Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment

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)

New Editor

Hello, I'm new here and I'd like to edit this article. I can see it's been fairly contentious for a while and it looks like a reasonably balanced article as a result of all the interventions and argument but in my honest opinion it does need a little tweaking to tidy it up.

I'd also like to find a mentor because I know how emotional any discussion involving the Irish Troubles can be and I don't want anyone accusing me of being partisan.

I'd like to start by addressing two specific issues. The first is that the section called "IRA Military Campaign" seems to be a misnomer and should be changed to reflect the fact that the IRA's splinter groups were also involved and to include any information on attacks by Loyalist organisations (surely there must have been some?). Perhaps it could be retitled "Paramilitary Attacks on the UDR"? The other issue is that there seems to be a lot of sentences beginning with the words "John Potter says" or "Potter says that". I have the Potter book and it is clear that he is the official historian of this regiment, appointed by the British Ministry of Defence and that he had access to all documentation. Some of it must have been very sensitive because the official history has not been released by the Ministry of Defence but they did give himand his publisher the right to release the book after examining it and editing it so it should be taken as properly sourced and edited by official sources. Perhaps a section could be added about Potter which details his military experience, UDR experience, appointment as official historian and anything else which could be explanatory and helpful. In any case the references for each piece of information sourced to Potter should be sufficient to comply with Wikipedia rules and stop a reader becoming confused as to the source. Then the sentences can be properly written without constant reference to him.

I'd really appreciate any help, advice and/or comment from any interested person. This is a record of a fairly unique regiment in terms of British and Irish history and I believe the information on it should be given to interested readers in an informative way which doesn't display the opinions of any of the Irish factions, past or present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonofSetanta (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't sign - this is my first post and I didn't know I had to. Also, does anyone know how to archive the previous discussion? It's pretty out of date now and it would be very nice to start with a clean sheet. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the archive as this was discussed before and we don't need the Thunderous sound of editors on this articles bickering over attribution. Mo ainm~Talk 19:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome and also to the two people who archived the discussion and did some editing. I intend to read through the article carefully and correct any grammatical or punctuation errors first, unless anyone has any objections? As part of that I want to remove all these references to "so and so says" - which predominantly seems to be "Potter". The issue there seems to be that there are only about two histories of the UDR (unless anyone knows of any others?) and they are going to be relied upon heavily and obviously someone has felt that the entire article (wrongly) depends on them. It doesn't read like a sensible historical document. I think I need to work round this but in some way point out to the reader that there are only one or two histories. Perhaps a small section detailing John Potter and other UDR historians? I have another book here by an English journalist and I'm sure I've seen references to it here. Something I think really needs to be avoided is anything that looks like it's come from a source which could have a strong opinion from any of the protagonists?

Does anyone disagree?SonofSetanta (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read the archive of this discussion by the way and I can see exactly what you mean. There are always strong views about Irish matters. I see the same names cropping up again and again and I've read some of the arbitration reports. I'd really like to avoid any of that bitterness which is one of the reasons why I want to take things slowly - so I don't offend anyone. Another reason is that I don't want this work to be an advertisement for the UDR or for any of the Irish political or terrorist groups. Just plain fact. In the event of dispute I don't intend to get into an argument, I'll bring my mentor in or find someone else who can adjudicate the point before moving onto the next one. As it stands the article seems very well balanced. I don't want that to change.SonofSetanta (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What about the following statement to be put at the top of the "History" section?

"The official history of the Ulster Defence Regiment has not been released by the British Ministry of Defence. The official historian, Major John Potter (former Adjutant of the 3rd Battalion) has released a history entitled "A Testament to Courage" which was edited and approved by the Ministry of Defence. This article draws heavily upon that book for dates and facts."

Does it sound twee? Does it fit in with how Wikipedia want articles to be written? Would it suffice to remove all the references to Potter and just leave the links to the reference section below?SonofSetanta (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)