it's going Dunc - the statement is innacurate and POV. It does not reflect the true chronological history of events and although only verifiablity is required, we are now able to verify that the statement is wrong - therefore it shouldn't be used. Thunderer (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To put it in even better context the two communities would be broken down thus:

• Catholic (or minority) community contained (and still does):

1. Ordinary Catholics of all social types.
2. Catholic Nationalists of all social types.
3. Catholic Republicans.
4. Catholic Unionists*
5. Catholic Loyalists*

(small percentages)

• Protestant (or majority) community, sometimes incorrectly referred to as the "ascendancy":

1. Ordinary Protestants from a mixture of known denominations and social types.
2. Unionists, members of the ruling autocratic Unionist Party.
3. Loyalists, who may also be Unionists.
4. Nationalists.*
5. Republicans.*

(smaller percentages)

Therefore the Civil Rights Movement (NICRA) and other protest groupings were made up of a mixture of, mainly Catholics, but also Protestants - most joining with a view to social and democratic reform. Therefore the confrontations between the protest marchers and police were not by Nationalists but a mixed bunch of the above who definitely would have been at least partially Nationalist. Which brings us back to the statement that "Nationalist crowds faced hostile state forces". No they didn't. Crowds of "protest marchers" were confronted by the police force and on several very notable occasions only, by members of the Special Constabulary. Thunderer (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer I have the Richard English book "Irish Freedom" and the quotes used above are just WP:SYN. If editors would like me to quote some sections from it I'm more than happy to. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYN is wonderful thing Domer. I'm sure I can find better quotes than the ones I've used. English does make it clear however that the need for "Community, Struggle and Power" forms the basis of Irish Nationalism and that theme is repeated throughout the volume.Thunderer (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"It has certainly been [Nationalism] the most crucial force in the history of Ireland. For centuries, nationalist campaigns and anti-nationalist politics have between them provided the context for Irish historical development…nationalist politics have centrally defined Irish life. So, too, the politics of those who have strenuously opposed Irish nationalism (whether Irish unionists, or anti-nationalist British politicians operating in Ireland have themselves been framed by nationalist assumptions. Unionist and British views frequently involve their own species of nationalism, and they have often been moulded in response to challenges set by nationalist Ireland. Richard English, Irish Freedom pg 3 of the introduction."

To then suggest that "Therefore from these works we can conclude that the concept of "Nationalist Community" is an imagined ideal" and "The assertion that there is a "Nationalist Community" is a political one - spin in other words" is deny "centuries" history. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, let's not fall into the social constructionist trap (think angels, dancing, pins). Whether or not the concept "Nationalist community" is an "imagined community" (a social constructionist concept), it is very real to its members. Whether WP:SYN is beautiful or not, it is an example of OR and to be avoided. Domer's quote from English can be used (likely in a footnote) to explain why we might use the term "nationalist community." However, we would only use the term if we had a citation from a verifiable source that used the term in speaking about the UDR. This is one of those happy moments in which everyone here is right (at least in part). Sunray (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's say we agree for argument's sake that there is an "actual" Nationalist Community in Northern Ireland. I think at this point, given my explanation below of where Nationalism fits in with the indigenous Northern Ireland communities, that what I really would like to see is your opinion Domer. As you'll be aware by now I don't oppose Irish Nationalism, nor do I get annoyed when someone is an Irish Nationalist. It's a simple fact of life that someone who does harbour a specific sympathy, possibly even yourself, that it may be difficult to appreciate that the issue of Nationalism, whilst always present in Irish politics (North & South) wasn't the prime concern of the marchers in 1968-70. Regardless of who organised the groups the vast majority who joined them had genuine grievances regarding housing, gerrymandering of electoral wards and the multiple voting issue. That's why I'm asking what your opinion is - were these people ALL Nationalists, or did the Nationalists only play a part in these protest marches. My opinion is the latter and that being the case we're back to my proven assertion that it was not Nationalist crowds who faced the police. I need to go further though and state quite categorically that Scarman found no evidence at all of the police being "hostile" to the marchers. In fact AFAIR he was adamant that they reacted very well to serious provocation except on the merest of occasions. Thunderer (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion has been completly changed from what it started with. The introduction of Catholic community and of civil rights marches are being used here when they are not part of the question I asked which has know been slightly changed due to ammendments but the core of it remains Nationalists had been faced by official state forces that regarded them as hostile, and had being attacked by irregular Protestant mobs, while the RUC and B Specials turned a blind eye, or were active participants. This is backed up by 4 verifiable and reliable sources now has anyone got a source that can be used to counter this claim without synthesis and original reasearch. And as can be seen no mention of the catholic community or civil rights marches. BigDunc^Talk 18:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that Dunc, I did point this out myself in the discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

But all refuted by Scarman and other verifiable sources. Thunderer (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you show them here again because I can't see any that refutes the claim. BigDunc^Talk 19:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just read back, it's all still there.Thunderer (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no sources provided to refute the claim don't try to mislead editors saying that you have provided sources when you haven't. BigDunc^Talk 19:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that Scarman was very clear? What's with the loss of good faith all of a sudden? Do you think I would tell you porkies? Thunderer (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Time Out

With David Underwood away temporarily it seems there is no common sense balance in any of the discussions at the moment so I'm taking time out until he returns. Two against one doesn't really work for me. Three against one is even worse. Perhaps you'll all take the time to read through the rest of my well thought out and researched comments rather than concentrating on one word. Thunderer (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Three against one." I am saddened that you see it that way, because I try to stay in the middle and call them as I see them. I am certainly not siding with anyone. However, I will get Shell's views and we could make a change if that seems advisable. Sunray (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as one participant taking a time out, I don't have a problem with that. Do the other participants wish to continue, or take a time out as well? Sunray (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I do have a problem. The rational is based on an assumption of bad faith. I've been working in a positive and constructive way to address difficulties, and consider the suggestion that "there is no common sense balance in any of the discussions" uncivil and untrue. Thunderer, Dunc and myself are here as part of AE sanctions, David however asked to join the discussion, having not been part of AE.

This is now the second time Thunderer held to ransom the mediation, only returning having been offered preconditions. What will it be this time, Sunray not to ask them to provide references, Dunc, not to mention when they breech the editing conditions, and myself not to be suggesting any "Consensus building excerises"? So what Thunderer wants now is to go off editing articles, and leave us twiddling our thumbs, and all the while none of the articles can be sorted out.

I think we were making progress, and working our way through differences. There was no ganging up on anyone, two editors and a mediator asked for information sourced, all three asked for a comment to be withdrawn? What is wrong with that? Thunderer is either part of the solution or part of the problem. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thunderer, in one statement, you've managed to insult all of the participants here and, if I can assume who the third is in "three", one of the mediators trying to assist you. I would strongly suggest that you either revise or remove this statement, or I will do it for you as with the one above. Working with other editors means that you need to have calm and rational discussion, even when in a disagreement. If you find that you are feeling put at as the only one supporting a particular point, that's a good indication that you may either be incorrect or the consensus is in opposition to your views. I think that Sunray was clear earlier when he indicated that any further "leaving" the mediation would likely be considered gaming; I hope you will reconsider your position. Shell ^babelfish 08:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Domer this is the second time now that Thunderer has (Personal attack removed) [left]. If he wants to walk away again let him. He has continued to edit after this statement, so can we move forward and insert the ammended text above into the article. An editor can't hold an article to ransom. BigDunc^Talk 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed unhelpful exchange Sunray (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's just get this mediation back on the rails. The participants have each commented, and I suggest that we call a halt on observations about what the other guy is doing. Reminder: Please keep comments about the other participants to observable facts. Sunray (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree Sunray, just get this mediation back on the rails. Now Dunc has made a suggestion, insert the ammended text above into the article. The mediation is working, and is addressing issues. As Shell has indicated above if Thunderer finds that they are feeling put at as the only one supporting a particular point, that's a good indication that they may either be incorrect or the consensus is in opposition to their views. If this is the case, then walking away from the process is not the solution. Discussing your views in a calm and rational manner and accepting the out come is. Thunderer has a choise, they are part of the mediation or they are not, and we can not make that discission. Regardless, the process should continue, and if conclusions are reached on issues of content during discussions they will be implemented. While it would be better to have the imput of all editors, walking away dose not prevent discussion, the editor simply decides to exclude themselves from the decision making process. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Next steps

I've discussed this approach with Shell and we agree that it would make sense to move this mediation to the article talk page and re-commence editing the article. The mediators have requested that Thunderer return and are awaiting his response. If all participants are prepared to re-commit to the Guidelines for Interaction I think we can move forward. Sunray (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The next steps, as I see them, would be as follows:

1. All participants come back to the "table." Note: "Participants," per the discussion below, refers to the three who are subject to arbitration enforcement.
2. Guidelines for Interaction are strictly observed. Comments not in keeping with the guidelines will be removed by mediators.
3. An action plan is finalized
4. AE ruling is relaxed to permit editing the article.
5. Move to article talk page.

Agreed? Sunray (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable approch, but you would have to check with the three referees who are monitoring my progress. I suppose they would be waiting for feed back from you on this? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, assuming logically that would be part of the action plan. Sunray (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree to any editing on the article until the points are agreed and I will not be rejoining the discussion until David Underwood returns.Thunderer (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on next steps

It is a disappointing situation were one editor decides to exclude themselves from the mediation, but they can't be forced into it. However, having decided to leave the discussion, the remaining editors should be allowed to continue in the work outlined by the mediators. Returning at a later date should not mean having to then go over all the discussions and decisions made in their absence because they then disagree. While three editors are here under agreed AE sanctions, David asked to join, is not subject to any AE sanctions, and mediation is not dependant on his partisapation. David could if they wished edit the article anytime they wish. Thunderer David has said "It would be nice if you could also get my name rigth Underdown not Underwood." Please reconsider your discision, and engage with both mediators and your fellow editors in addressing the remaining issues. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

David is gone until Monday, without him there is no balance. I have not excluded myself from the mediation but rather made it clear that I feel it's going nowhere without David's input. With both Milhist editors out of the disussion that leaves it open to only one set of opinions and it cannot continue without us. The discussion needs to be fair and balanced and trying to force something through without discussion is not balanced.Thunderer (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer, its likely that once this mediation is over, David will not be available at each article you edit. There will be times that you will need the skills to work with other editors and reach consensus without his (or a mediators) involvement. We'd like to give everyone here a chance to learn how to do that and to find a way you can all work together in the subject area. I would strongly urge you to reconsider and continue to work here to find solutions that everyone can live with.

Domer, while I appreciate that you want to keep moving and start working on article improvements, I think you'll find that on Wikipedia, articles (and discussions) never reach a point where they cannot be disagreed with. One of the most frequently quoted parts of the consensus policy is "Consensus can change" - we've seen it happen as policies change over time, deletion standards change and article text changes as new information becomes available. Shell ^babelfish 13:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Shell I edit many websites without anyone holding my hand. The input of an experienced Milhist editor is essential in this case however which is why I will not proceed without David or AN Other from Milhist.Thunderer (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Shell I agree that "Consensus can change" and I did make this very point in the discussions above, so I'm not sure of the point your making. If it is on how above I said that the discussion and decisions arising from them can't be held up by one editor not wishing to engage I stand by that. I completly disagree with Thunderer that our discussions to date have not been fair and balanced, and that no fair and balanced discussion can be had without his partisapation. I would again remind Thunderer that David asked to join this mediation, and was not subject to agreed AE sanctions. "I'm taking time out until he [David] returns" is excluding yourself from the mediation, as your partisapation is not dependent on David's partisapation.

Now that Thunderer has made their position clear, and that they will not be returning till David dose, can we now press ahead with the process of mediation. That Thunderer is putting forward yet another precondition to their partisapation in mediation is a cause of concern --Domer48_'fenian' 14:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with any discussion which does not include David. All editors entered this in the spirit of mediation and the absence of any editor means progress cannot be made. Were I away on business the same would apply. We can't all be here at the beck and call of those who are impatient.Thunderer (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunray having now had Thunderer's response, and pre-conditions I suggest we move on with your proposel outlinedhere. I've opened a new section below to work on the action plan. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

My response contained no precondtions. All the conditions of mediation are already in the mediation proposals and you can't have a successful mediation without all the participants. You agreed that David should be part of it now I suggest you wait until his return so that he CAN be part of it and stop trying to force the issue. You've quite clearly seen my opinion, you're aware that I'm on time out until David's return so you may consider this mediation in abeyance until he does with all editing conditions and agreements valid and enforceable. Thunderer (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion you contradict yourself when on the one hand you say "My response contained no precondtions" and on the other you say I do not agree to any editing on the article until the points are agreed and I will not be rejoining the discussion until David Underwood returns. I absolutely disagree with any discussion which does not include David. With both Milhist editors out of the disussion that leaves it open to only one set of opinions and it cannot continue without us. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well you're entitled to your opinion, as am I, although mine apparantly doesn't matter according to Dunc - I beg to differ. Thunderer (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Folks seriously, you've made your points - please stop arguing with each other. Sunray and I will touch base and comment again as soon as possible. It is the weekend after all, so I think we can relax a bit :) Shell ^babelfish 18:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Shell I’m not arguing with anyone, but if you mean that this current discussion has now become pointless I agree. Is it also your view Shell that editing now is only a Monday to Friday affair? I’d like your opinion on how Thunderer having withdrawn themselves from the mediation still feels entitled to remove a proposal by an active participant in this mediation. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not withdrawn - is there some part of time out which is difficult to understand? Thunderer (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a time out. Especially if it is agreed upon by all participants, rather than arbitrary . However, I am surprised at your statement that you "... will not proceed without David or AN Other from Milhist." This was not part of the terms of the mediation. The mediation, was to be between you, Big Dunc and Domer. When David joined he clearly said that he saw himself in a "kind of mediation capacity... to try and help move things along, and conitune what [he had] already been doing on the talkpage." He has made it clear that he can only be here part time. Thus it would be folly to try to plan our schedule around his availablility.

Shell and I have both indicated our concern that the participants under AE sanctions gain the ability to edit harmoniously. Now this can be either by learning to edit together, or to edit apart from one another (either by agreement, or by extension of the AE sanctions). The purpose of this mediation is to try to find a way for participants to edit the UDR article (and other N. Ireland articles) together. I am troubled by your statement that you believe that without David there is no balance. To me, as a mediator, that indicates that we have more work to do without David. How do you propose that we deal with that? Sunray (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Me saying that there's no balance without David is a reflection of my feelings on how the mediation is going. It's the same as being on a talk page with both of the other AE participants - nothing is conceded. We spend all day and all night putting forward reasons why things should or shouldn't be included, spotting the other participants grabbing the bones I throw and waiting for the same back but nothing is forthcoming. The demands are the same today as they were on the first day of mediation. Furthermore, Domer is at least playing the game,(Personal attack removed). Thus far NOTHING has been achieved. Other than to show you and Shell how difficult it is to mediate on this issue. The fact remains, the other participants want "Nationalist" POV in this article and I am adamant that it doesn't belong as per the Manual of Style for Military Articles. If I want the type of abuse that I get in here there's bound to be a public house near me somewhere - I can go there and at least ENJOY getting abused. Thunderer (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You do not feel that the mediation is going well because there is not enough give and take between participants? Have I got that right? Sunray (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of give and take - I'm doing the giving.Thunderer (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

O.K., I get that. That explains your sense of it not being in balance (excellent I-message, BTW!). One thing that strikes me is that the mediators are usually not around until mid-afternoon your time. My observation is that it is sometimes off the rails by then. What might we do to address that? Sunray (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed action plan

Could mediators please give an outline of the type of plan they have in mind. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The action plan should be developed by the participants with input from the mediators. Shell and I are suggesting that Thunderer, BigDunc and you re-group and proceed with that. We are awaiting that commitment. Shell has suggested that we do not need to rush. It is more important to have the three of you working together. As of right now, you are the only one to indicate that he is ready to proceed. We await the re-commitment of BigDunc and Thunderer to the next steps, outlined above. We need at least one of them to be able to do anything further here. Ultimately, if we don't get all three of you back here working together within a reasonable time, we will have to close the mediation. Sunray (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No David - no Thunderer! Thunderer (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a strong position. It is often helpful to distinguish between a position and an interest in mediation. Insistence on a position can block progress. On the other hand, if we look for common interests, things can move forward. As to the interest behind what you are saying: I believe, from what you have said above, it was that there be balance, right? Sunray (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sunray for the clarification. Would I be right in thinking that what you’re saying is we need all three or it gets closed? If that is the case I think it is very unfair on those who have been giving this 100%. As far as I’m concerned this mediation is working for me at least, and I’ve seen its benefits on a much more protracted article I work on. I would very much like to see an evaluation from the mediators on the exercise on building consensus. In particular I’m interested in how you go about closing a discussion, if one participant will not accept the consensus? [opinion removed] --Domer48_'fenian' 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

These are good questions. I would like to come back to them when we have BigDunc and T. back and ready to mediate. Would you be willing to hold off on comments to T. for the moment? Sunray (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course I will, could you possibly have a look at the link I add. It is my opinion that discussion would be more productive. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Shoot (oops, possibly a poor choice of words!). Sunray (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you must have meant "added" rather than "add." So you were referring to the "evaluation from mediators..." You were wondering about determining consensus and closing, right? You need a "decision-rule" for consensus. On talk pages it is usually a supermajority and it is best to get agreement on the decision-rule that will be used in advance. Two thirds is sometimes used, particularly on talk pages. But 75 or 80 % is often better. For example, two thirds wouldn't work here (it wouldn't meet T's need for balance). So logically it would be higher. There are several options open to participants in this mediation. Another decision-rule is to have a facilitator who determines the sense of the discussion. Part of your action plan might be to have a mediator act as facilitator for awhile. I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves just yet, as we are awaiting buy-in from the other two. Sunray (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed action plan

• Confirm participants commitment to mediate according to Guidelines for Interaction.
• Complete on consensus-building exercise and other items on this page needing completion.
• Agree on a "To do" list and outline for article.
• Agree on decision rules for editing.
• Modify AE sanctions to permit editing of article by participants.
• When ready, move to article talk page.

Proposed decision rules

Goal: To have guidelines for consensus that work no matter who is present on the article talk page. Note: they must be inclusive to allow outside editors to join in. However, consensus decisions can be restricted to regular editors of the article.

Suggested rules to be applied to major article changes.

1. Decisions require a supermajority of 75% to agree with change.
2. Quorum of three - at least three must have spoken on the issue at hand.</s
3. The mediators will facilitate initially.
4. Adjustment of rules based on what works.

Just some thoughts; input welcome. Sunray (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the exception of the quorum. I request that only a full quorum be permissable.Thunderer (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment, due to the requirement for a supermajority of 75%, unless the first 3 speakers happen to agree on the proposal, input from the fourth would be required anyway. David Underdown (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Right. There would be no consensus if only three had commented and were not in alignment. IMO, a decision rule, to be effective, must cover unforeseen possibilities. It is unlikely that the four of you will always be the only ones involved.

Agree. David Underdown (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't Agree I will not agree to any made up policy I will abide by WP policy such as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RS and WP:V. We have tried our own rules such as editing restrictions, which an editor has ignored on 3 different occasions. So no I don't agree to quoroms or super majoritys BigDunc^Talk 20:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm not the only one to breach the rules innocently. This is not a complaint, merely an observation. Of course complaints were raised about ME so it will be interesting to see what action is demanded because of this breach of the rules. Thunderer (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad you brought it up as when you look at the history I edited this article before you did so breacing our terms so lets see what action is taking. BigDunc^Talk 14:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not you I'm referring to.Thunderer (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't think we must have a quorum. However, we do need a way to determine consensus. In consensus decision-making, consensus is not necessarily unanimity nor is it a simple majority. It is somewhere in between (i.e., a supermajority). I'm not making this up. If you like we could take a look at how WP:CON is interpreted in WP decisions on policy changes, RfAs, RfDs, etc. The point here is: how do we want to determine consensus? So, Dunc, what would you propose we do? Sunray (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Dunc, its not new rules we need but enforce the policies we have already. How consensus emerges during the editing process is already policy. The insertion and removal of information also is covered with burden of evidence. For example the removal of information is a major problem, but it can be challanged. Any new rules we would accept, would have to apply to all editors of the UDR article, which is not a decision we can make. As has also been pointed out, the rules we agreed here could not be enforced, and were breeched without regard to editors or mediators. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside Wikipedia:Supermajority as a policy was rejected.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest now that the "Proposed decision rules" be removed and on the "Proposed action plan" the point "Agree on decision rules for editing" be changed to "Agree that wiki policies be followed and enforced if needed." --Domer48_'fenian' 13:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Domer remove Proposed decision rules. BigDunc^Talk 13:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The only way to continue is to strictly enforce wikipedia policy as Domer stated Supermajority was rejected as a policy and I can't see how you can get every editor who edits the UDR article to agree on something that is not policy. I would love to see some kind of feedback from the mediators on how they feel this mediation has went so far. What are the problems and any suggested solutions that they have. I have my opinion on what has gone on here so could mediators fill me in please. BigDunc^Talk 13:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly we don't have consensus on the proposed decision rules. That is fine. However, we have not solved the problem that in a conflict situation, we do not have a way to determine consensus. We follow WP policies, of course. What do we do when the policies don't give us enough guidance? How then shall we make decisions? Sunray (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a moot point. Thunderer (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

How so? Sunray (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What do we do when the policies don't give us enough guidance? How then shall we make decisions? That appears to be the bone of contention throughout. Thunderer (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be very interested to see what the other participants have in mind to keep POV out of the article?Thunderer (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because something criticises the regiment doesn't mean it can be removed as POV. If that was the case then Potter is a POV author and should be removed. BigDunc^Talk 12:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And before editors jump I am not saying that it should be removed wholesale. BigDunc^Talk 12:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is one thing. Using verifable material to introduce Republican spin is another.Thunderer (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2008

Anyway, Potter is the offical regimental historian so what he states as fact is fact.Thunderer (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before WP:NPOV does not require the absence of points of view, rather that all relevant point sof view are fairly and appropriately represented. All sources have their biases. As I've long since learnt when umpiring hockey matches, it's amazing how different events can appear, either from a different angle, or even if a player has virtually the same view of events, how preconceived ideas can change how they view what went on in front of them. David Underdown (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I respect what you say and agree that all points should be fairly represented. Where there is a cut-off in my opinion however is when a point gets hammered or re-inforced with cleverly chosen but verifiable quotes which are sympathetic to a jaundiced view. This has the effect of slanting the article. Thunderer (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Using that logic Thunderer that because it is the official history that it is fact is flawed. An Phoblacht is to many consisdered to be the official paper of the IRA so are we to take everything it says as fact. Also you state Republican spin can it not be said that Potter is introducing Establishment/Unionist/Loyalist spin. And if not why not there are two sides to every story. Also you can't say that any one who has an opinion that is not held by members of the regiment is republican propoganda. Can you really not see how you are pushing one side only? BigDunc^Talk 14:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)An Phoblacht is the offical organ of a political party with Marxist-Leninist policies including using spin and propaganda. A regimental historian works from war diaries, part 1 and part 2 orders, watchkeepers records, the NIREP and other official government records to faithfully record facts. As shown in the "Subversion in the UDR" document, these facts are held on record whether they be complimentary or not. That is the difference. Why can everyone not accept that? Thunderer (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Potter was adjutant of 3 UDR from formation for 20 years - the battalion where it was said Catholics got preferential treatment. Does that make him more biased or less biased and in whose favour? Thunderer (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue if Potter is biased or not and frankly my opinion of him doesn't matter. I am sure if I checked hard enough I could find people who suffered at the hands of 3 UDR and would probably say he was biased but who cares that is not relevant. But what I am trying to say is that an ex officer who is commisioned to write a book on his regiment is hardly likely to dig to deep have you not noticed that he fails to mention Brian Nelson IMO that is a glaring ommision considering that in 1987 military intelligence took from Nelson a binliner full of documents leaked by the UDR. Or One of the weapons used in the attack on Pat Finucane were one of 13 weapons stolen from a British Army barracks in 1987 by a serving member of the British Army's UDR regiment another ommision. Two facts not covered in the book. You also keep saying that his book is teh official history of the regiment, I can find no source to back that up but I can find this a disclaimer stating that

The manuscript of this book was submitted to the Ministry of Defence prior to publication. At their request, some changes were made to the text in order to protect the work of, and those who serverd in the Ulster Defence Regiment. However this does not imply MOD endorsement of any part of this book, nor those unofficial sources refered to. BigDunc^Talk 18:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Could a mediator please step in and address the issue of throwing generalised comments into this discussion. The accusations being made should either be supported with diff’s or withdraw. Some examples, “when a point gets hammered or re-inforced with cleverly chosen but verifiable quotes which are sympathetic to a jaundiced view” were is the supporting diff? “carefully chosen POV quotes from authors, publications or websites” provide a diff? “Some sources which are very POV are verifiable and in that case one policy can be used cleverly to overturn another,” provide us with an example? “An Phoblacht is the offical organ of a political party with Marxist-Leninist policies including using spin and propaganda,” again provide an example? How are we to have a rational discussion, when comments and opinions are just thrown in with no attempt to support them? I think it is reasonable to suggest that these type of comments be removed unless supported. They lend absolutely nothing to this discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The point here is that generalizations that are not accepted by other participants are not useful and need to be supported by facts and sources if they are to stand. That makes sense to me. This should be included in our list of requirements for moving forward. I would add that at times it will be necessary to s l o w things down and ensure agreement before proceeding. Sunray (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

I have struck the proposal I made, above. The mediators would like to hear from participants as to: a) whether they would like to edit the UDR article, and b) if so, how decisions would be made.

Note: It is understood that we are responsible for following WP policies. However, WP policies did not prevent participants from getting into this dispute. So we want to explore participants' ideas of what will work in the future. Sunray (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to get back to editing as soon as possible. A failure to implement wiki policies is what lead us to mediation. To illustrate this, I suggest mediators attempt to finish the consensus building exercise. We have gone through a process of discussion, the text has been amended as a result, and while we don’t have consensus, we have no policy based reason not to insert the text into the article. Now should the text be inserted, and is reverted, I would consider that to be disruptive? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer is suggesting that we finish the consensus building exercise. Would other participants be willing to do this? If so, what further is needed? Sunray (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets get back to editing the article and I disagree with you Sunray when you say WP policies did not prevent participants from getting into this dispute. It was inaction from admins who didn't enforce 3RR violations ownership issues and blatant disregard for other policies such as RS and V. Also I don't like it is not a valid reason for removal or attempt to block an editor from adding or removing content by way of edit warring and forcing PP. Now if consensus can't be reached then we will have to use RS and V for criteria on which to add or remove. No editor should have a veto, or hold this or any article to ransom. BigDunc^Talk 20:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that there wasn't enforcement of policies by administrators. Sure, and we can never rely on admins to always step in and adjudicate. What we need here, it seems to me, are some agreements by participants to abide by certain principles (I'm trying to avoid saying rules) in applying the policies. I think that participants are likely clearer now on relevant policies than before this mediation began. What we don't yet have is agreement on how to proceed without blaming one another. It also seems to me that you will need to check with one another before making major changes to the article.

BTW, I want to recognize that this discussion (I mean today's) has not involved any blaming and that is a step forward, in my book. Now if we can get to building on what each other are saying, we will be making real progress, I think. Sunray (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well lets then insert the ammended text that Domer produced as no rational for it's removal based on any wiki policies have been used. And lets get this article edited again. BigDunc^Talk 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree Sunray that there needs to be discussion on the talk page before any major insertions, likewise any major deletions. I will definitely use the same method as that outlined in the exercise on consensus. As I and now Dunc also has mentioned it’s the closing of the discussion which has to be addressed. Having amended the text based on the discussion, is there anything else left to be done? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's hear from the other participants on this. One thing Dunc has stressed as important is not to make major changes without agreement. I think that is a good principle. Sunray (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree that there should be no major changes without agreement but I also believe that we can't have a situation were we have an Ian Paisley NO NEVER attitude going on. Not one of WP policies have been used in the discussion about why this can't be added. It is just a case of I Don't Like It. Lets be bold Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered inappropriate by Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines. BigDunc^Talk 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite right. I don't think I explained it very well, but that is really all I was trying to get at when I was talking about decision rules. I don't see how we can escape that reality. The decision has to get made (if article editing is to occur) and there is always a rule for that - whether stated or not. BTW, do you see how gaming the system applies equally as a description of all three participants in this dispute? Sunray (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Aside to Dunc. Your statement: "an Ian Paisley NO NEVER attitude" seems calculated to get a rise. Let's agree right now that such statements will not be made as we go forward. Sunray (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, I don’t see how gaming the system applies equally as a description of all three participants in this dispute. Now if it was illustrated by means of a diff we may have something to discuss, in the absence however I’d view it as a throw away remark, best not made. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a throw-away remark. Shell and I have discussed it a great deal. Each of you have made blaming comments about another participant. Each comment that has been removed by Shell or me is an instance of this. The game is to criticise someone indirectly, knowing full well it will cause offense. It is gaming the system because it nominally stays within policy. Nevertheless, it subverts policy and is fundamentally uncivil. I hope that is sufficient for you to reflect on. Sunray (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I’ll agree to disagree. Give an instance of me criticising someone indirectly? Now I’ve read WP:CIVIL, a number of times, and the examples given to me here on incivility can not be found anywere on the policy page? Please direct me to the applicaple section? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This kind of response is precisely what we have been discussing. It may not be your intention, but the majority of your responses all seem to be deflections, straw-men or some form of wikilawyering - this makes it appear that you are unwilling to take responsibility for improving your interactions or learn from the insights that might help defuse this situation. In addition, we find that a great number of the responses you've given during this mediation have the effect of causing further difficulties, confusion or otherwise acerbating the situation.

When you have two, rather clued in mediators pointing out that your manner of speaking is coming across as incivil (regardless of intent), your response is to wikilawyer the meaning of "incivil" here and call on us to stick to the letter of the policy. Clearly, this type of response isn't helping anyone - instead, please take time to consider that we may see something you don't and work on finding a different way to get across your concerns that doesn't suffer the same civility problems. Shell ^babelfish 01:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that Sunrays point here is apt, and needs no comments from me. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any i-messages Shell in your comments, maybe the explanation being given is not understood so maybe an clearer explanation and a show of good faith might help. BigDunc^Talk 12:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, Dunc. Those are not all I-messages. As I have said before, though, it is very difficult to give someone feedback without speaking directly about what they are doing. It is usually necessary to say: "When you did such and such..." Feedback is more likely to be useful when it is requested and when it is directed at observable behaviour. Domer did ask for more information.

My point, Domer, was about generalizations made by one participant, not supported by another. You said that you did not think that "gaming the system" applied to you. Alright, what shall we then call what you do in this dispute? Does the dispute simply go on around you and you have no responsibility for it?

I think it is important for each of the participants to recognize what they do — both positive and negative. We (the mediators) have tried to credit each of you for actions that move things forward (taking initiative, asking for clarification, using I-messages). We have also tried to point out behaviour that is unhelpful (finger pointing, personal attacks, wikilawyering).

Here is an example of statements you (Domer) have made recently. This example is exactly what both Shell and I are talking about. I will avoid characterizing it for the moment. However, it might be useful for you to look at the examples of unhelpful behaviour given, above, and see which might apply. The question is: Would you be willing to look at your own behaviour with a critical eye and make some adjustments? I can give you more feedback, but I will only do so if you request it. But I don't think that "agreeing to disagree" is sufficient if we are to turn a corner in this mediation. Sunray (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

“You said that you did not think that "gaming the system" applied to you.” Were did I say that? What I did say was “Sunray, I don’t see how gaming the system applies equally as a description of all three participants in this dispute.” Completely different, I think you’ll agree? “Alright, what shall we then call what you do in this dispute?” I don’t know, is the simple answer. What I’ve gathered so far though is, interpretation is very flexible and can mean all sorts of things. Your right though about the dispute going on and on around me, and not much is being done. Now I look at my behaviour with a critical eye, and I also look at the actions or inactions of others with the very same.

This mediation is about the UDR article, ok. So anything outside this will be treated as a community matter. Now I’m not a mediator, but I can’t see much progress here at all. I’ve seen personal attacks on editors here go by without comment. I’ve seen editors hold the process to ransom and being accommodated. I’ve seen the mediation de-railed and side tracked every time we appear to be making progress. I know the longer this mediation goes on the article is not being edited; now I don’t want that.

From Shell’s comments above, am I to understand there is off wiki discussion? That to me would be a major problem. I’ve not, nor do I intend to email any mediator or editor in relation to this mediation. We need an open and transparent process, were the lessons learned can be shared with the rest of the community. Would I be correct to assume that there is mediation related discussions being conducted behind the backs of editors?

Now the only aspect of the mediation that is still working is the one I initiated. It’s slow and laborious, but getting there all the same. So would it be possible for the mediators to summaries the discussion to date, and break it down to the issues left to be resolved. Thanks,--Domer48_'fenian' 20:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, if any of the mediators want to have a frank discussion about any aspect of my post above, my talk page is open.

Just one clarification: A mediation often involves off-wiki discussion. In a co-mediation, it is crucial that mediators compare notes on a regular basis. Sunray (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may without sound rude, why dose mediation often involves off-wiki discussion? Mediation by it's very nature is about an open honest and transparent process. This is a community project, and how we resolve disputes is very important to the community as a whole. I would suggest that for editors involved in mediation it is crucial that mediators conduct the mediation on the mediation page, and are seen to be open about the whole process. Dose off-wiki discussion also involve editors engaged in the mediation, has there been of wiki discussion with editors? What could you possibly need to discuss that can't be discussed with your fellow editors? Could you possibly give us some links to some successful mediation cases you were involved in, and explain what the process involves because this one has me lost? "In a co-mediation, it is crucial that mediators compare notes on a regular basis" and that is because...? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In a real world mediation there is usually a pre-mediation meeting by the mediator(s) with each participant privately. This is in the interest of getting all the facts and ensuring that it is a mediatable case. Then there are private meetings during the mediation, as needed. The purpose of such meetings is to determine ways of moving from positions to interests. As to the mediators discussing the case, again, that is essential to give each other feedback, look for common interests and develop lines of inquiry that may move things forward. There are some differences on-wiki. There tends to be much more focus, and discussion, on the case page. That doesn't prevent any participant from contacting a mediator, or vice versa. Such communications are private unless the participant agrees to share something said offline, but a mediator is responsible for ensuring that such communications do not favour one participant or jeopardize the mediation. If you are interested in the mediation process, you might want to check out Getting to YES. It is a good primer. Sunray (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out the obvious, but this is not the real world. On wiki we have opening comments, followed by questions for clarity, so we understand were everyone is coming from. We don't need private discussion to get all the facts. The way of moving from positions to interests is through discussion with fellow editors looking for common interests and develop lines of inquiry that may move things forward. So there is no reason for private discussion at all. What private reasons would an editor have for breeching policies or being uncivil? Now could you give us a link to a successful mediation cases so I know how it works and learn from them if I can, thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 19:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I find that WP is fairly similar to the real world—perhaps a subset. Certainly it is a reality. There is no doubt that my experience in mediation off-wiki has been useful. The trick about moving from positions to interests (on or off-wiki) is that one needs to reflect on what is happening. Often, more different viewpoints are better, always respecting the confidential nature of mediation. The ideal scenario would be for all participants and mediators to brainstorm together and come up with strategies to move things forward. Alas, that is often not possible. In our case, there have been repeated outbreaks of conflict. That has made it harder to move from positions to interests up until now.

You said: "So there is no reason for private discussion at all." I don't have time to go into this in detail, but will just say that, particularly in a multi-party mediation, there is a negotiation going on with each participant. Most of that can (and in our case does) go on in the public forum. However, to maintain that one-on-one discussions, (which can occur without interruption or outside interference), would not be useful in many situations, is naive. As to examples: Every mediation is completely different and I do not see any purpose in looking at other cases right now. If you have read Getting to Yes, you might take a look at Getting past NO. If you would like to get this mediation back on the rails, I suggest we get back to the agreements section. Some focussed effort is required there. Sunray (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediators' comments

Domer requested the mediators' views of the mediation. The mediators have talked a lot over the last few days and we do have some comments to make. Here's our take on things:

The mediation began well with the three participants in the dispute agreeing to mediate and making opening statements. David joined stating that despite the fact that he was not involved in the conflict, he would be willing to help out.

Very quickly, disputes broke out over participants' views of what had happened. Disputes also carried over to various articles. Guidelines for Interaction and Terms of Editing of articles during the mediation were established. Since then, participants have, at times, shown initiative in moving things forward. Domer originated a consensus-building exercise and Thunderer did some work on an outline. Participants made obvious efforts to work on I-messages.

However, there have been few days without conflict, finger pointing, blaming one another. The mediators have had to intervene frequently and remove personal attacks or statements that they saw as not conducive to progress. In recent days, the mediators have wondered whether there is any real commitment to mediate in good faith. Certainly every proposal to move forward is likely to be opposed by one or more of the participants. Our sense is that unless we can get to building on one another's comments, things will not progress. Today's discussion has been mostly positive. However, it has not included all participants. Also, there is still a tendency to point the finger of blame at each other. We are not singling anyone out here, all three participants have done this.

So here's an open question: What would it take to be able to have a successful outcome to this mediation? Sunray and Shell 00:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No policy can been viewed in isolation, for example WP:CON says that having made an edit, fellow editors have three options. They can accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. Should an editor decide to revert, Verifiability and the section titled "Burden of evidence" says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." The editor should be allowed the oppertunity to provide evidence which supports their edit before it is reverted. [Reference to former conflict removed] Comments should focus on the edits and not the editor, and editors should read our talk page guidlines. This would be a start, and if it was enforced would reduce some of the problems. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I do mind that my comments were removed from the above post. However, if anyone can show me were these issues were addressed I’ll accept their removal. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope that we will address the issues through agreements on how we will move forward. Sunray (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask the mediators how they propose we move on when their advice is blatently ignored. I explained WP:IMOS to Thunderer here, and it was a view indorsed by Shell in the second post here. Despit this, Thunderer reverted an univolved editor here who correctly applied WP:IMOS, and then reverted me here when I fixed it. Not only have they breeched an agreement here, but they have also breeched the AE applied 1RR sanction on all Troubles related articles. Some mediator imput is needed, as we need to have confidence in each other if mediation is to succeed. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer, I have given this sort of comment as an example of the kind of behaviour that is unhelpful (see previous section). Each participant is responsible for their own behaviour. Comments about what the other guy is doing are not on. Would you be willing to acknowledge that you understand this and will make the necessary adjustments? Sunray (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Replies to mediators comments

My agenda here, as on the articles, is to establish a style of editing which is recommended by the Manual of Style for military units (including police units). I would like to see that no attempts are made to slant these articles towards a sympathy for any faction involved in the Northern Ireland ethic conflict referred to as "The Troubles". I agree that a small, clinical amount of background is needed which includes salient points but does not swamp that articles in question with carefully chosen POV quotes from authors, publications or websites sympathetic to either cause. The concept of the wiki demands that the meat of these arguments be outlined on specific pages dedicated to the perspectives of the communites involved - not with regards to the units themselves. [Personal opinion removed] [It] also extends to anyone taking the reverse stance and trying to hold up any of the state institutuions as models of the community and trying to assert that the minority were all involved in some kind of anti-state or criminal activties such as the various IRA's and other terrorist groupings.

Neutrality - that is what I seek.Thunderer (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality as in WP:NPOV? Yes, absolutely. I think that agreement to abide by WP policies is basic to a successful outcome. Others have mentioned WP:RS and WP:VER. We may have to clarify how participants interpret those policies in some cases. Sunray (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel those are issues which need to be explored in more detail. Some sources which are very POV are verifiable and in that case one policy can be used cleverly to overturn another. Thunderer (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good point. This is the art of applying WP:VER. I agree that this should be a point for further discussion. Sunray (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The comments by Domer and Thunderer, once striped of any finger pointing or personal opinion, provide useful reminders on key policies with respect to content. The mediator's outstanding concern has to do with the behavioural side—how the participants treat one another. If you continue to throw old grievances back at each other, it will be hard to move forward. Just for demonstration purposes, I have removed the barbs from each of your last posts. Note that the point is made without the personal comment about how bad the other guy is. How about we try one day without blaming each other? Then, we could try for a second day. If we take it one day at a time we might get somewhere. Sunray (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record; there were no barbs from me in the post which you removed. I gave my feelings frankly and honestly and I have yet to see anyone deny this, despit the amount of times it's been levelled. Can either Domer or BigDunc deny that their sympathies are firmly in the Republican camp? I can certainly deny that mine are not in any camp - not a loyalist, republican, unionist or whatever. An amateur military historian is all. Thunderer (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I can say that I have no sympathies with any camp. I was never a member of any organisation that were embroiled in the troubles can other editors say the same? BigDunc^Talk 19:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

All of us who were victims of the toubles were embroiled in some way. It says a lot that people like myself have the good sense not to bear grudges as a result of our experiences, despite still bearing actual physical scars as well as mental ones. Those who did not live through it can only speak of it through the eyes of others. It would be nice to get an answer to the question however. Where do your sympathies lie. Do you tend to sympathise with a cause? I don't. Thunderer (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What part of Yes I can say that I have no sympathies with any camp do you not understand. Seems very clear to me. BigDunc^Talk 13:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You referred to "a tendancy to retell the story of how badly the Catholic minority of Northern Ireland was treated when one reads any article related to the Province." I have several concerns with this sort of statement. First of all, it is a generalization—a sweeping statement that purports to summarize what the "others" have done. It is thus a statement that the other guy has a particular POV. Most people do have a particular point of view. That is not in any way exceptional. Making comments about the other guy's POV can be problematic, though. It all depends on how it is done. If it is done in a completely neutral manner and assumes good faith it may be useful if the other person is receptive. However, it is hard to do without seeming to be finger pointing. I am suggesting that it be avoided. As to you not being in any camp. Well, perhaps you are able to recognize, and control for, your own POV. That is not clear to me. But with respect to the article, you wouldn't argue for striping the UDR article of any historical context, would you?

In my experience, editors presenting differing points of view can immeasurably improve an article. The key, as has been said on this page, is balance. That is the hope for this mediation. Sunray (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Everyone, including me has a POV that is correct. Which is why I declared my history so that other editors can assist me in not putting forward information, verifiable or not, which could be seen as lauding the involvement of any of the parties, factions or units who took part in any conflict. Never in these discussions have I ever said that the Catholics, Nationalists or Republicans were/are wrong in what they did and what they do, nor do I assert that the Portestants, Unionists or Loyalists were wrong. I strive however to present a history of a military unit in a way which educates the reader on the involvement of that unit in a particular conflict without trying to prejudice their opinion. To assert for example in the lead that the B Specials were all Orangemen is, in effect, a declaration that they were all anti-Catholic. To then go on and say that at least 50% of the UDR recruits were B Specials would imply that the UDR was an anti-Catholic force from the outset. If you tell the history properly, that the UDR initially reflected the demographics of the six counties of Northern Ireland and that Catholic membership declined, and the reasons why Catholic membership declined then you are telling it as it was - not trying to assert the imagined and oftimes asserted version of history that is espoused by Sinn Fein. I mention Sinn Fein alone here because it's unavoidable. In the morass of Northern Irish politics every party has its spin. The Loyalists would like you to think perhaps that the UDR were the "loyal defenders of Ulster" wheras the history of the regiment would seem to indicate otherwise, that in fact it was neither anti-Catholic or pro-Protestant, much to the chagrin of both sets of political parties. You can never fully leave politics behind when dealing with the recent problems in Northern Ireland and I apologise for having to raise them here but her is the right place - the article isn't. Insofar as is possible the politics and spin should be left out of it and the history allowed to tell itself through the available, verifiable facts, which shouldn't include Tim Pat Coogan saying they were a bunch of rogues or Ian Paisley saying they were saints. Thunderer (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a clear statement of the political perspectives that bear on the regiment. Sometimes, though, facts are not going to be enough. In order to get the full significance it is sometimes useful to portray the opposing political positions as fairly as possible to get the full significance. From my experience with military records, I would say that sometimes the "facts" are pretty bland. I would like to get the other participants views on what T. has said. Would you please practice following the Guidelines in responding, gents? Sunray (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have always felt that it is enough to address the issues with a political "overview" and then examine relevant aspects of it in detail. For example: the effect using former B Specials in the regiment may have had on recruitment. In that section I think it is very fair to explore the Catholic fear of former Special policemen being against them because of membership of the Orange Order and to discover if possible if those fears were founded. How many didn't join because of these fears? How many left because of them, or because they felt it was true and they became intimidated, or were actually victims of first hand intimidation? It is an involved subject though and shouldn't be put in the lead in such detail. I feel the unemotive words currently used in the lead suffice. Thunderer (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking and more

Hands up the guilty party? Thunderer (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the kind of carry on that has to stop if you are been wikistalked could you provide a diff instead of more of your unsubstantiated claims. BigDunc^Talk 12:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What claims are those exactly Dunc? I'm looking but I don't see any accusations at anyone? You could help me though - what would you define as wikistalkingThunderer (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would qualify as wikistalking if two editors who were involved in mediation followed another editor from the same mediation onto 5 different articles which they had never edited before?Thunderer (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I explained WP:IMOS to Thunderer in the course of mediation here, and it was a view indorsed by Shell a mediator in the second post here. Despit this, Thunderer reverted an univolved editor here who correctly applied WP:IMOS, and then reverted me here when I fixed it. Not only have they breeched an agreement reached at mediation, but they have also breeched the AE applied 1RR sanction on all Troubles related articles. I do address the issue of Derry / Londonderry as seen recently here, and my edits here are no different. Now having explained my rational, and cited WP:IMOS, Thunderer has raised the issue of Wikistalking. I would suggest editors read Wikistalking, which state “Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam.” Thunder has again reverted both myself and Dunc as can be seen here, with the edit summary of “rv wikistalking” which is obviously not the case. Could Admin's please explain WP:IMOS to Thunderer, and ask him to self revert. Thanks. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I will post the above comment on WP:AE.

The above exchange is typical of what the participants are doing in this dispute, IMO. I was tempted to remove it, but if the participants want examples of how they are being provocative, blaming one another, wikilawyering and generally escalating conflict so that it becomes a community-wide INCIDENT, there could be no better example. When you are all done, please return to this page ready to mediate and we will resume. I am still hoping for one day without conflict. How about we start over tomorrow? One day at a time. Sunray (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm ready to mediate any time. Thunderer (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The incident today suggests otherwise to me. I note 3RR violations, a block, the intervention of admins, and pages of heated discussion on the AE page. David's comment, below is apt. How can we proceed with this sort of thing going on? Sunray (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't initiate any edit wars. I did not revert anyone but made good faith edits. I then made the mistake of responding but I think some good will come of it. Thunderer (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer shouldn't have reverted the chagnes per the general restricitons, but did it have to be either of you who subsequently reverted him? Other people were obviously involved, why not leave it to them? David Underdown (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It rather appears to be open season on breaches of editing conditions today. Perhaps everyone could exercise a little patience? Thunderer (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I feel that this is going nowwhere and I am removing myself from this mediation. Since it has started I have been abused by Thunderer and shown no good faith. He now is unblocked after 7 3RR reports were filed against him and his cry of I was tag teamed is upheld. I am part of NO tag team yet obviously admin who unblocks feels I am so no more. BigDunc^Talk 15:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, I'd suggest you read this here, and then there is this essay I read here. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreements

What remains to be done to enable a move to the article talk page? For starters, would someone be able to summarize what has been agreed to and what remains to be discussed? Then consider these questions: How do participants plan to make decisions? What guidelines will apply? Sunray (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines that we need to apply are wikipedia policy WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:CON the last being the most difficult to adopt and I am not sure how we could with only 4 editors here. Lets take it to the talk page for the wider community to discuss. Also any proposed reasoning for deletion or insertion should be backed up with policy and not just I don't like it.BigDunc^Talk 18:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

On the consensus exercise, it's really just how to close it at the moment. We have trashed out the quotes, and they do support the current text, its seems to be how to phrase it? In addition, the whole issue of sources and the subject of WP:V and WP:RS. That needs to be addressed, I'd suggest possibly using the ones from the exercise or the article i.e. Potter and Gamble? Talk page guidlines is also which has not been addressed, though it has been touched on here on occasion. Of the top of my head, thats it at the minute? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be prepared to continue with a minimum of three particpants if they re-commit to the Terms of Editing and Guidelines for Interaction. Also, we would need to finalize our agreements. Dunc has listed some key policies. There may be other things agreed to on this page. It seems advisable for particpants to make this agreement their own. It is likely to have more buy-in if that is the case. Sunray (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, I raised the issue of Terms of Editing here and received no response. If the first term was changed to something like Editors should not revert any Editors edits in the absence of discussion on article talk pages, it would come closer to addressing the problem, IMO. It is blind reverting which is causing the problem, with no rational, being offered to explain the reverts.

It seems to me that the problem is that people have not followed the Terms and have not brought questions or concerns here (more on this below). The case you raised in the diff is a good example. You said that an editor said: "you're not allowed to edit that, you've not edited it before." This claim is not a correct interpretation of the Terms of Editing, which clearly state to "not edit articles that other participants have edited prior to Nov 5." In a case such as this. I would suggest:

a) not reverting the other editor or making angry edit summaries or comments,

b) bringing it here as a question,

c) following our Guidelines for Interaction, and, above all

d) stating facts simply, and without blaming or insinuation.

You also said: "if I go off an edit an article none have edited, any of the editors can come along and revert me, and because its before the 5 Nov its ok?" Again, that is a misinterpretation of the Terms and could quickly be cleared up on this page. Note that, due to time differences, it will be necessary to wait for resolution. That is: s-l-o-w down and wait. Sunray (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

On the second point on Terms of Editing, it is consistently been contradicted by Mediators. “I further agree to discuss any issues or concerns I have with other participants here.” Now as soon as you raise issues or concern with another participant here, we are told not to point the finger at one another? I hope this answers both Dunc’s and your issues of concern?

Well, I see this differently. The mediators have been trying to make a distinction between discussion and finger pointing. The Guidelines for Interaction suggest "asking open questions," and "sticking to facts." A simple question supported by a diff would suffice if there has been a perceived infraction.

The Terms were set up to prevent the sort of edit warring that has been going on this week. Looking for the silver lining in what happened this week, I would say that admins who were not aware of the progress of this mediation are now more so. The agreement we form here will have to go past arbitration enforcement. They would be responsible for dealing with infractions by participants. Sunray (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I’m totally committed to the mediation and have been from the very start and I hope that has been reflected in my full and active participation in the whole process. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue of WP:OWN has still not be addressed and is the major concern I have, content can realistically be sorted with policy also WP:COI I feel needs to be discussed. BigDunc^Talk 12:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If the mediators facilitate the discussion on the UDR article talk page, there will be no chance for ownership of an article. Sunray (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Then can we move to the talk page so that editng of the article can begin. BigDunc^Talk 11:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

First we finalize the agreement. One of the conditions, as I have said above, is re-commitment of participants to abide by the Terms of Editing and Guidelines for Interaction, above. We will need all participants to agree to the agreement. Then we will be able to move to the article. Sunray (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Domer regarding ToE we are asked to bring concerns here and when we do we are told to not point the finger. I feel the problem is blindly reverting this being a prime example. I made the sentence NPOV by giving both sides of what was supposed to happen backed up with reliable sources yet it was reverted to a version that gave one side and contained spelling and grammer mistakes. This IMO is what the problem is more so than content disputes as I stated in my opening statement it is ownership of articles. So maybe we could have terms that state that no participants can revert the other but bring it here first so it can be discussed. BigDunc^Talk 15:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that rehashing old violations will be useful. Suffice it to say that the Terms were violated. You yourself did so BigDunc. The message from the discussion at Arbitration Enforcement was very clear: Each participant is responsible for policing himself. To that I will only add: Report a violation when it happens. However, if you yourself commit a violation in response, little can be done except to say "STOP!" That is what happened. Now, are we ready to recommit to the Terms? Sunray (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I will agree not to revert any editor that is in this mediation but I don't agree to a defacto block on articles. This is what I feel is the crux of the problem. Also if an edit is made and another editor has a concern bring it here and discuss and then the editor must self revert if the edit is in breach of any wiki policy. BigDunc^Talk 16:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, thats it in a nut shell, and I'd agree to that. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that we need to show a successful track record. Not may days went by without a conflict between participants. It was either a dispute here or a violation of the Terms. That is not supportable by the mediators. So here's another idea: The participants demonstrate that they can be dispute free for a period of time. Then we review things with an eye to relaxing the Terms. Sunray (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunray the whole idea of mediation is based on agreement. Both Dunc and myself agree not to revert any editor involved in this mediation without raising it here on this page. Agreement all round is what we are looking for, and we have it. Can we now move on and get back to work. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[Removed comments about another participant]. Sunray (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunc is can understand the frustration, but the alternative is more of the same. This process of mediation is a way out of it through agreement. Now I don't know how we are going to get round the consistent reverting as mentioned above, maybe Sunray can offer some suggestions, using the examples above as a model. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[Removed comments about another participant] Sunray (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Dunc, and I'm seeking outside advice. Lets wait and see how it goes. Based on the 7 3RR reports for the same issue, I may file a 3RR report and see how that turns out, but for the minute lets just leave it and don't revert. That will not help at all. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunder has been given a warning about their conduct here, and I'm hopefull that will be the end of it. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed comments above that involve blaming or policing someone else. As became painfully apparent during the past week, it is not up to one participant to police another. Sunray (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, you removed a number of questions raised by Editors involved in the mediation. Could you possibly address some of them here please. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is a current concern that has not been dealt with, by all means bring it here. I may have missed something, but I thought that all the issues raised had been dealt with by either: a) removal of personal attacks, b) comments, such as the one by Tznaki to all of the participants, or c) warnings. Sunray (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

0RR proposal

Domer has proposed the following approach: "To not revert any editor involved in this mediation without raising it on this page."

The mediators agree that since reverting seems to be the heart of the problem, if participants agree to come talk instead of reverting and not just before reverting, we would be prepared to support that. Sunray (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It was not me who proposed the 0RR but has been arrived at through discussion. This, to my knowledge applies to Dunc, David and myself. What is the view of mediators to editors who have left mediation and continue to revert? Should we adopt the normal course, i.e. WP:3RR reports or WP:AE. On Troubles related articles there is currently a 1RR restriction, therefore a matter for WP:AE. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For there to be a mediation, there has to be something to mediate. From your participation thus far, I don't think that there is much to mediate between you Dunc and David. The mediation is on-going until it is closed — rather like the line from the song: "You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave." There are very good reasons for each of the participants to want this mediation to succeed — common interests, one might say. However, the mediators cannot compel anyone to participate. So either we all resume the mediation, or it will be back to AE. That is the reality, as I see it. Sunray (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What Sunray is holding up the mediation? BigDunc^Talk 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In one sense, I don't think that anything is holding up the mediation. A mediation proceeds at its own pace. Right now each of the participants is considering the agreements we need to make to move to the UDR talk page (at least I hope this is happening). There is more to do on finalizing agreements.

If you recall, I mentioned the need for a decision rule. I made the mistake of trying to suggest something and my suggestion didn't fly. Nevertheless, I've worked with consensus decision-making for many years and can tell you that the current WP policy, while good, does not go far enough for conflict situations. In a mediation, things have to be very clear and understood by all. Decision rules that are not explicit do not cut it in a dispute. We need to develop an agreement, within the intent of WP:CON, that clarifies certain things:

• What do we do when someone blocks consensus?
• What are the rules on inclusion and closure?
• How do we know when we have consensus?

My proposal addressed these things. I am waiting to hear an alternate proposal on this so we can put it into our agreement. Sunray (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunray, since you don't think that there is much to mediate between Dunc, David and myself, are you suggesting that without Thunderer the mediation will close. I'm concerned by your comment "However, the mediators cannot compel anyone to participate. So either we all resume the mediation, or it will be back to AE. That is the reality, as I see it." Could you clarify it for us please? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I find it worrying that if one editor refuses to take part in mediation then we have to go back to AE. BigDunc^Talk 20:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of effort has gone into this, and to be honest I'd be really PO if it has to go back to AE. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What part of my comment is unclear? As far as putting a great deal into this mediation. I agree. We all have. That is why participants have a very considerable common interest in continuing. I don't want to contemplate what going back to AE would look like. It seems an unlikely prospect. However, it is what would have to happen if we were to close this mediation. Sunray (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we proceed without Thunderer? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We can continue finalizing the agreements or complete any business on this page that doesn't require Thunderer's input. Sunray (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, thats much better. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

0RR not a problem for me. Over the weekend I did mention on Domer's talkpage that I might be able to draft an alternative proposal trying to give more historical context for the beginning of the UDR article today. Unfortunately I ended up catching up with various other matters instead. At the moment I'm still really trying to get to grips with the available sources as this isn't an area I'm delved into in any depth before. I'm currently a little over halfway through Moloney's A Secret History of the IRA, and also have Coogan's The I.R.A. and Bowyer Bell's The Secret Army: The IRA on hand. Dillon's The Dirty War I can also readily obtain. I've also been browsing through the CAIN website more thoroughly and reading through a variety of the stuff they have there, particularly where it is more focussed on the transition into the Troubles proper, which seems to be the most relevant area for this particular article. David Underdown (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We have 3 editors in agreement about 0RR, whats next Sunray? BigDunc^Talk 22:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As a next step, it would be great if someone could summarize the agreements. This has been a long discussion and it would be great to have a point form summary of what we have agreed to. And, of course, don't forget the consensus editing decision rule. Would you be willing to work on the summary and make a suggestion on consensus, Dunc? Sunray (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

David, you are a beacon for the rest of us! I did see your note on Domer's talk page. An alternate proposal would be great. I'm sure that your reading will not be in vain. Sunray (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)My Summary

• 3 Editors have agreed to not revert other participants in this mediation effectively a 0RR
• It is not the duty of editors to police other members of this mediation bring concerns to relevant place
• Blind reverting is a major problem and must stop
• Civility is a major problem and must end
• Thunderer has left mediation

Still awaiting some agreement on how to end discussion as it appears that it could go on indefinitely my feeling on the matter is edit the page and work from it. Discussion alone IMO can’t lead to consensus and it needs editing to push matters along. That way an editor can’t hold everything to ransom by throwing up spurious claims. If discussion along with editing is taking place it is very easy to see who are edit warriors by the actions they take with editions or removals. Once we follow wiki policy transgressions can easily be spotted and solutions implemented be that blocks or warnings. BigDunc^Talk 19:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunc while I agree with the broad thrust of your summary I would have suggest that both David and myself are not holding up the process with our discussion. We just want to get it right. While it may be slow and tedious we must be given some credit for effort? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Domer I think you are picking me up wrong while I agree that discussion is a slow process it must be done inconjunction with edits to the article. We are not the only editors who contribute to the article and as such we need to make edits so we can move forward. We can sit here and talk for six months and agree but what happens when we put agreed text into the article and it is removed? Have we got consensus to replace it or must we start the process all again with other editors? BigDunc^Talk 20:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that Dunc, your right in what your saying. I would suggest that if we format the discussions on the talk page so editors can see how the text was formulated that would probably help a lot. That way if new editors come to the subject we can point to the relevant discussion? I do agree with editing the article also, six months on a talk page could be an obvious distraction. We need to start putting some of our discussions into action.--Domer48_'fenian' 21:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunc: The above seems to me to be a fair summary. It might be possible to have a facilitator (initially a mediator, perhaps) determine consensus. Ultimately, I think that there will have to be a stated rule that participants buy in to. Sunray (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What have you got in mind Sunray. BigDunc^Talk 22:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

With Thunderer gone, the mediation is, essentially, over. We just need to wrap up on this page and then close. Sunray (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

North Irish Horse

Oops, since we were discussing various sources at Talk:North Irish Horse#Refs, it slipped my mind that a (partial) reversion should be raised here as well. Domer removed a link as a deadlink, I've found the updated url, so believe the link should be restored tot he article. David Underdown (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, David, I certainly agree. Sunray (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks too David glad you brought it here it shows your good intentions. Regarding the link to the Irish Horse site it is a self published site and as such must be taken with a pinch of salt. Anything controversial it shouldn't be used, but for a source say for example dates I would have no problem. BigDunc^Talk 17:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, I'm not talking about the regimental association website in this instance but http://www.1914-1918.net/nirishhorse.htm - the url originally additionally had /CAVALRY after .net. Domer removed it as a deadlink, a quick check by me found the fixed version. David Underdown (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dunc, thanks David. If Sunray could address the issue of "new" editors and their reverts it would be weclome. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

So since I'm talking about restoring a link which you had removed as dead with an updated url, are you happy to put it back in? David Underdown (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

David, in your opinion would you think the source was good enough say for example if the article was going for FA status? Would you accept it? I would agree with Dunc, for dates and such its ok I suppose but for anything controversial it shouldn't be used. I'd say go ahead a add it, but thats just my opinion. Thanks again, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not talking about the regimental association website in this instance but 1914-1918.net (The long, long trail). This site is listed by Intute and the editor, Chris Baker, is an honorary research fellow at the University of Birmingham Centre for First World War studies, seeIntute listing, list of Members of the Centre for WWI studies. You implied on teh article talkpage that the only reason you removed this link was that it was deadlinking, I've found the updated url (the site has apparently been undergoing a restructure). So although still arguably self-published, the site is by someone with a good claim to expertise in the field, and the site itself has been identified by a service which aims to select the "best of the best", and as part of that process hs been reviewed by at least one other expert. David Underdown (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree David it is self published but the author/creator has reliable credentials and the addition of with would have no objections from me. BigDunc^Talk 09:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Notorious strumpets

At the same time as the source being discussed above was removed, a link to North Irish Horse content on http://www.notoriousstrumpets.co.au was also removed as self-published. I've also been doing a bit of digging into this as from what I could see the work seemed to be well-sourced.

The author of the site, Philip Tardif is a published author. His first book, Notorious strumpets and Dangerous Girls: Convict Women in Van Diemen's Land, 1803-1829 ISBN 0207157987 was published in 1990, and has since been released as an interactive CD. This book is referenced by several other books as demonstrated by this google books search. It is also listed as a source for teachers and secondary school students by the official website related to Port Arthur, Tasmania [2]; by the library of Macquarie University [3], by this University of Sydney website; this list of electronic resources from the State Library of New South Wales; by Informit Australia which describes itself as "the premier source of online Australasian scholarly research" and appears to be somewhat analogous to Intute, mentioned above; in this Australian Dictionary of Biography article on Maria Lord; as further reading on this article on female convicts from the University of Tasmania; and in this bibliography for sources on the Welsh in Austrlaia from the National Library of Wales.

His second book John Bowen's Hobart: The beginning of European settlement in Tasmania won a Government of Tasmania local history prize [4]. This announcement also states that he has a history degree. Given all this (the other two sections on the website are both related to his books), he again seems to have reasonable credentials as an expert. David Underdown (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

David, the link you provided is dead http://www.notoriousstrumpets.co.au, likewise was the other one. Therefore I had no way of knowing what the sources were. I hope that explains my edit summary on removing dead links? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant http://www.notoriousstrumpets.com.au I thought I had double-checked that. Ah you OK for the one above to go back in too? David Underdown (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course, like I said, I was unable to read the sources. No problem, --Domer48_'fenian' 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Closing mediation

This has been a difficult mediation. Early on, we developed Terms of Editing and Guidelines for Interaction. The latter were based on WP policies and would have gone a long way towards resolving the conflict if participants had been able to sustain practice of them. In saying this, I don't mean to discount the time and effort put towards this mediation by the participants. Rather, that participants had trouble disengaging from their long-standing conflict. Patterns of behaviour are sometimes hard to change, especially when there is a long-history and the cues and triggers are still present.

Things seemed to progress during the "consensus building exercise." While we did get some clarity of common interests, outbursts of conflict prevented us from moving to the article talk page. In the end participants were unable to disengage from the conflict. While that is regrettable, it seems to me that it is just the way things are sometimes. There is lots of potential in this mediation for individual learning. Through mediation it is sometimes possible to see oneself in a different light. While that may not lead to change right away, it is often valuable as a guide in the future.

I was asked by Domer for suggestions as to how we might proceed from here. That remains to be seen. We are all around WP. I am certainly much more aware of some aspects of The Troubles, so you may well expect to see me around those articles. Beyond that, I am open for suggestions. Shell may wish add some comments before we close. Peace. Sunray (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)