Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by One Night In Hackney (talk | contribs) at 13:47, 16 August 2012 (→PIRA intimidation of Catholic xxx UDR soldiers: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:47, 16 August 2012 by One Night In Hackney (talk | contribs) (→PIRA intimidation of Catholic xxx UDR soldiers: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ulster Defence Regiment article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Northern Ireland

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ireland Mid‑importance

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

Archives

Archive 1 (August–Sept 2007)
Archive 2 (January–Sept 2008)
Archive 3 (Sept–November 2008)
Archive 4 (Dec 2008 – March 2009)
Archive 5 (March 2009 – June 2011)
Archive 6 (January 2012 – )

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Major John Potter

There seems to be some argument about Potter's status as UDR historian. Some editors seem determined that he will not be known as the official historian. I have his book here and it quite clearly states in the preface that "I was deputed by the Colonels Commandant to compile a historical archive of the regiment." It goes on to say it is four volumes large and: "Comprising as it does OFFICIAL PAPERS, it is held by the Ministry of Defence....." There can be no doubt therefore that Potter is the OFFICIAL historian. His book "A Testimony to Courage" is NOT the official record however but contains extracts from it and other official sources. I hope that clears the matter up for those who were wondering about it? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Historian- yes, offical papers yes, offical historian- a twist on the words. Any other source that states such?Murry1975 (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Regrettably sources on the UDR are thin on the ground. What we do know for sure is that Potter compiled the official history. It seems to me to kind of be splitting hairs to call him anything other than the official historian. Why do you think there's such opposition to this? SonofSetanta (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

SonofSetanta you have to be able to use reliable sources for anything you put in, calling him the offical historian unless you can use verifiable sources to state that he is such. Its not splitting hairs anything else can be removed on grounds of OR.Murry1975 (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Murry from a purely military perspective it appears he is the official historian. If he was "deputed" by senior officers that makes him so. That would be my reading of it anyway. Perhaps others would care to comment? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Simply writing a book does not make one an historian. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I agree with you. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"it appears he is the official historian" appearing is not a varifiable source and is OR, show a source or stop adding it. Others can comment, but it still needs sources. Dan Mills wrote a great fact based book he is not the official historian of the siege of Al Amarah, even if everything he wrote was cleared and sanctioned by the MOD, as needs to be done in relation to the offical sercets act.Murry1975 (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Potter is absolutely clear. He was deputed to write the history of the regiment which is now held under MOD restrictions as an official document. Ergo we have a source for Potter being the official historian but none denying it. Unless you can find one? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding: Neither I nor Potter claim that his book IS the official history. SonofSetanta (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. Is the writer of an official history therefore the official historian? I don't know the answer, although instinctively I would say "yes". Mooretwin (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As would I and I wonder why anyone would be so determined to prove otherwise? We have a great source for official facts in Potter's book. Why are some editors so opposed to them?SonofSetanta (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply Sniper One is also in that catergory at the MOD - and probably the pre-print versions. You still dont have the source for it." Neither I nor Potter claim that his book IS the official history" he doesnt claim to have wrote the offical history? What does that tell you about offical historian and OR?Murry1975 (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You're not getting it Murry. Potter was a battalion adjutant in the UDR for x amount of years after 22 years in the Royal Artillery (I think). After that he became Regimental Secretary to the Regimental Association which is the official voice of the regiment. During that period he was ordered (deputed) to compile the official history. That's what makes him (verifiably) the official historian and the best source we have at the moment for this regiment. No-one is claiming that his book is the official history. He makes it very clear that it isn't but that it contains excerpts from official sources and has been edited by the MOD who removed some information. Given that knowledge why would you (or anyone) fail to see that he is the compiler of the official history/official historian? SonofSetanta (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting it? Show a source that refers to him as such your OR is not good enough, any reference to such in any articles should be removed as it is not verifiable. You have not shown this anywhere only imply. Now please find sources not opinions .Murry1975 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I did publish the source actually.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Where? The article doesnt mention "offical historian" or "offical history" , yet it mentions Potter 64 times. A very high number indeed.Murry1975 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe 'Regimental historian' or 'official Regimental historian' could be a description of Potter's status? --Flexdream (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Historian has a meaning which goes beyond "someone who has written a book about history."--Domer48_'fenian' 21:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Potter didn't write 'a book about history', he wrote a history of the UDR using official sources. As it was a Regimental history, then Regimental historian is a helpful description. --Flexdream (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How about "former member who wrote a book on the history of the regiment". Is he a historian? No he is a writer and former soldier. Is he official or claim to be? Acording to SonofSetanta "Neither I nor Potter claim that his book IS the official history" so no on that account yet original research is labelling him as official regiment histoian and the person proposing this states the previous qoute. All I am asking for is a varifiable source, that is the way of wiki is it not? Murry1975 (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A bit confusing this discussion. SonofSetanta says here that they "wouldn't for a minute suggest that "A Testament to Courage" is the official UDR history" and go on then to suggest that Potter be described as an "official historian" for an "unofficial UDR history." I would also be helpful if SonofSetanta can also claim here that in Potter's book, in the preface it does state that Potter is the "official UDR historian, at the invite of the British MOD" yet omits this information from this discussion. Could it be that in the preface it says no such thing? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The synopsis at describes it as a history, but not an official history. The book is shown here with the subtitle 'Regimental History' , so maybe Potter could be referred to as either 'Regimental(or UDR) historian', or as 'historian of the Regiment(or UDR)'. I haven't read the book yet.--Flexdream (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Flexdream this synopsis say the book was "Denounced by Britain's Ministry of Defence" so I suggest the use of a synopsis would not support the use of the title suggested. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It would also be very helpful is SonofSetanta could explain why having raised this issue in the past, at the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and accepted the comments by Itsmejudith (last post in the discussion) as to any use of such a title as "official historian" for Potter they now raise it again? That they also raised it at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and at the same time raised it at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability and got the same response is a bit of a concern? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The same issue of Potter has also been discussed before on this talk page. Why is this issue coming up again. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Going back further Potter was also raised in this discussion. Can we not draw a line under this and just drop the use of "official historian." --Domer48_'fenian' 23:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's start this discussion all over again

It seems strange that the text of the page in Potter's book hasn't been provided yet. So I'll do it now. Firstly the entire text of the unnumbered page opposite the table of contents:

The manuscript of this book was submitted to the Ministry of Defence prior to publication. At their request, some changes were made to the text in order to protect the work of, and those who served in, The Ulster Defence Regiment. However, this does not imply MOD endorsement of any part of this book, nor those unofficial sources referred to

Now for the relevant part of page ix:

When I retired after serving for thirteen years in a UDR battalion, followed by a further eight as a Regimental Secretary, I was deputed by the Colonels Commandant to compile a historical archive of the Regiment. Since at its height there were eleven battalions, always evolving and constantly on operations, this archive became very large - four volumes in fact. Comprising as it does official papers, it is held by the Ministry of Defence and will be treated in accordance with the requirements of the Public Records Act, emerging therefore in due course into the public domain.

Once I had completed it, I felt there was a need for a shorter, less detailed account that could be published now and which would tell those who had not served in its ranks what it was like to be a member of the Regiment. Hence this book.

My interpretation of that is that Potter was not deputed to compile a regimental history as claimed. He was deputed to compile a historical archive which is a different thing entirely, an archive is just a collection of papers and similar. After compiling the archive, he then decided (apparently on his own without being told/ordered/asked to by others, due to "I felt") to write an actual history. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that was certainly a conversation stopper! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Potter; FOI Request to MOD

Whilst the discussion was moving on about Potter, a FOI request was generated to the MOD viz:

Dear Ministry of Defence, The following book was published about the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) using information obtained from and held by the MOD. A Testimony to Courage - the Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment 1969 - 1992, John Potter, Pen & Sword Books Ltd, 2001, ISBN 0-85052-819-4. The author advises that his book is a 'shorter, less detailed account' from a larger archive. Can you publish any index or other referencing materials that would assist an historian to 'drill down' into a particular topic relating to the UDR? Are there any restrictions on the publication of this archive? Thank you for your assistance.

This links to the reply, but basically the query was too general and would need to be redefined. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a largely irrelevant question anyway. Even if the relevant documents had been released by the MOD to the PRO, we wouldn't generally use them. I think it unlikely the documents would be released piecemeal by the MOD when the relevant time period has expired, so it's unlikely the 1970s documents will be available at the PRO until the 1992 (or whatever date past that is the last in the archive) documents can be released. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Protestant or Loyalist

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

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

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

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

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

SonofSetanta's recent edits

I've reverted several of these.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits to new Background section

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

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

PIRA intimidation of Catholic xxx UDR soldiers

Is this a suitable RS for the intimidation of Catholic UDR soldiers (and policemen) by Republican terrorists?--FergusM1970 15:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Apparently some would prefer to erase the fact that PIRA did anything illegal, distasteful or despicable.--FergusM1970 20:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: