Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:56, 2 March 2009

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.

This article is currently subject to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case, as laid out during a previous WP:AE case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force

Archives
Archive 1 - August 2007 to September 2007 Archive 2 - January 2008 to September 2008 Archive 3 - September 2008 to Present Archive 4

This page under article probation

All edits to this page by all editors are now under 1RR. See the link above for details. SirFozzie (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the concept, see WP:1RR: No more than one revert in a 24hr period is permitted (and anyone who waits 24hrs and 1 minute before making the same revert will not be looked upon favorably). Rockpocket 02:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Male personnel

I intend to remove the non notable members from this section Ronnie Gamble and Roy Marshall. It reads like a vanity piece concerning Gamble with an on line link to the pamphlet he self published. In fact I feel the whole section could be removed as it adds nothing to the article and we already have a list of notable members, any comments from editors would be very welcome. BigDunc 17:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We probably need an overarchign "Personnel" section, with "Female personnel" as a subsection, and concentrate more on general personnel issues. The list of notable members is probably a bit OTT as it stands, maybe pick out a few fo the most notable, and otherwise have a "See also" link to the relevant category. If we could find some reviews of the book, it would probably be worth keeping mention of Gamble, and although even the ahrd copy of the book was published by the regimental association, there may still be some utility in his writing as a source for day-to-day activities of E Company.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Underdown (talk • contribs)

As regard to gamble I have searched high and low for a review of his publication it is non notable and as I stated before the British Library dont even have a copy. Do you not feel that maybe the Greenfinches could have a seperate article David as IMO that would be something that could be expanded? BigDunc 18:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we established that it would be more accurate to say taht it doesn't yet appear on the BL catalogue, rather than necessarily that they don't have a copy. On the Greenfinches, yes they probably are notable enough for their own article, but summary style dictates that they also need to be mentioned in this article. David Underdown (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No I am not saying remove them all together just that it could do with an article on them and then trim it down. BigDunc 14:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Military campaign section

This section needs to come out as it reads like an article on the IRA and the missions they carried out only relevence it has to the UDR is that they were targets. BigDunc 22:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I would not agree to removing the entire section as it gives a good detail of what was occurring on adaily basis. Perhaps the name of the section should be amended as 'Military Campaign' would usuall signify a major battle or similar. What about 'Attacks against the UDR'? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So what would constitute an attack? Do we add one night billy the loyalist threw a petrol bomb or paddy the republican assualted an off duty member. It is IRA attacks on the UDR and as such is POV. BigDunc 09:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As usual it's down to sourcing. If there's a good source for numbers of attacks on UDR eprsonnel, on or off duty, the tactics used, and which groups were responsible then it has a place in this article. From all I've seen attacks by Republican groups were far more common than those by Loyalists, which is hardly surprising given the nature of the conflict. Just because the majority of "blame" is pinned on one particualr group doesn't make it POV if there's good evidence to back it up. David Underdown (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable Members

I intend to revert this section into the 3 sub-categories of Professional Soldiers, Politicians & Others. It is important to place some order into a list like this. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? Is it like that in other articles? It is just a list of notable members and doesn't need ordering. BigDunc 23:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have left it as just a list of names without a suitable explanation or order. Readers do not want to have to click on each link to see who they are; they need a bit of assistance by the use of sub-categories. Previously, each sub-category had been ordered eg by rank where known etc. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that not the idea of linking articles so we have no need to add commentary on each name? Readers then follow the link and get a full run down on the notable member. BigDunc 09:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Some breakdown of the list does help the casual reader to understand why the names are considered notable in this context, are they notable purely as UDR men, or are they really notable in some other field which perhaps also makes their UDR service particularly worth noting. David Underdown (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You have not given any rational and just reverted while a discussion was taking place could you explain why you made your revert. BigDunc 01:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave notice of an edit I wished to make; there was discussion from interested parties and I made the reversion. If this was the wrong action, please advise how long the discussion should have taken and how would the decision have been taken? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gavin Lisburn, the process of consensus varies. As to this discussion, I noticed that you addressed none of the issues raised at all really. For example David asks above "are they notable purely as UDR men, or are they really notable in some other field which perhaps also makes their UDR service particularly worth noting" you did not address this at all. Could I ask why you did not think it important enough that you dismiss this without comment? You will notice that David had begun to address the issues raised by Dunc, and you simply reverted? David, Dunc and myself have obtained some experiance of consensus building and from that I can safly say, there was no reasonable discussion in this case. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 18:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What is required is a list of the commanders of the UDR with dates of service as is common for regiment articles. Does anyone have one? Then we can see who else is useful to include. The notable soldiers list contains both commanders and servicemen who are notable for their service with the UDR. Kernel Saunters (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As David has pointed out above, is their service with the UDR all they are notable for? If it is, is that notable in itself? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The people are notable in each of the 3 sub categories eg professional soldier (which covers off commanders etc), politicians and others (which includes a civil servant, a military subversive and a member of a family pressure group. The list is still open for all to add to. However, if it is decided to remove the sub-categories, then I still feel that would be moving in a backwards step. The article has improved quite a bit recently and no longer has edir warring. Perhaps it is time to consolidate the articlke and everyone leave be? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As the list stands at present I would have no problem with it as the listed members are all notable. BigDunc 20:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and I note your comments earlier. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Aftercare & UDR Benevolent Fund

Following the deletion of the seperate UDR Benevolent Fund page, I have added it into the Aftercare section in this main article. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Formation

It is my intension to start editing this article over the coming days. I will be adding the following text;

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." ,

1. Disbanding of the Specials and a repeal of the Special Powers Act, which gave the Northern Irish government the power to impose unfettered emergency security measures had been two of the demands of the Civil Rights Association. Their main demands had been for measures to bring an end to religious discrimination, their catch-cry being ‘one-man, one-vote.Drumcree: The Orange Order's Last Stand,pg.45
2. Cain, HISTORICAL AND BACKGROUND
3. Drumcree: The Orange Order's Last Stand, Chris Ryder & Vincent Kearney, Methuen Publishing London 2001, ISBN 0 413 76260 2, Pg.45
4. Through the Minefield, David McKittrick, Blackstaff Press Ltd 1999, ISBN 0 85640 652, pg.30
5. A Secret History of the IRA, Ed Moloney, Penguin Books, London 2002, ISBN 0 141 01041 x, pg. 39/43
6. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/scarman.htm#5
7. A Secret History of the IRA, Ed Moloney, Penguin Books, London 2002, ISBN 0 141 01041 x, pg. 39,43,66,85,355,
8. Martin Dillon, The Dirty War, Arrow 1991, ISBN 0 09 984520 2 pg.4,7-8
9. 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
10. The I.R.A., Tim Pat Coogan, HarperCollins Publishers London 2000 ((Fully Revised & Updated), ISBN 0 00 653155 5, pg. 39,160-62
11. David McKittrick & David McVea, Making Sense of the Troubles, Penguin Books 2001, ISBN 0 14 100305 7, pg.11,14,48
12. "Hunt Report" Conclusions and Recommendations

I've included the references to assist editors. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is any need to comment on the B Specials within your amended section as a link to that page should be sufficient. A full stop after B Specials in the first line is all that is required. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gavin Lisburn could you let me know why the Specials should not be mentioned? Why was there a reluctance to join the UDR? Were the concerns about the UDR justified and substantiated? Should we not add the Recruitment to the Ulster Defence Regiment back into the main article? Why was it removed? The proposed wording is a very brief summary and addresses some of the questions a reasonable person would ask when reading the article, would you not agree? Unless you provide a rational other than you don’t think there is any need and show were these issues are addressed in this article I have to disagree with your suggestion. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 15:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I am just concerned that we are adding in B Special info into the UDR article. However, I will await the changes. OK with putting the other section back in as I am not sure why it was taken out. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Gavin Lisburn I've added the Recruitment to the Ulster Defence Regiment section back. I've inserted the text proposed above, and will review it now having re-inserted the recruitment section. So of the issues can now be addressed in that section. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Domer, I am very disappointed that after all the rpevious discussion you have proceeded with adding this text which has previously been the subject of strong objections. You haven't even fixed the detail of references as I have previously suggested. David Underdown (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Eva Martin

I think Eva Martin should have her own article. What do the other editors think? I haven't got the necessary sources on hand to do it, but perhaps an editor with a lot of documentation on the UDR and it's members could write it. Seeing as she was the first Greenfinch to be killed, she is notable. Dunc, Domer, Gavin, what do you think?--jeanne (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at what information I have and get back to you. I think the Greenfinchs should have their own article? --Domer48_'fenian' 15:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think so as well.--jeanne (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly not, otherwise a page would have to be allocated to the first male UDR soldier to be murdered as well (if there is not one already?). Gavin Lisburn (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found much biography on her, perhaps she could just be included in an article on the Greenfinches, which has been suggested.--jeanne (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with an article on Eva Martin is the lack of solid , referenced biographical information which cannot be located on a Google search. The only info I have on her comes from the Sean O'Callaghan book. One would need to discover her date and place of birth as well as the date she joined the UDR, etc., otherwise the article would look rather skeletal.--jeanne (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Benevolent Fund

The article on the Benevolent Fund, was subject to an Article for deletion and removed. I would suggest that to simply place it here now would have to be discussed first in light of AfD. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1). The notability criteria you refer to applies to an article, not the material in it. Could you show me the policy/guideline or precedent that shows that it should not be added here please 2). The material is clearly referenced and more references can be applied. 3). The AFD was a conditional close, where admin supplied the contents of the article to an interested user. 4). You have removed material that was NOT the subject of the AFD. 5). Large scale removal of material from articles without discussion is not good editing. I note that there has been large scale edit warring on this article already.

I suggest that the issues here are taken for a third party opinion for a way forward given the above ASAP Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kernel Saunters for your reply. On your first point, the section removed was an exact copy of the article removed under the AfD. The closing Admin did suggest that "if someone thinks they can show notability" they should do so. The references to date, did not show notability based on the above rational. I have removed material that was the subject of the AFD, and there has not been any edit warring recently on this article. If you would like to provide references which establish notability please do so, and as the AfD clearly show, I did make some efforts in that direction. I agree with your suggestion on third party opinion, but would simply suggest that we provide the additional references prior to any third opinion otherwise it will be based on references which did not establish its notability in the first place? Thanks again, --Domer48_'fenian' 15:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you note that your revert removed material that was not recently added, i.e. material not copied from the Benevolent Fund page? I've asked the closing admin to take a look at this. Worth pointing out that notability applies to an article not to sections of articles Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing admin popping in here. First, I just want to say that I have not looked at the material added / deleted in this article, nor do I intend to. Instead, I'll just comment on the close and closing comments, so no one is putting words in my mouth (keyboard?). :)

The deletion nomination itself suggested that anything useful in the UDR Benevolent Fund should be added here. The delete !votes centered on notability of the article as a whole, not whether bits and pieces should or should not be added here, but both delete !voters indicated they felt anything useful was already here. However, the discussion centered on deletion, not merger, so I don't think we can really gauge any consensus about merger from that discussion.

The reason I offered to userfy the article if someone felt they could do something with it was that while notability for the article wasn't shown, there was also no assertion that an extensive search had been done and come up empty. Since Misplaced Pages doesn't have a time limit, I don't have a problem helping someone rescue valid work if notability turns up later.

My suggestion as a disinterested party would be to weigh any additions here as if the UDR Benevolent Fund article had never been created (and therefore never had an AfD) -- does the material add to this article in an encyclopedic manner, and can it be properly sourced? If so, I doubt neutral party would have a problem with it. If not, it probably shouldn't be added.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that User:Fabrictramp, seems logical, clear and reasonable. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what is happening. I understand the editor in the seperate article suggested deletion or movememnt into th emain article. I accepted the suggestion of replacing it into the main article and said so on 18/12/2008 above. No further comments until now; 2 weeks later. So I ask again; is the text going to be replaced? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gavin Lisburn, I think the User:Fabrictramp sums it up well above, "does the material add to this article in an encyclopedic manner, and can it be properly sourced? If so, I doubt neutral party would have a problem with it. If not, it probably shouldn't be added." Now Kernel Saunters has suggested above that more references can be applied, and hopefully they can show notability. If I could just point out again my comments on the AfD, it is none notable because "Little is known of the make up of the Trustees," and "It is not known how the fund is financed at the present moment." Could these two points be addressed first, thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Domer, I'm re-adding the material concerning the aftercare provisions as opposed to the benev fund. I have at least six solid sources inc bbc and newspapers, Any objections to this material being added? Kernel Saunters (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kernel Saunters, I've no objection to material being added all I would ask is "does the material add to this article in an encyclopedic manner, and can it be properly sourced? Why not post it here, and allow editors such as Gavin Lisburn, BigDunc and myself a chance to look at it. Thanks for that, and for taking the time to sourse information, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary style and re-adding info to this article

I think we need to think carefully about the structure of this article before addin back large amounts of info into this article. Probably the splits should have been preceded by more discussion, but it's certainly true that this article is very long, and the general idea of applying summary style, is a good one. Treating every aspect of the UDR over it's 30 year history is bound to lead to an overwhelmingly large article.

What's currently labelled as the Criticism section (and the existing daughter aritcle which is now almost entirely duplicated here in the main article) might be better focussed on the subversion isue, with more general criticism better integrated into the article as a whole - criticism articles and sections are generally perceived as being an indication of point of view problems: either the article is otherwise not properly balanced; or there is an attempt to insert fringe views which are not covered in the best available sources (I don't mean to imply that this is the case here). David Underdown (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

I've reverted to Maul's copyedit as over-attribution, as noted on other articles, makes the article difficult to read and is unnecessary as we have footnotes. Only where something is disputed or an element of theorising is this useful. So Maul in this case would seem more correct. Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Potter is not a neutral source and his word can't be taken as gospel. Far to much emphasis is placed on this book and we need secondary sources for what he states. BigDunc 10:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Atrribution in WP articles is properly done via the <ref> footnotes, to maintain readability. If Potter isn't a reliable source then the article needs to be appropriately restructured. Putting "Potter says" and "he notes" in every second sentance is a total mess. Most of the points so afflicted are points of fact - either they are suitable cited, and therefore should just be presented (with footnotes) or they aren't, and shouldn't be in here. Mauls (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If we start by outlining what we agree on, this should be easy enough. Potter is a self published source, and as such generally not regarded as reliable as there is no editorial oversight or fact-checking. His views are promotional in nature and based on his personal opinions. That is not to say it can’t be used because it can. However when Potter presents unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position then it must be attributed. In this edit here Potter appears to advance a position on Catholics in the UDR, and presents an analysis or synthesis of published material and is therefore attributed. If however it is supported by secondary or third party sources a footnote will suffice. On the book itself this says the book was denounced by Britain's Ministry of Defence, likewise here and here. It also say that This book is not an official history..., and also here?--Domer48_'fenian' 15:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we can take the comment "... Denounced by Britain's Ministry of Defence, this book ..." as entirely correct as it appears in a book commentary on an internet book site. Who wrote it; what are his motives and is there a citation from the MOD stating this viewpoint? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but all those "Potter notes" etc. are just really poor grammar, even without going into the rest of it. It is an inappropriate and quite unreadable style. Mauls (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The grammar can be addressed, so please lets go into the rest of it. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 23:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I've not got an answer on the reliability of this book, but it seems to me that if it's not up-to-grade for direct usage then it should be reorganised as a section specifically about the book, rather than as a normal part of the article. Mauls (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Pen and Sword are a publishing house Kernel Saunters (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The "denounced by the MOD" is seemingly part of the publisher's official promotion, not just a book reviewer.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So he's not self-published then Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Potter is a self published source, and as such generally not regarded as reliable as there is no editorial oversight or fact-checking. The "denounced by the MOD" is seemingly part of the publisher's official promotion, care to comment? --Domer48_'fenian' 11:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are you getting the information that Potter is a self-published source? His publisher is Pen & Sword, a well-known military publisher Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What evidence / citation proves the book was denounced by the MOD? It is my understanding that Potter had access to official records at all levels. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A disclaimer in the book states that The manuscript of this book was submitted to the MOD prior to publication. At their request, some changes were made to the text in order to protect the work of, and those who served in, the UDR. However this does not imply MOD endorsement of any part of this book, nor those unofficial sources refered to. BigDunc 13:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a standard disclaimer not a "denunciation." Valenciano (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The "denounced by the MOD" is seemingly part of the publisher's official promotion, care to comment?--Domer48_'fenian' 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Publishers are trying to sell books, controversy sells. It certainly seems like a standard disclaimer to me also, and it's certainly not self-published by any common definition of the term. I'd likewise agree that direct attribution is only required when sourcing an opinion, or if sources disagree over objective facts. David Underdown (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Formation 2

The “Formation” section appears to contain a number of POV statements.

• “Their membership had heavily overlapped with the Orange Order, itself an integral part of the state”. – it is POV to say that the OO was an “integral part of the state” – a much-exaggerated claim – do the two references support this statement?
• “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."” – should this not refer to “some nationalists”, or “protesting nationalists” – it reads as though there was a general attack on all nationalists.

Can we agree to amend these? Mooretwin (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mooretwin, the statements are supported by the references. I will be adding to this section in the near furture to include references to Michael Farrell's book Arming the Protestants, which was approved of by Paul Bew. I will add referenced text to the OO and B Specials articles to support all this information. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The statements may be supported by the references, but they are still POV. Mooretwin (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin like I said, I’m going to have to place information across a number of articles to make it all consistent. If it’s an issue of POV, I will of course attribute to the relevant authors. Most of the information will be referenced to Government sources, I'm just waiting for copies to be sent to me from the Linen Hall Library. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re. the first example, the bit which says about the OO "itself an integral part of the state", should be removed. It's POV and not relevant to this article. If someone wants to know about the OO they should be able to click a link from here to the OO article. If the source says the membership overlapped with the OO, then I am content with that part of the sentence. Mooretwin (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mooretwin, you raise two issues, POV and weather it is relevant. Of the two, I can only deal with the second part, the first would have to be explained, like how is it POV. I will quote some sources later today, and you can tell me if you thing it is relevant. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 00:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how it is POV?--Domer48_'fenian' 20:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Because saying the OO was "an integral part of the state" is a point of view. Objectively, it was not part of the state: it was an independent, voluntary organisation. Objectively, most Government members were also members of the OO, and it exerted influence on Government, but that is not the same as being an "integral part of the state".

Further, someone's opinion about the OO's relationship to the state is appropriate for the OO article and not the UDR article. It is sufficient here to mention overlapping membership between OO and B-Specials (assuming there is a reputable source for the claim). Mooretwin (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the contentious clause as no justification for it has been provided. Mooretwin (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The contentious clause was added in again, still with no justification. Hence I have removed it. Mooretwin (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At least explain what you feel is POV instead of reverting. It is sourced content. BigDunc 13:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

At least read the discussion before making kneejerk reverts in support of your colleague. Try reading 9.48am, 3rd February. Just because it's sourced doen't make it appropriate. An author's contentious view about the relationship between the OO and the state is appropriate for the OO article: it is not appropriate for the UDR article. Mooretwin (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I also raised this during the mediation attempt. To say integral to me implies a legal status it didn't have, unlike say the Communist Party in the USSR. There are ways of phrasing that would make this clearer, and would be equally true to sources. Membership of the Order was obviously highly important in "getting on" in politics, and even in tryign to get a job, but was not legally enforced, more of a cultural norm. David Underdown (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Have removed the clause again for reasons stated above, and in absence of any sound reason to include it. Mooretwin (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you've offered nothing other than your own opinion. You have failed to explain how it is POV, and continue to remove referenced text. Please stop, --Domer48_'fenian' 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a footnote and in adition to the references already cited support this statement? Any additional discussion should be based on referenced sources and not just opinions of editors. Should additional sources still prove nessary, I will be more than happy to include quotes from both Bates and Nixon, but I don't think that will be nessary. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not tell lies: I have explained how it is POV. But the pertinent point is that it is unnecessary and inappropriate in this article to be citing somebody's view that the OO was an integral part of the state. Whether or not it is referenced is irrelevant. People's views about the OO's relationship to the state are not relevant to this article: add them into the OO article instead. You seem to think that you can add anything to an article so long as it is referenced. Mooretwin (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked you to explain how it is POV, and you have not. Now in case I missed it, please give me the diff were you explained how it was POV. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 16:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked you not to tell lies: yet you repeat the lie. Please have the courtesy to read others' contributions to discussions. See mine of 9.48, 3 Feb. Mooretwin (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This diff here dose not explain how it is POV. But this one here does explain your POV. All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Now one more time, please tell me how it is POV, because as I've illustrated above to date you have not. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you appear to understand the NPOV policy. Therefore you should understand why a claim that the OO was an "integral part of the state" is POV - in this case it is the POV of the author you wish to cite. Regardless of that, however, it is simply not appropriate to this article. It is sufficient simply to refer to the overlapping membership of the two organisations. Again, you appear to think that just because something is referenced, therefore it must be included in an article. By that logic, I could include a claim by another author that the OO is a benevolent, fraternal society, and add it in. I will not do so, however, because discussion of the nature of the OO is for the OO article and not this article. Mooretwin (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ths information is supported by 11 authors! You have still not explained how it is POV only that you think it is which is just your opinion. I have ignored your uncivil comments up till now, but I seriously suggest you stop now and stop being disruptive.--Domer48_'fenian' 10:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

11 authors say that the Orange Order was "an integral part of the state"? Who are these 11 authors, and where did they make these claims? You still haven't explained the appropriateness or relevance of including an opinion about the OO's relationship with the state in an article about the UDR. Why is that? And I have explained how it is POV: because it is not objectively the case that the OO was an integral part of the state. The OO was and is a voluntary organisation, independent of the state. To say that it was an integral part of the state is to express an opinion about the OO's relationship with the state. Mooretwin (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that the page has been protected, this is an opportunity for you to explain why you think it is appropriate to include this view in this article. I see that Big Dunc has joined in again, eschewing discussion, and reverting an edit. I should just like to point out that his edit summary is untrue. Mooretwin (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been asked to explain what is POV you haven't so my edit summary is correct. BigDunc 11:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not correct. You asserted in your edit summary that no "rational" had been provided for my edit. That is entirely untrue, given that I noted in my edit summary the following - Removing unnecessary opinion about relationship of Orange Order to the state. The rationale, therefore, is that the text represented unnecessary opinion. Your contributions would be more constructive if you took part in the discussion rather than joining edit wars in support of another editor. (I think you are also aware of past history of this.) Perhaps you could start by explaining why you think the text should be included? Why is it necessary and appropriate to include an author's opinion on the relationship between the OO and the state in this article? Would this issue not be better addressed in the OO article? Mooretwin (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is very disappointing to note that editors have elected not to take the opportunity provided by the protection to engage in discussion here about the disputed text. Their failure to do so is noted. Mooretwin (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been asked to explain how it is POV you haven't! --Domer48_'fenian' 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have. As has been pointed out to you several times. PLEASE have the courtesy to read others' contributions. Further, the argument for removing the text is, first, that it is not appropriate for the article. The question of it being POV is a secondary argument. You've addressed neither. Mooretwin (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But I have, a number of times, and I'm not going to go back over it all again. Read the past discussions and come back with a reason that will stand up. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The first link you provide doesn't even include the clause in question about the OO being claimed as "an integral part of the state" - so there is no discussion there at all relevant to this issue. The second link includes the clause, but demonstrates opposition to its inclusion by three editors: The Thunderer, David Underdown and Sunray. My intervention now makes four editors. Yet you appear to have forced the text through. Is that consensus? Mooretwin (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a total of 11 Authors Ruane & Todd, 2000, Pg.92, Ryder & Kearney, 2001, Pg.45, McKittrick, 1999, pg.30, Fitzgibbon, 1971, Pg.84, Farrell, 1983, Pg.2-3, Johnson, 1981, Pg.209, Patterson & Kaufmann, 2007, Pg.28, Bryan, 2000, Pg.66 who support this view, now like you have been told here go of and find a source which contradicts it and then there is something to talk about. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

All of these 11 authors say that the OO was an integral part of the state? I'm afraid I don't believe that. Could you quote the actual text, please? Even if they do, of course, it doesn't make the inclusion of the clause any more appropriate in this article: it's something for the OO article. Mooretwin (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The main issue as I see it that it is so boiled down, that for anyone without some existing understanding of the topic that at best it doesn't actually explain anything, and at worst it could easily mislead. There was no established religion, and no law proclaiming the positon of the Orange Order, but the societal norms lent it a very strong influence. David Underdown (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's absolutely right, David. The clause is not necessary in any case: it is sufficient to record the overlapping membership. I shall remove it again. Mooretwin (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop removing referenced and well supported text. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring. There is no consensus for the clause about the OO and the state, referenced or otherwise. It does not follow that because there is a reference, the clause must be included in the article. Please be less precious and defer to consensus. You do not own this article. Mooretwin (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As we went through during the mediation attempt Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment#Comments on Amended proposal, only one source seemed to use the specific words "an integral part of the state", and there, in context, there was rather more explanation of precisely what the authors meant by that. Without that further material, there is grave danger of misleading readers of this article as to the precise nature of the relationship between the OO and the state. In the section as a whole, there is also a grave lack of any contrary opinion of events. Yes Scarman is primary but the official point of view is just as valid a point of view as that of the nationalists so far as Wikiepdia is concerned. David Underdown (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suspected "11 references" was being somewhat economical with the truth. Mooretwin (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And you're absolutely right about the lack of contrary opinion to the nationalist ones painstakingly added in by Domer. As I noted in the USC article, every one of his edits has been to add in nationalist opinion. Goodness, one would almost think he was working to an agenda! Mooretwin (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

By far the most notable aspect in relation to the formation of the UDR was the recruitment of B Specials. No other aspect has received as much coverage in books and newspapers, resulting in multiple sources. Therefore background and context is both important and necessary for the reader. The role of the Orange Order in both the Specials and the UDR in relation to the Northern State is equally as important evidenced by the number of sources available.

The question then is, why is this important contextual information being removed? Please provide some rational and explain how this information is not considered necessary? --Domer48_'fenian' 16:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That is disingenuous. No-one's removing the clause dealing with "the role of the Orange Order in the Specials" (as you put it). It's only the bit about the Order "being an integral part of the state" to which editors are objecting. Mooretwin (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the role of the Orange Order in the State disputed? If so provide sources which challange all the sources provided to date. No sources = no dispute. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit break 1

The dispute is that the phrasing you have introduced does not adequately summarise the relationship between OO and the state. There was no official and legal relationship, however useful membership was in practice. David Underdown (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David for that, now could you possibly provide a source to support your contension, which contradicts or challanges the numerious sources which state otherwise. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 14:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The more extended quotes from your sources taht you've previously given during mediation show the problem perfectly well, without me having to find other sources. The main issue is that your text doesn't not (in my view) accurately reflect the sources you are drawing on as it oversimplifies. Whether or not it's actually sufficiently relevant is of course a further issue for discussion. If it's not relevant, no matter how many sources support it, there's no point it goin gin the article. David Underdown (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite. The reason I highlighted this text was because the commentary on the OO's relationship to the state is not relevant to this article. Commentators' views on that matter are relevant to the OO article and not the UDR article. Domer48, however, appears to think that because it is referenced therefore it is relevant. That is, however, faulty logic. The phrase should go as there is no support for it among editors other than Dunc 'n' Domer. Mooretwin (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

David the suggestion, without diff’s, that the sources somehow do not reflect the text is perplexing. So to dispel any notion here are a couple. I’ll leave out Farrell for the moment to save certain sensitivities but could add them if asked in addition to a couple more.

Fitzgibbon, 1971, Pg.84 writing about the Orange Order states

On Pg.328 he writes about the B Specials

McKittrick, 1999, pg.30 on the Order writes,

Ryder & Kearney, 2001, Pg.45 writing about proposed reforms in the North by O’Neill wrote

Ruane & Todd, 2000, Pg.92 writing on the Northern government wrote,

Hennessey Pg. 13, On the Order writes,

So let’s be under no illusion as to the links between the Order and the State. Now this is the type of information which editors are attempting to remove. The wording I’ve used is quite neutral and not over hyped, now if you’d like I can re-word the quotes above and include them as footnotes. I also hope this also addresses the relevance of mentioning the order in the article.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Contextual information

As I've said previously, some contextual information is needed here, this article should be reasonably standalone. I had previously raised issues over some of the statements, and as I've writen above was very disappointed to find that Domer had inserted this text exactly as he had originally proposed, despite all our previous discussions on the issue. David Underdown (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What text would you propose? Mooretwin (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again David Underdown. David if I remember right you had a problem with the reference format of the web site links. I was not sure what you were looking for, and asked you to do one, to illustrate this, and I would do the next. I the mediation still locked, or can we still access the discussion. In the mean time I'll add another reference to the text under discussion. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I had problems with the reference formatting, but also with the content of what you were wishing to insert, as it seemed somewhat unbalanced, and putting in strings of quotes from various books, which inevitably loses some of the context from which they came. The content of the mediation has now been restored. David Underdown (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David I found our past discussion. Could you possibly fix the reference formatting on the Cain links, not sure how to do it my self. On the issue of balance, that can be addressed by adding additional sourced material that disputes or challanges the information presented. Using quotes is the only way to address the challanges to the information. If you wish to re-word it so that it reflects exactly what was being said please have a go. Post your revised wording here, and we can work through it together. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 16:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotes really shouldn't be necessary, or at least not to the same extent, if we can stick to a general description of the issues at the time. Off the top of my head this would give us something like:

Unemployment rates were higher amongst Catholics, and housing conditions generally poorer, particularly in areas like Derry. This was as a result of discrimination against Catholics, eg many employers requiring their employees to be members of the Orange Order (which did not admit Catholics), gerrymandering of ward boundaries, combined with the fact that local authority voting was based on property qualifications, led to their being little representation of Catholics, and those who were elected had often stood on a Republican, abstentionist, ticket, not acknowledging any validity of the Northern Irish state. Educational attainment also generally lower amongst Catholics as the state education system was exclusively Protestant, and the Catholic run schools did not have the same level of funding, though by the 1960s, post-war educational reforms were leading to the emergence of a better-educated Catholic middle-class, with more young Catholics such as Bernadette Devlin going to university. Nationalist events often banned on the grounds of public order, particularly if a Unionist counter-demonstration threatened. Bans enforced by the Police and B-Specials, themselves largely made up of Protestants.

Obviously that's very rough and ready, and would need references adding, but trying to give an objective overview of what was actually going on at the time seems to me to be far more in the spirit of NPOV, and gives people a far better feel for why people felt as they did, rather than seeking out quotes from one source or another and trying to trade them off against one another. David Underdown (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

CGC Category

I have re-added the category "Recipients of the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross" as the action was correct. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert by Kernel Saunters

Could any editor re insert the sentence that was removed by Kernal, "Despite being off duty UDR men all had personal weapons". I have the source here just need someone to add the text back for me thanks. Also as an aside instead of reverting would it not have been better to place a citation tag and not to be a smart arse about a typo I made in edit summaries. BigDunc 17:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Having a bad day? Please watch your civility and your language Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So will you self revert so I can add the source instead of still being a smart arse. BigDunc 17:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you lose the attitude please. Post it here and I will take a look. Kernel Saunters (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dunc, I'll add some text later referenced as per norm, and with much more detail. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Domer plenty of sources in any way. BigDunc 19:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dunc, I've added some text and a reference, feel free to add additionl reference if needs be. Looking a the text that was removed, that was referenced to Potter. Why was it removed in the first place? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above. BigDunc 21:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This statement "Despite being off duty UDR men all had personal weapons" is incorrect, inaccuarate and too general. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well dont fret about it, it is not in the article. And it is not incorrect as I have a reliable source which states the same. BigDunc 22:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gavin Lisburn, you say the information is inaccuarate and too general. I can if you wish expand upon it, which will address the too general bit, but you'd need to address the inaccuarate portion. If it is disputed please place that information in the article, with the correct references. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 22:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt very much that there is accurate MOD proof that all UDR personnel were issued with personal weapons as from my experience, this just did not happen. Also, if 40k served, were all weapons stolen? Just not right. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gavin Lisburn, are you suggesting I should expand on this information, adding additional information to support it? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Having spoken to a number of ex UDR soldiers, I can now state that not all UDR personnel were issued with personal weapons and that the statement is untrue. I have not read the reference in "Farrell 1983, p. 290" and will not comment. I have also looked at "Potter 2001, p. 79" and cannot see a reference to all UDR personnel have personal weapons. The page does state that " ... three thousand, two hundred .38 revolvers be released from ordnance ... ". In addition, the bottom of page 79 advises that all requests for personal weapons had to be justified in every single case and that some requests were turned down. Page 78 advises that 96 weapons were stolen between October 1971 and November 1973, a 2 year period. This does not equate to 'many' but more to 'some'.

I would propose changing the sentence "UDR personnel however all had personal weapons, many of these were stolen without resistance from members homes." to "A number of UDR personnel applied for and were issued with personal weapons. Some of these were stolen without resistance from members homes." retaining the same link to Potter pages 78 & 79. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Please note it is absoutely standard to use names to allow repeated refs to by identified, see WP:FOOT. This will in no way affect GA status - in fact the reviewer (in my experience) is likely to encourage it. David Underdown (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected again

This is getting slightly tiresome, and I'm pretty sure that I would find some 1RR vios if I looked carefully at the history for the last couple of days. Sort it out on the talkpage please folks, I will extend the protection if necessary. Black Kite 10:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It would help if other editors would take part in the discussion. The more involved, the more likely we are to achieve a resolution. Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is very disappointing that editors have elected not to take the opportunity provided by the protection to engage in discussion about the disputed text. It would seem that, having got the last edit in before protection, Dunc 'n' Domer see no need to seek consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps my last edit was in breach, for which I apologise. I ran into an edit conflict, and couldn't see any other way to save the work I had been doing up to that point. I intended to self-revert, but got called away from the computer before I had chance.

I should have handled things better yesterday, but it would have been helpful if there had been some notification before such a large series of changes. I could then have explained why named refs were being used beforehand, saving a lot of work. If you look closely at what I did you will see that I was also ensuring that we consistently had author year, p(p). pagenumber(s). - there was actually still quite a bit of variation in the punctuation and spacing. Also where ranges are given there needs to be an endash there, not a hyphen per WP:DASH.

I know I've mentioned this on Domer's talkpage (but it's not the first time this issue has come up). Could everyone please note that WP:DEADLINK specifically says that apparently dead links should never be simply removed. First one really should make an effort to find what the new url is - in the case of the British Army webpages that wasn't exactly a huge task. More generally more British government pages, even if you can't directly find a new url, all government webpages are now regularly archived, and http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/webarchive/ allows you to search for an archived copy of a given url. Combined with the retrieval date which should be present in the reference, you should then be able to track down an appropriate archive copy of the url. Rember alos that a website may simply be experiencing a temporary glitch, and the page will come back at a later time.

With specific regard to the reference to catalogue of The National Archives that was twice removed. It is stated that these were papers discovered at TNA, since the online copy is hosted by someone other than TNA, it seems particularly important to me to verify that there is actually a document in the online catalogue answering the relevant description (if you read our article here on TNA you will see there have been problems with fake documents being inserted into the archive in the past - NB I am not for one minute suggesting that anything like that has happened here, merely trying to illustrate why it is important to be able to link back to TNA properly).

On the formatting of Hansard refs, http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/ is not a publisher in any sense. I changed publisher to Hansard, which gives readers useful information. On think further, that should probably really be work, the publisher is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, as shown by the copyright statement at the bottom ofthe homepage. David Underdown (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fitzgibbon

Whilst I've no objection to the full Fitzgibbon material going in the USC article, it seems too much here, where we're really trying to focus on the UDR, people can always go and read the USC article. We're trying to give an understanding of why the USC was so hated by Catholics, so I've made a precis of the material. Now I've not actually read the book, so please tell me if I've got the wrong end of the stick (though in itself that would sugges that the previous version wasn't as clear as it might have been). David Underdown (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again with the Nazi comparisons? Mooretwin (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Who Fitzgibbon? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Domer, Hitler's Nazi SA is entirely tautological, there's no need for both Hitler and Nazi. David Underdown (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

David you also removed "They were he says the armed wing of the Orange Order, which controlled the Northern State" why was that? In the discussion above you said "only one source seemed to use the specific words "an integral part of the state", and there, in context, there was rather more explanation of precisely what the authors meant by that." Now we have Fitzgibbon, but you still removed it? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I see it as a matter of giving undue weight. The majoritiy of authors do not go so far as that. We should be sticking in general to the middle o fthe range of opinion, not using outlying examples. David Underdown (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"undue weight"? "The majoritiy of authors do not go so far"? "The middle of the range of opinion"? First, you removed the text altogether, it is not mentioned at all now! So weight does not enter into it. Who are the Authors you are talking about, you say its the majoritiy of them yet name none. You talk about the middle range of opinion, yet remove all mention of it. Is it your view that middle range means no opinion at all? As to outlying examples, are you talking about the 11 Authors which supported the origional text. Please David, start to quote sources here, and not just opinions. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Of those sources you previously highlighted at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment#Comments on Amended proposal. Most describe the relationship between the O, the wider state, andthe USC in particular in more objective terms. The quotes you've used from Fitzgibbon also seem to be more specifically about the early days of the USC - we really need to be concentrating on the situation in the late 1960s. Sure the history is part of the reason they were detested, but it's not directly relevant to this article. As I've said here we before, I think that we do need to set things in context, but we also need to keep reasonably focussed. We'd do better to describe some fo the social changes that were going on in NI in the alte 1960s, the Civil Rights movement and the State's reaction to that, the widespread rioting, Hunt and Scarman reports. You've never commented on the very scratch suggestion I made above incidentally. David Underdown (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As the person proposing that this text be added, perhaps - rather than demanding only that others explain their objections - you would like to explain why you think it is relevant in the first place to include commentary about the B Specials, and the Orange Order in the UDR article? That might be a useful starting point. Mooretwin (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that this text be added, it is in the article already. My rational is outlined here and here and discussed fully.

David on your proposed text, it fails to address the fundamental nature of nationalist disaffection with the state. The questions being: Why were nationalists reluctant to join the UDR? Why was the recruitment of B Specials into the UDR a factor? Why was the overlapping membership with the orange order a factor? The majority of recruits to the UDR were former Specials! Important and basic background information! Now state your objections to why information which adds valuable context should be removed? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you added the text at a point where I happened not to be around, despite the fact taht various objections had been made both on this talk page and during the mediation. None of which did you take on board at all. Note however taht I didn't revert, but have tried to use the talk page since, rather than simply reverting when I found that despite all that had gone before you added your text exactly as you ahd originally proposed it. David Underdown (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

David, your desire to seek consensus is admirable, but it might bear more fruit if you also edited the article. That might prompt more engagement in the discussion. Mooretwin (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Sure the history is part of the reason they were detested, but it's not directly relevant to this article." Well David, I disagree. Yes they were detested, I think it helps readers know why. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles