Misplaced Pages

New pages

As per the suggestions from User:the_ed17 I have created three new pages to reduce the size of the article. This is following a warning on the article edit page that it was getting too large and the comments made above are in response to a message left by me at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history where I sought advice on splitting the article. The new pages are: Recruitment to the Ulster Defence Regiment‎ Battalions and locations of the Ulster Defence Regiment Criticisms of the Ulster Defence Regiment‎ I am working towards preparing this article to be moved up to "A" Class. The qualification for that is:

The article meets the following five criteria:
A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate. See also the A-Class review & criteria FAQ.
I trust reviewing admins will agree with the changes and the objectives outlined by me. Thunderer (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Options for Change and amalgamation

In the above section title it mentions the hope that the process of amalgamation with the Rangers, coupled with the change of name, would be a fresh start. The question I have is, did this prove to be the case? Based on the BBC Northern Irelands Spotlight series titled Echoes of Home it would suggest otherwise. I would therfore suggest the text below, which was removed, as an attempt to address the question posed above. The formula of words can be changed according to editors suggestions.

"According to Larkin, it is clear that the Ulster Defence Regiment brought “all its old customs” into the newly amalgamated regiment. While directing a programme in Bosnia for BBC Northern Irelands Spotlight series titled Echoes of Home, they observed that the interiors of the tents in the bivouac area where the RIR were deployed were festooned with King Billy flags and other loyalist regalia. The British Army’s PR department, who had done an excellent job setting things up for them while in Bosnia, were horrified while watching a preview of the film when they returned home, to see the loyalist regalia in the background while interviewing the soldiers. They approached the Spotlight team, asking if they could do something about the flags, but they were unable to do so. The Army’s concern stemmed from the fact, Larkin says, because this came at a time when stories began to surface about recruits from the South of Ireland were being intimidated by UDR personal." --Domer48_'fenian' 07:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This information is not relevant to the UDR. It's about the Royal Irish Regiment. See A2 above. Can you put it in the Royal Irish Regiment article under "Home Service battalions". Thunderer (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just one question. Was the amalgamation with the Rangers all that it was hoped to be? Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't answer that accurately as far as Home Service is concerned. For the General Service battalion I can. In my experience in the last 4 years they've had an RSM from Dublin, and a Captain as Welfare Officer (later MTO) who was an ex RSM - also from the south. They have at least several commissioned officers from the Free State and the usual smattering of southern Irish in the ranks. Insomuch as who's Catholic and who's Protestant it's hard to know because they don't make an issue out of religion. You will find Ulster regalia in rooms but you'll also find the tricolour. They all mix together in the bars. In that respect they're very like the Irish Hussars which I served with. From a working point of view you'll probably find that more of the senior NCO and officer appointments within Home Service were filled by Rangers instead of guys from English, Scottish or Welsh units and that's where you're going to find the unusual situation that predominantly Protestant battalions would have had Catholic RSM's or Commanding Officers who could have come from the Falls Road or the South. How they dealt with that I don't know. Not that there weren't Irish Catholic NCO's or officer before amalgamation - there were. Some regular posts in the UDR were filled by Inniskilling Dragoons, Irish Hussars, Irish Guards as well as Irish Rangers. I know for a fact that 11 UDR had an Irish Hussar PSI as well as an Irish Ranger commanding officer. Were they Protestant or Catholic? Who knows, who cares. The army is the army and the religion of the man next to you is of no consequence, you depend on him when the chips are down just the same as he depends on you.Thunderer (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There were also more than a few Irish in the 4/7th Dragoon Guards (originally 4th Royal Irish DG) and 16/5th Lancers (5th Royal Irish Lancers). They would have had people on attachment too. Thunderer (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We mention in the article the hopes for the amalgamation, so I ask once again, was the amalgamation with the Rangers all that it was hoped to be? We know that the answer is no, so why can we not say it? While your experience is intresting, it dose not answer the question I raise. Now could you please give a policy based reason why the information can not be included. As an aside, I can provide a sourced reference which states that the display of the Tri-colour would not be tolerated. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My experience of these things doesn't mirror your source. I have seen with my own eyes many displays of tricolours in the barracks of Irish units of the British Army. I lived with it. I served with Catholics and Protestants, many of whom had been and were subsequently in the UDR, the British Police Forces, the Garda Siochana or Oglaigh na hEireann. I drink in Dublin with British and Irish soldiers and members of the Gardai, all of whom know who the other is. You don't understand the mentality of soldiers that's the problem here. Religion is of little or no importance to them, no matter how hard you try to prove otherwise. Furthermore if anyone suggests that the Home Service battalions had bad habits brought in by the UDR then that information belongs on the Royal Irish page but one thing's for sure - your source is quoting the General Service battalion, because Home Service guys didn't serve in Bosnia and if you're trying to make religion an aspect of the 1st Battalion you're on a hiding to nothing because I have had much and recent close contact with them and I know your source to be totally wrong.Thunderer (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Ronnie Gamble information

Can you please self revert on the Ronnie Gamble information please. You have deleted a link to an online version of his book, including the ISBN number. It is not a blog. Thunderer (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont need to seen as you have reverted my edits again. This adds nothing to the article as he is non notable and should be removed. Or will we add more names of ex members? BigDunc 15:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I added new information, I didn't revert you. He is notable however. He wrote a book, a book which was funded by the National Lottery. That's very notable. It's his book which is online too - not a blog as you tried to assert. It's word-for-word ISBN 9780955806902. I will be adding the names of other ex-members too, because they were in the UDR and the article demands facts about the UDR. Thunderer (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No you reverted again seems your block didn't change your editing patterns. BigDunc 15:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

With the revised text relating to him, it seems worth leaving some mention of him in, particularly since his book is being used a reference elsewhere in the article, and it helps people to understand the reliability of that as a source. He's probably not notable enough for his own wikipedia article. The text might be improved if we could actually find something like a book review or similar describing him as a typical recruit - that does read a little like original research as it stands. David Underdown (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

His book is online and any relevant information from it can be used. It isn't all about him though and it does contain some opinion which I am opposed to using because opinions aren't what we need here. You're quite right as well David. It is totally different text to that which was reverted by BigDunc. I don't believe he's notable enough for writing one small book about the UDR to have his own article. Dunc, you need to exercise a little good faith.Thunderer (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Good faith about what? BigDunc 16:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you removed an item which you called a blog, totally ignoring the inline text which said it was an online reproduction of a book.Thunderer (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A book that Google book search and worldcat and LibraryThing have no returns on a search. BigDunc 16:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have provided the ISBN, it isn't my fault if you can't find it. I have the book in front of me and I will put the front and back covers into the article as proof of you wish because I have written permission from the author to do so. Thunderer (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact I have just done so. The back cover of the book is now in the article with the ISBN No clearly visible along with the author's name and the Lottery logo. I'll do the flyleaf as well if you'd like me to?Thunderer (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

London Gazette

David, that's an excellent addition to the article. I never thought of looking to see when officers were Gazetted. Thunderer (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The search facility isn't 100% reliable because the way the scanned image has been converted to machine readable text, but most things can be tracked down in the end. It helps if you know the persons full name (or at least their full initials). David Underdown (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is excellent material though. You're contributing something very relevant, factual and verifiable to the article. It's not political, it'not POV, it's not opinion. Just good solid information which enhances the article and puts it further down the road to A Class. Thunderer (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Subversion in the UDR report

This is an extremely relevant document in relation to the UDR. It is subject specific and should not have been removed without prior discussion. I would now invite editor’s opinions on this section, and the other sections which have been removed. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The report is one of the most import documents to come to light in relation to the UDR. The issue of collusion goes to the very hart of all that was wrong in relation to policing a divided society. The report was not a criticism of the UDR, but a condemnation as any book of Google search will attest. To disassociate this report from the main article would not lend itself to the reader’s knowledge of the regiment. To remove such vast sections in the absence of any prior discussion dose not lend its self to a productive editing environment. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

With regards to discussion you should have discussed any proposal along these lines before trying any such moves. You were also informed by me that admin advice had been requested and you knew that I had drawn attention to all of this on the AE board. You two seem to be out of control at the moment and I'm leaving admins to deal with you. In the meantime the information has been restored to where it was left after discussion with people at the Milhist board. Thunderer (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Latest dispute

Ok, I'm here at work, so I can't dig fully, but let's TALK. Since usually when the usual folks talk to each other in the usual way, the dispute doesn't get resolved, completely ignore what the "other" side says. Talk to me, and only me.

Domer, from a quick look, it looks like the Subversion in the UDR report looks to be handled in the Criticism of the UDR article, is that not correct? SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have outlined my rational above, and if you wish me to expand upon it I'll be more than happy in the section I opened on it. For now though, I would apply your rational of bold, revert, discuss. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Where was the consensus for creating a criticism article? BigDunc 19:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I find this section very perplexing when one reviews the recent edits on the article. Every edit I’ve made has been reverted. Every one. I have not reverted, but instead have gone to the talk page. In the section above titled “Proposal, History section” only one editor has disagreed with the views on the discussion, and reverted despite the opportunity provided on the talk page. To suddenly describe my edit, as “Latest Dispute” despite no comments on the talk page I find strange. Could Fozz possibly point me to this dispute? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was pointed at this by a request by Thunderer for more eyes on the article on AE. As for the consensus for creating a criticism article, Thunderer asked for more eyes on the article at the Military project sub-article, who indicated that the article was getting too big, and suggested creating sub pages for some of the larger sections. I happen to agree with it (speaking ONLY as an editor, not an administrator), the page was over 100K, which is not recommended for articles, and the main article links to the sub-pages in the articles). More later once I have a free moment. SirFozzie (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And were did this discussion take place where consensus was reached to move pertinent sections of the article? BigDunc 20:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Thunderer asked for more eyes on the article at the Military project sub-article." So was the discission made their on what sections to be removed were? That new "Criticism" article is nothing but a POV fork, it should be in the main article. It should have been discussed before it was removed, it was not. And Fozz you agree with this? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said previously, with my editor hat on, yes. It was a large section that deserved its own article in full, rather than filling an already bloated article. SirFozzie (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Were was the prior discussion? Even the editor from the Milhist who I don't know from Adam is getting tired of this editors attitude. You still have not addressed my view that the new "Criticism" article is nothing but a POV fork, which IMO it is. So you agree with this removal despite no discussion? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever considered contributing something to this article other than criticism Domer? Surely with all the knowledge you've gleaned by now, especially what I've taught you, you must appreciate what a superb unit the UDR was and what a great job they did in such trying circumstances?Thunderer (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont think trying to goad another editor by patronising them is any way helpful so please stop it now. BigDunc 21:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as 1RR hasn't made the desired effect? Perhaps 0-RR should be considered, as the revert button, can be too much of a temptation. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

But who is doing the reverting and no sanctions are being imposed I would agree to a 0RR on the article if admins are going to impose the sanctions that were set out. BigDunc 21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It would also be helpful for all sanctioned editors, if they stayed away from the articles that they got sanctioned over. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Splitting out large sections is a standard applicaiton of WP:Summary style. Of course, it's important that the summary left in the original article is itself balanced and NPOV. There does need to be mentoin here of criticism from sources which are clearly not Nationalist. That includes the report mentioned here, and if possible something from the mainstream British press. David Underdown (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

PP

Could you expalin Fozz what edit war? BigDunc 20:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite edit warring, but I'm not going to let one develop, especially. It was the best drop down from the menu. As I said, I'm working and can't watch it every free moment. I'm not going to let one start here. SirFozzie (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

New sanctions (see AE)

I have placed new Troubles-related sanctions on three of the parties in the recent dispute. Please see AE for the details. SirFozzie (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Another source

Some info in this document may be useful http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/misc/opbanner.pdf although this online version is hosted by the Pat Finucane Centre, the original docuemtn is a staff appreciation by the British Army of the lessons to be learnt from Operation Banner. It includes a good overview of the setting up of the UDR, and previous forces (mostly around chapter 3 p4-6.) David Underdown (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks like an excellent document. I'll get a read at it later David. Thank you. Thunderer (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Refs

I intend to challenge some of the refs that are taken from Testimony to Courage - the Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I will post here what I feel needs to be changed before I make any edits. BigDunc 08:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So I’ll make a start with this in the Awards, honours and decorations section

The man credited by the Regimental History as "the most decorated UDR soldier" is Corporal Eric Glass of the 4th (Co Fermanagh) Battalion who received both the Queen's Gallantry Medal and Distinguished Conduct Medal for bravery. Potter pg.90 There is no mention of him on page 90 is the right page being used? BigDunc 08:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we try to keep the language a bit more neutral please? "Query" would sound less agressive than "challenge". David Underdown (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict)My apologies to all the sensitive souls reading this talk page I didn't have my thesaurus with me this morning so I will question, query and challenge the refs, strike through depending on your sensitivities. BigDunc 09:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the previous history, we all need to make a bit of an effort to make this page rather less confrontational, and a try and get a bit more of a colelgial atmosphere, regardless from where we are comming from. David Underdown (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It does look as if there maybe more than one edition of this book, Worldcat gives 2 different OCLCs, so we do need to clarify which edition is being used. David Underdown (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually Dunc is correct. The page numbers for that particlar quote are 366-369. There is also a plate opposite page 115 with that exact quote on it. I can change the ref if you want Dunc or I can let you do it?Thunderer (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

We still ought to give soem further indicaiton of the edition or hardback/paperback if possible. David Underdown (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

2001 (I suspect that's first edition) hardback.Thunderer (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Page refs changed now.Thunderer (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

The Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) was an infantry regiment of the British Army formed as an anti-terrorist... - where on page 19 is the wording that sources that please? I cannot see it anywhere. BigDunc 14:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask yourself the question - why were they formed? I will peruse the book later and check the quote. Thunderer (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

More pertinently, lets ask ourselves, per WP:TERRORIST, whether that can be explicitly qualified with a source. Rockpocket 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why they were formed - specifically. I'll sort the quote. Thunderer (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why I think the UDR was formed is not relevant, as I do not put my own opinions into articles. Whenever you're ready with that quote? BigDunc 20:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, you appear to have the book, this process would appear less adversarial if you simply gave an alternative page number yourself. I expect most of this is down to copy-and-pasting of refs with insufficient regard for the page numbers included in them. Stop just playing gotcha and make a more positive contribution. David Underdown (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats the second time you have not shown me good faith. I am leaving it up to the editor who inserted the text to tell me the page number. As I said I cant find it on the page he listed. Will I just remove them all and start an edit war or ask the editor to clarify the page numbers. That is 2 now I don't know if there are any more. So have a read again of WP:AGF because it looks like you have forgotten about it. BigDunc 10:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've struck the final part of my comment above, which possibly did over-step the mark. As I said, it's a matter of apperance, yes the original author should have got the reference right, but when you have the reference available to you, it does seem rather negative to just say what appears (particulalry when it happens on more than one occasion) to be rather close to "Hah, you got it wrong, go away and look it up again", when with marginally more effort from yourself you could provide a viable alternative. It's little things like this, and more thought of choice of words in the first place (which obviously I'm now as guilty of as anyone) which will make working together far easier, and more likely to reach a broad consensus on the content and language of the article. For example, looking at other sources already in the article I can see that in his initial announcement of the formation of the UDR Hattersley, following the language of the Hunt Report spoke about its task being to meet "armed guerilla-type attacks" activities rather than specifcally anti-terrorist duties. So I agree, we do need to be very careful about sourcing for the specific use of the word "terrorist". This issue isn't specific to you, we all need to try and offer alternatives, rather than becoming entrenched in positions. Remember that I've no real history on this aricle (or other Troubles related articles-apart from attempting to expand some of the biographical articles about General Officers Commanding, NI-it may be worth you having a look over some of those too, as I'm more aware of available British sources, rather than "Nationalist" sources). David Underdown (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Myself and Thunderer are on 0RR on this article so if I ask questions about refs it is to clarify what the editor has inserted instead of removing text and starting edit wars. But I appreciate your striking out your comment. BigDunc 11:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate why you're doing it, I'm just asking you (and everyone else) to think about how you are doing it. Saying (in effect) "well it's not where you said it was" (and which given the history between editors here could also be read by one of those editors as having the subtext "so you're lying") is a very closed statement, and is likely to lead to a defensive reaction form other. Whereas as saying "hmm doesn't actually seem to be on that page, would page blah cover what you are trying to say" invites dialogue, suggests that the point being made by the other author may have some worth, and doesn't carry the implicit, and unintended, implication. David Underdown (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's actually not why you think they were formed Dunc. It's a question of why they were formed. The article must reflect that. Why did the British Government and the Northern Ireland government feel they needed to raise a militia of 6,000 men in the pretty modern time of 1969? What was such a dire threat to sovereign territory to make such a move valid and desirable? David is right to an extent too. You could look this up yourself although I have a lot of index guides stuck in my copy to make it slightly easier to find these things. Have you also considered using Ronnie Gamble's book to check this - I know he offered you a free copy, did you take him up on this offer? Apart from anything else, with such a limited publication, it's likely to be quite a rare volume in the future. Thunderer (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Where have I gave any opinion on why they were formed? I have asked you to clarify the ref that you are using as it is not on the page you said it was. I do not put my opinion into articles. Also regarding Gamble, I asked for a second opinion on if it was a releiable source on Reliable sources/Noticeboard and I was informed that it wasn't so I would not be using it as a source. BigDunc 11:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're agreeing that they were formed as an anti terorist militia then the ref isn't needed, per se, although it seemed to be an issue in the first place which is why it was reffed. I don't have a problem scouring the books to find the correct page, or even one which closely matches it and changing the quote. What would you prefer to see happen? Do you have an issue with the claim that they were an anti terrorist militia? If you do, what would you prefer to see the wording changed to? Thunderer (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have removed the unreferenced material as I stated above I am not putting in why I think they were formed only interested in accurately reporting what reliable sources say it was formed. BigDunc 12:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted you because this discussion is ongoing. There are several options open here as I described above. Firstly you can remove the ref. Secondly you can find the ref. Thirdly you can find a similar ref and change the wording which will suffice until get time to find the original ref I intended to place there. No-one's asking you to put your opinion there. What has been put forward by me is the reason why they were formed. They were not a regular infantry regiment, they were militia formed to carry out internal security to combat the threat from terrorism and insurgency from the IRA (specifically). The fact that they were also employed later against loyalist elements isn't relvant at this point because we're only talking about their "raising" or formation. This eventually became known as "Home Service" to comply with the national raising of a "Home Service" force of volunteers in the rest of the UK in 1992 when the regiment was amalgamated. None of this is controversial so at this point in time I wondering why it is you wish to remove the phrase and why you went ahead and did it without discussing it her first when discussion was actually ongoing. I would now ask you what it is you wish to do. I realise you can't go back in and revert but if I self revert to adjust the sentence to what is agreed then you won't be breaching sanctions and neither will I. I've taken a chance to revert the item just now because I feel that any admin looking in will understand you shouldn't have deleted the information before you and I had agreement on the point. Is all of that fair enough to you?Thunderer (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

See my comment below you have breached sanctions and you should self revert. So until you provide a source you haven't provided the reason they were formed, just added your own opinion as the ref does not back up your claim. BigDunc 13:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We do need a reference for the terms used given the contentiousness of labelling groups as terrorist (whatever our own views on the matter). If the phrase is not specifically mentioned i teh regimetnal history, it may be better to use the description that Hattersley used in the Commons in his announcement of the raisingin of the regiment. That said, as I had preivously pointed out on his talkpage I don't think it was helpful to remove the material whilst this discussion was ongoing, and with no prior notice that it was to be done, particularly given the opints I've been trying to make about everyone behaving in a postive fashon when trying to move this article on. David Underdown (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunc. Firstly you shouldn't have reverted the item. There's a 0RR on this article. Now I can overlook that - as I hope admin will, as long as we're in discussion. Although I will get you the ref for this later I'd be interested to know why you believe they were not an anti terrorist militia? They were formed to defend against "insurgency and terrorism" by the Official IRA and that is historical fact, easily obtained on the web. So why is it you want to see the information deleted?Thunderer (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Annual Training Camps

I think 'Lydd and Hythe, Cinque Ports, England' and 'Folkestone, England' may be the same camp with the first being the correct location? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's possible Gavin. I kept both in because I know that area is quite heavily used for military training. Feel free to amend. Thunderer (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer revert

Thunderer you have reverted this article in breach of sanction imposed in AE namely that BigDunc and Thunderer are under 0RR restriction until a mediator reports BigDunc and Thunderer have entered formal mediation. In doing so you have placed an incorrect ref into a contenstious matter. I have brought this to your attention yet you have not said were in the book it states that the UDR were set up as an anti-terrorist organisation. I am asking you to self revert. It is wp:synthesis what you are doing. BigDunc 13:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In actual fact Dunc you were the one who reverted material placed there by me. A deletion is a revert. I have placed an explanation above for your consideration and for the use of admins. In the circumstances I would ask admin not to invoke any sanctions on you because I believe you acted in good faith however, it would be better if we could agree the best way forward on this point before making any agreed change to the wording. I will bend over backwards to ensure that you are happy with the result but you haven't yet shown any reason why this non-controversial issue needs to be deleted.Thunderer (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No I removed unreferenced controversial material that you first added here and when a citation tag was placed you provided a ref that doesn't support your claim here and I not interested in any more opinions or lengthy posts about why the UDR was formed, I'm only interested in what reliable sources say. BigDunc 14:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer you really shouldn't have reverted, and there is a good case for a block - I was trying to persuade Dunc to sef-revert until you had either provided a ref, or an alternative form of wording had been agreed. Please all wait until agreement has been thrashed out here before making article changes. It's precisely this behaviour from everyone which has led to previous page protection and blocks. David Underdown (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would take 0RR to apply to the state of the article at the point the restriction was applied, so it was Thunderer who made the revert. I've refactored the indenting slightly since my comment preceded Dunc's of 14:11, so shouldn't appear to be a reply to that. David Underdown (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I firmly believe the removal of information under discussion is a revert. I believe the sanctions allow me to restore the status quo and bring the matter back to the talk page. I don't want Dunc sanction for this, no more than I want to be sanctioned myself. I feel the best way forward is to get to the bottom of why Dunc wants this information removed, get him the correct ref if necessary and move forward on the basis of concensus. If Dunc is intending to check all the refs in the artcile I see that as very helpful. I don't want innacurate referencing any more than he does. I'm also in agreement to change any wording which appears POV or not useful to the article. If Dunc has the patience for that and I can help, then I'm fully behind him, as I am with you David. Your work on the article has been most helpful and of sterling quality.Thunderer (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not helpful, but it's not a revert. Both of you should remember that there is no deadline, and whatever anyone else does, or doesn't do, please stick to trying to get concesnus here before editing the article, however "right" your actions may be. David Underdown (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As per previous advice by admins David I think they will see it as a revert, certainly it's quite provocative to take this type of action in the middle of an ongoing discussion and this is what we need to avoid. If I was being obstructive or refusing to discuss the subject properly I would agree that Dunc had the right to fire ahead and make the change. As it is I want to accomodate him but not because I'm being intimidated - because we came to an agreement on the wording.Thunderer (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

From where I'm standing, neither of you is particulalry in the right. Can we draw a line under this, and as the new section below says, move on. David Underdown (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing to be gained by finger pointing. It was a glitch and we move on - agreed Dunc?Thunderer (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I dont you are now attempting to find another source for the content as you know damn well that the ref you cited does not say such a thing but you still went against sanctions and reverted. How is that attempting to move on? BigDunc 17:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You were quick enough to accuse other of not assuming good faith earlier. That seems to be missing from this statement. I've given a clear indication that Thunderer should put up, or shut up, and proposed alternative wording, which is clearly supported by sources already used int eh article. Some indication of the unit's intended purpose should be in the lead so that it adequately summarises the article as a whole which is what the lead must do. The mediation case has also been accepted. Everyone needs to stop pointing the beam in the other's eye, and consider if there is any way they can improve the atmosphere around this article. David Underdown (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a way, he stops reverting every single edit I make. Check the history and see how many times I have made an edit and he has reverted. You will find that if it is not all of them it is the overwhelming majority. I have asked him in September to provide refs he said he had and as yet almost November and still not in the article. I am met with stonewalling at every turn here and it is really starting to get on my tits. BigDunc 17:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any outstanding citation requests, yes we're down to refining those citations, and clearing up the cut-and-paste errors which have resulted in incorrect page numbers but things have been moving on. Everyone needs to make more use of the talk page instead of diving into the article. Look at my proposed text below, see what comes out of the mediation. Lets draw a line here and try to move on from where we are. It takes two to edit war. David Underdown (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

Right, we're now bakc to the status quo ante, so how do we move forward? Thunderer, will you have time ot check the book tonight? If not, please indicate when you will be able to do this, if you can check it, please could you give the page number(s) here, and since I don't have access to the book, the relevant quote(s). If there is nothing in the book that directly characterises the UDR as an anti-terrorist militia, I suggest we instead use the description used by Roy Hattersley in his Commons announcement of the raising of the regiment and would propose the following wording:

formed on similar lines as other reserve forces with the operational task of countering "armed guerilla-type attacks".

Referenced to the existing Hansard ref (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1969/nov/12/ulster-defence-regiment) David Underdown (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

David I'll make a point of getting it done tonight and I'll post the ref's here as requested with the exact wording. Hattersley's words are a good choice too, especially as in 1969 "counter insurgency" was quite relevant as "terrorist" action hadn't become a critical issue at that point. (there has been a temdancy to separate the two in modern military terminology - terrorism being seen as destruction of property etc whereas insurgency is open is open military style action).Thunderer (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually checking the book now and I see that the quote I used refers to "protecting the state and border from armed attack and sabotage". Sounds reasonable to me. Thunderer (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So from that you make that it was set up as an anti-terrorist militia, please read WP:OR. BigDunc 19:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, from my observations about terrorism in Northern Ireland in all the books I've read about the UDR, RUC and B Specials. Without sarcasm I would strongly suggest that attacks by uniformed insurgents calling themselves "freedom fighters" against members of the police, army, judiciary, MP's and other promient members of the state infrastructure and state/public/private property denote terrorism and any force set up to counter than is an "anti-terrorist" force. Would you say otherwise?Thunderer (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also while your at it read WP:SYNTHESIS no disrepect but your opinions and observations mean nothing. It is verifiable and reliably sourced content is all I want to see on wiki. BigDunc 19:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There are times when you can take this too far and wikilawyering doesn't make the agenda look any better. It is absolutely reasonable and uncontroversial to assert that a force raised to combat existing terrorism and insurgency should be regarded as an anti-terrorist force. Not every sentence in an article needs a ref you know? Furthermore you should know by now that I don't write anything which isn't supported and in any case where I inadvertantly do so I will remove the text or reword it. I believe I've had to do so once thus far. You asked for a ref last week because I had put the wrong page number in. I gave you the correct page numbers and invited you to change the ref yourself. Two days passed and you had done nothing, although you were actively editing elsewhere, so I changed it for you myself. I told you I would find you refs for this one and in reply to David above you said you're still waiting on refs since September, notwithstanding the fact that all the refs were supplied except for refs for content which was later removed as being cruft (including my own edits). It wouldn't be difficult for an outsider looking in to accuse you of bad faith in this. At best it looks as if you are nitpicking, insisting on removing content rather than discussing it and finding a way forward. I'm not seeing that as reasonable.

Now with regards to the raising of the UDR as an anti-terrorist militia - I call your attention to page 217 of Gamble's book. The quote is Raising the UDR to support the RUC in dealing with terrorism proved to be the solution. Now, you might regard the book as an unreliable source but I've already had an admin inform me that he was easily able to find ISBN 978-0-9558069-0-2 on the WWW. As I have already posted the back cover of the book on the article as proof (before subsequently removing it at admin request) I believe I have firmly established that this book exists. If you still don't believe me the go here to Amazon and see how much one is selling for.

Am I getting through to you at all here?Thunderer (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The quotes from the official history don't really seem to meet the case, and whilst the Gamble book may have its place for detialed accoutns of what individuals did, he's not a professional historian, and so we should be cautious in using him for the bigger picture. I thik we're probably better sticking to the Hattersley description. Can you both agree on that as a way forward? Thunderer, I really do think that Dunc is right on this one. Using personal knowledge is exactly what we have to try and avoid. Stick to waht can really be sourced, especially on a contentious topic like this. David Underdown (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gambles book is not a reliable source accourding to second opinion on reliable source noticboard which said ...This is definitely not a mainstream history text as there is no copy in the British Library. It might be OK for non-contentious detail of the regiment - I mean things like what mascots they had - but not for anything that might be challenged. Certainly don't use anything from the chapter "Irish history". Also your links to Amazon are laughable you can buy almost any crap that was ever written online somewhere. Check WorldCat not found, Google book search not found, British Library not found.BigDunc 20:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There is a copy in the British Library and as I can find plenty of references to it on the web you're just going to have to accept it exists. Plus I can find plenty of references in every book I've got about "terrorism". Let's ask you again Dunc. If they weren't an anti-terrorist force - what were they? What were they raised to do? How would you advise the reader?Thunderer (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't find it maybe you can I tried here and here if you can find it here on British Library Site please post it for me. BigDunc 20:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've posted you a link above to show it's available on Amazon. You don't need a link from the British Library. Nor does he need to be a noted historian to have his book qualify as a source. He's published and that's good enough for the Wiki, and it's good enough for this uncontroversial item. Now I've asked you to explain to me several times how YOU would word the sentence. I haven't seen any suggestions yet. Can we please see your suggestion(s) for this other than deletion on your whim or say-so?Thunderer (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It would appear that the Coleraine Times disgarees with your assessment of Mr Gamble not being a historian. They quite clearly say he is here.Thunderer (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward would love to work in that hotbed of international journalism. BigDunc 20:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's infinitely more believable than that comic An Phoblacht.Thunderer (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a change of method is in order? CAIN has a sizable bibliography of the Troubles. There must be books in there deal with the creation of the UDR, and surely something among them that everyone can agree on. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh God how I wish it were true but reliable non POV material on the UDR is as rare as hobby horse shite. What I'm objecting to here is Dunc poo-pooing one local newspaper as a source but on the other hand defending others when it suits him, like An Phoblacct, or more recently, The Impartial Reporter. Thunderer (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you having a laugh you think because a local rag calls someone a historian it makes them so. Would you please cop on. I asked you before and you never replied is this another of MR. Gambles (Historian) weighty tomes here. I can see nothing wrong with the White Paper and Hattersley. BigDunc 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to think local rags were verifiable sources when used to quote RC's from Fermanagh with regards to the USC. So what makes the Coleraine Times different to that - is it because it doesn't suit your opinion and you want to denigrate Ronnie Gamble's published work so it can't be used as a verifiable source? BTW - We're all still waiting to hear why you disagree with the "anti-terrorist" statement and what your suggestion are?Thunderer (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that CAIN prefers to use the term "counter-insurgency" here. Would you like more examples or are you going to continue procrastinating on this until someone gives in to you? Thunderer (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

But Hansard says "anti-terrorist" "in support of the RUC" here. The links are coming thick and fast now - are you going to concede this point?Thunderer (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Cain link doesn't work and where in Hansard does it say the UDR were set up to be an anti-terrorist force?

It worked ok for me. Hansard says again here that they are an anti terrorist force in support of the RUC. Still waiting to hear why you don't like the current wording and what your suggestions are.Thunderer (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So thats another ref you are using that is supposed to say they were set up as an anti-terrorist force and again it doesn't anyone seeing a pattern with how you use refs? You cant put your own words on what is said in a ref you obviously still haven't read WP:OR I wish you would. I want a reliable source and a verifiale one that says why they were formed, not your assumptions and experiences and more of your synthesis.BigDunc 21:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) We're still awaiting your suggestions but all we're getting is your demands.Thunderer (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I want anti-terrorist removed why do you think I took it out. Which you then reverted in breach of AE sanctions knowing that the ref you were revrting too did not even support the statement it was put in there for. BigDunc 22:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It would reasonable and in line with policy to say something along the lines of "according to a statement by Sir Roger de Coverley in Hansard blah blah, the UDR was created blah, blah anti-terrorist blah blah". We don't say terrorist, but we can certainly report when others do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

continuation

You can't justify the removal of the wording as they were clearly an anti-terorist unit. Even the US Department of Justice says so here. You're getting link after link and ref after ref proving the point but still you insist they weren't an anti terrorist unit. Whatever you're smoking I suggest you pack it in. Thunderer (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet another author ays they were an anti terrorist unit. here.Thunderer (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Where do any of the sources you provided state that they were formed as an anti-terrorist force? BigDunc 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The regimental history - page 1, paragraph 2. In that time a regiment which began as a largely untrained, amateur part-time body of volunteers, motivated by their duty to protect their country against terrorist attack......all of them regarded in their "anti-terrorist" role as the equals of the Regular Army.

Touché Thunderer (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC) It's gone very quiet in here ;) Thunderer (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

However much bolding etc gets used doesn't change the fact that the sourcing still really isn't quite there. Switch to using the language of the Hattersley annoncemnt and the problem goes away-everyone can read between the lines (in whatever way they wish), but it avoids the problem word. Preserve your force for the battles you can win, don't get bogged down over individual words. David Underdown (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I honestly feel the case has been proven beyond doubt and can't see what the argument is now. It's not controversial and it's accurate. Thunderer (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything where you're labelling one side terrorist (which is implied if one side is an anti-terrorist force) is controversial. Let the situation speak for itself. Most of the references don't directly cte the UDR as anti-terrorist, they talk about it supporting the RUC's anti-terrorist work and similar, which arguably they could do without directly being invovled in anti-terror operations themselves. Stick to the language used by HAttersley, and there really isn't a problem. You know, and most readers will be able to read between the lines, but it's jsut not worth the fuss of pushing to directly incldue the word in the article. Show a little flexibility on this and progress on other areas of the article is likely to prove much easier. David Underdown (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's the word "terrorist" which is the problem then I'd agree to change it to "counter-insurgency" which is equally accurate. That of course doesn't reflect the sources but in my opinion it's an item which is uncontroversial and doesn't really need to be reffed in any case. I think the entire world would agree that the state administrations in the involved coutnries regarded the IRA as a terrorist organisation and to me that should be the end of the matter. I'm not intransigent however so lets see if that is accetpable.Thunderer (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-terrorist is not going in you have not provided a single source that states that the UDR were formed as an anti-terrorist force. Using the synthesis that you love so much I could make a claim that the regular army were formed as an anti-terrorist force too all of them regarded in their "anti-terrorist" role as the equals of the Regular Army. If they are equals then they must have been an anti-terrorist force too. How far would I be wrong with that, I think very far. As David has stated and I did yesterday the White paper and Hatersley are the only reliable sources so far provided and should be used. BigDunc 16:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) do you actually read anything I post?Thunderer (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

BigDunc you are invited to seek mediation or mentorship to overcome this tendancy you have to remove items I have recently edited into this article. You are fully aware of a number of things. Firstly that I am still working on it, secondly that you should discuss changes of this nature and try and reach consensus before deleting content which someone else has worked hard on (in this case - me). Thirdly the section you were editing is not finished yet.Thunderer (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Non notable members

I have removed non notable members from the page. This is not a vanity piece were members are inserted because editors know them. BigDunc 15:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We certainly need some sources for them to stay-some examles of "typical" members seem to have some utility, even if they wouldn't be notable enough for a standalone article. Please come to talk first before making changes, or make use of User talk:SirFozzie/NI Article Discussions. You just diving in and removing things really isn't going to help move this article forward. David Underdown (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know any of these people. They are there because an attempt is being made to show the background of male personnel, what their previous occupations were and what they did in the UDR. That is relevent. It is not an attempt at notability for any individual. I understand that most of these are now deceased. If you'd bothered discussing it before you removed it and had to be reverted then you would have understood. As advised above, discussion is the way forward, not deletion. You have asked for mediation - use it! Thunderer (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Equally, you really do need to provide some sources showing the relevance of these individuals being put up as typical, or it's all WP:OR. And it would be equally useful if you proposed changes here first before diving in to the article. David Underdown (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do I need sources to show that the soldiers of the regiment came from all sorts of different backgrounds David? This is different to a line infantry unit in that the vast majority of these UDR chaps were farmers or factory workers through the day - that's why a militia is very different and the very circumstances themselves are notable. All I've done so far is introduce a shedload of pictures into different sections which were already established, and I've added a little bit of biog about the background of each man. Gamble I know most about thus far because I'm in contact with him even though I dont know him. I need to ask too why you think we shouldn't allow the reader to see that the regiment had projectionists, cooks, clerks, arrest instructors etc etc? The idea of the wiki is to inform. Most people will consider that the UDR just had soldiers in platoons. Is it not viable to educate the reader other wise, that a farmer by day was a radio instructor or cook by night, rather than just a part-time rifleman?

My view is that we should be improving and adding - not dismantling and deleting. That doesn't give me the right to include cruft, I agree, but in the context of THIS regiment - things were different. Think MILITIA !Thunderer (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)What notability have the members I removed? Will we add Joe Bloggs from down the road who used to make tea in the barracks? So what distinguishes them from other members? BigDunc 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Think MILITIA. This was not a regular army unit. It was a Citizen Militia - part-time. That in itself is notable, as is the fact that Joe Bloggs who made tea in the barracks at night may have been a factory worker by day. Other notable things are Peers of the Realm who were private soldiers and led by officers who, in some cases, were their employees by day - that's what's notable, not the people themselves. Thunderer (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

All you've done is give us unsupported names and info. Everything needs to be verifiable, did these people really exist, and when did they serve? Why should they be seen as being "typical". We need sources, we can't just ourselves say "these are typical". WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV require us to be able to say, such and such in this book (or other reliable source) has described x, y, and z as being typical members of the UDR, having had some previous military service etc etc.. Just listing names doesn't build the article at all. There has to be context. David Underdown (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Very much agree David. BigDunc 16:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly provide sources for the inclusion of these people in Gamble's book - proof of receipt at the British Library has now been e-mailed to BugDunc and can be provided to anyone else who wants it - just in case anyone suggests it isn't a valid source. I'll do that later but Dunc, in the interim - discuss matters here first without going into the piece a second time, as you have done, and trying to delete content without discussion. David, your thoughts on my comments about MILITIA would be appreciated. Also I note you have removed the fact that the regiment was an "anti-terorist militia" - there was no concensus for that. I stand by my comments and refs that that is what they were - not a regular line infantry unit. They were raised by a separate act of parliament called the UDR ACT (1969). Thunderer (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Again the whole militia thing is your own spin on it. I can see where you're coming from, but the whole point of the way Wikiepdia works is that we cannot advance our own hypotheses. We've got to be able to point to reliable sources. If it's a simple matter of fact, then we can state it as such, if it's a matter of opinion, or drawing out conclusions from a set of facts, we need to be bael to point to a source which does the same. Since Gamble was himself in the UDR, and the book is essentially self-published, either in its online form, or via the regimental association, it's not really a third-aprty source. What we really need is a work by someone of the stature of Richard Holmes who has undoubted academic credentials. I'm beginning to wonder if you'd find it beneficial to move away from this article for a bit, and get some wider editing experience in less controversial areas, you don't yet seem to understand the level and type of sourcing that is required. Try looking at some of the articles within the military history which have already reached GA or FA status. As it stands this article would be torn to shreds if you tried to nominate for GA. I know you think Dunc is biased, but many of his points are valid. Equally, I don't think his method is actually going to help yo uunderstand where you are going wrong. As I had repeatedly said, the sourcing for anti-terrorist militia simply wasn't good enough. What we have now precises Hattersley's initial statement to the Commons and so is unassailable, and everyone will be able to read between the lines. I find it particualrly compelling that the Army staff doucemtn I linked to above does nto specifically mention that it was formed as an anti-terrorist force. Rember also that militia is a rather anachronous concept, militia, yeomanry and volunteer units were merged into the Territorial Force (later the TA) in 1908. Again we need really reliable sources to start drawing comparisons, the whole section "Comparison with the Irish citizen militias" is pretty dubious to my eye, I know you tried to fidn some additional sourcing, but the central hypothesis still seems to rest on Gamble, and we really need some further evidence as to why he should be regarded as a reliable source, book reviews in teh general press with a solid reviewer would be a good start. David Underdown (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than me procrastinating about it - can I ask you what constitutes a militia and what constitutes a line regiment? Thunderer (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it's not a regualr regiment, but militia is, as I say, somewhat anachronous, part-time, volunteer, reserve, and so one would be more understandable for most people. I've tried to stick clsoely to the description which Hattersley actually gave when announcing the formation of the regiment, he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the time, so he would seem to be as close to the horse's mouth as it is possible to get. It's not good enough to say what it is not, we need specific sources saying what it is. David Underdown (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the wiki article on militia to be reasonably defining. This regiment was a part-time, volunteer unit, only for service within the borders of Northern Ireland and with a single purpose in mind - the defeat of insurgency and terrorism. Unlike the Home Service Force it had no links with the TA or Reserve. It was raised by a specific act of parliament which was only used for the raising of one regiment. It had no other committment than the defence of Northern Ireland. The term "Home Service" in relation to this regiment was never used until after amalgamation in 1992 - 10 years after the formation of the Home Sevice Force, therefore it is by definition a militia. In the absence of any other defining term would you not agree? If there were another term - I would use it.Thunderer (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hattersley specifically points out that although a separate bill is being prepared, it was to be modelled after teh arrangements for existing reserve forces. Militia just muddies the waters, fine add the point about memebrs only being laible for service within Northern Ireland, but you'll only make life difficult for yourself if you start trying to introduce terms which are not found in the strongest avaialble sources. David Underdown (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I respect your judgement on this. I'll concede that point.Thunderer (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Back to the issue of Ronnie Gamble and Roy Marshall what warrents the inclusion of these two members in the article. There is twice as much content on Gamble that on an ex commander and a Military cross winner. BigDunc 20:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As explained above. Regiments don't get raised every day, and certainly not regiments which depend on civilians with no military experience. Those who had PME were given appointments in training etc to help quickly raise the new force. The object in that section is to show, if possible, some of the different types of people who joined and were turned into soldiers by those who had been in the forces or police beforehand. The reason there's more on Ronnie Gamble than the rest of them is simple - I've got more info available on him at the moment. I am working on acquiring further information and pictures for that section through the UDR Association. Thunderer (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Protected

This page is protected for 72 hours. Discuss your editing dispute on this page, not in edit summaries, please. I don't have time to sort out who was breaking the article sanctions right now, so will simply leave things protected; however, should another administrator have the opportunity to review the editing history more in-depth, one or more of you may be sanctioned. Risker (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There isn't much reading needed. You can see from "mediation" downwards where the issue started and it started with BigDunc removing information without discussion which was firstly reverted by me, then restored by BigDunc, then reverted by David Underwood, then partially restored by BigDunc and again reverted by me. All of this whilst David and I were trying to engage him in discussion on the talk page. It's back to the old ways as far as BigDunc is concerned. He asked for mediation and can't be bothered to put in an opening statement to let User:Sunray get on with it because he says he doesn't have time, but he has enough time to come onto this article and cause trouble. I arrest my case. Thunderer (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed content as it was non notable and we had this discussion previously. It was partly reverted by David. I the removed the link to the online book that was in the main text of the article and a sentence that was now redudent as it stated During his time with 5 UDR he held various positions including: and nothing else as the rest of sentence was removed by David in his partial revert, this too was reverted by Thunderer so we now have a situation with this sentence left in because of a blind revert. BigDunc 20:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, in part. I think it is worth leaving the link to the online version in some form as a convenience link. It owuld be better if it were hosted somewhere other than geocities, but I'm happy that the book does exist in printed form (I did find a link on special:booksources which did actually have it). Probably the best thing to do is delete the sentence beginning "During his time...", and move the comment about an online version into the exisitng footnote. We can make can use {{editprotected}} to request this. However, it would have been better to continue the existing discussion about their inclusion rather than diving into the article-that's what sparked the new edit war and got the page protected again. David Underdown (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

David I asked for a second opinion regarding this book at WP:RSN and it was confirmed that it wasn't a relaible source. I have provided the links previously such as the one to the British Library which i'm sure you know search 10,000 pages on their main website, 14 million items in their collections and 9 million articles from 20,000 journals and it is returns not found. Also as you know you can buy any crap online if you look hard enough. So I can't seen any reason to link to a vanity piece by an ex member and not even a notable ex member on the page. BigDunc 09:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As I recall RSN said that it was a valid source for day-to-day happenings of the regiment, and its people, but shouldn't be considered as such for broader historical facts (see here). Whether the detail that Thunderere wishes to include falls the right side of that line is something that needs to be discussed here, certianly not written off on the basis of a single reply on RSN. On whether it's in the BL or not, I know from a friend of mine who's a librarian at one of the other copyright libraries that they are way behind in their cataloguing, and wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the same was true of the BL. David Underdown (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you also like a copy of the receipt from the British Library David? The author is also prepared to supply a limited number of free copies to anyone who is interested in using the book as a source for this article.Thunderer (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc, you were sent the receipt from the British Library confirming that the book was lodged with them, just two days ago. David is correct though; you dived in without fully discussing the matter therefore potentially causing yet another edit war on this article.Thunderer (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No you are the one who dived in and reverted they are non notable simple, and who did you send reciept to because I never got it? Not that it matters it is a vanity piece hosted on geocities and is not reliable. BigDunc 14:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There is no problem with discussing these issues beforehand. If you had done so you would have understood my intent on the item but no, you just go in and delete something without knowing why it's there. This is not one of your articles on the Irish Troubles. It's about an unusual regiment raised from ordinary citizens in modern times and this needs to be explained to the reader. This type of information is much more important that telling the reader that Sinn Fein supporters saw the regiment as being biased. Involve yourself in the mediation and learn something. Thunderer (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said to Risker I have contributed to 3403 distinct pages on wikipedia doesn't sound like an editor who just sticks to troubles articles. You on the other hand have made 1527 of your 3184 edits to the UDR/USC pages so half of all your edits are on these 2 articles who is the one here stuck on an article because it is certainly not me. And the only one with ownership of articles is yourself and your edits prove that. BigDunc 14:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So what you're effectively saying is that I spend half my time away from these articles. Doesn't sound unreasonable and thanks for noting it. How many articles on unusual army regiments have you been involved in? Why do you feel an article on an unusual regiment needs to be filled with POV on how Nationalists hated it and regarded it biased but doesn't need information on the unusual circumstanes in which it was raised and the people who were in it? Furthermore, if I have made the UDR article a specific project, it's really of no concern of yours. I've done the same with 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars. Where's your input on that? What about Queen's Royal Irish Hussars? Or the Princess Victoria Disaster. How come you're just dogging me here? Why do you not feel my input on other military articles is POV?

In my opinion it comes down to the same thing. You're not getting the fact that this is a military article. You just address it as if it were an article on the Troubles. That isn't how to treat it in my opinion. Mediate! You started the case, use the opportunity to find out WHY I deem so many of your edits unsuitable for this article and take the advice which is given. Thunderer (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We all know the answer to that Thunderer, they are not interested in other British Army regiments. Remember to keep your cool Thunderer, and above all don`t give up ! --Rockybiggs (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rocky. Very nice of you to make comment but you'll no doubt appreciate that I don't wish to be drawn into any slagging matches. Faugh ah Ballagh! Thunderer (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow you made 141 edits to these 3 articles combined so around half a percent of your edits are on these 3 articles. So looks like you don't have much interest on them either. BigDunc 18:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you're the editing police now? I didn't realise there was a quota. I'll try to do better next time. Are there any other articles of mine you want to go through now that you've appointed yourself personal judge and jury of my contributions. All rather helpful while mediation regarding civility is going on I must say.Thunderer (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

1. CAIN
2. Drumcree: The Orange Order's Last Stand, Chris Ryder & Vincent Kearney, Methuen Publishing London 2001, ISBN 0 413 76260 2, Pg.45
3. Through the Minefield, David McKittrick, Blackstaff Press Ltd 1999, ISBN 0 85640 652, pg.30
4. A Secret History of the IRA, Ed Moloney, Penguin Books, London 2002, ISBN 0 141 01041 x, pg. 39/43
5. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/scarman.htm#5
6. A Secret History of the IRA, Ed Moloney, Penguin Books, London 2002, ISBN 0 141 01041 x, pg. 39,43,66,85,355,
7. Martin Dillon, The Dirty War, Arrow 1991, ISBN 0 09 984520 2 pg.4,7-8
8. The Secret Army: The IRA, J Bowyer Bell, Poolbeg Press Ltd. Ireland 1997 (revised Third Edition), ISBN 1 85371 813 0, pg.293-4,355,364,366
9. The I.R.A., Tim Pat Coogan, HarperCollins Publishers London 2000 ((Fully Revised & Updated), ISBN 0 00 653155 5, pg. 39,160-62
10. David McKittrick & David McVea, Making Sense of the Troubles, Penguin Books 2001, ISBN 0 14 100305 7, pg.11,14,48
11. Cite error: The named reference Hunt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
12. A very British Jihad: Collusion, Conspiracy & Cover-up in Northern Ireland, Paul Larkin, Beyond the Pale Publications, Belfast 2004, ISBN 1 900960 25 7, pg.179