Talk:North Irish Horse

Derry / Londonderry

I'm disappointed to see so much reverting on this page, without a single comment on the talk page. Are you all so convinced that you have nothing to say in your own favour?

So, blocks all round for those edit warring.

Now, on to some substance: [1] by 91.123.226.1 saying remove self published source IMOS deals with this seems especially unwise. The regimental website would seem to be a rather useful source for this article. I cannot but see that edit as deliberately provocative.

Several have mentionned Wikipedia:IMOS. This leads to absurdities like [2]. OTOH we also have Londonderry_Sentinel which too seems absurd to me.

My opinion is that in an article about a TA regiment, it would be sensible to use LD. But thats only my opinion, youll have to work it out on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

91.123.226.1 is quite correct, it is a self published source, likewise this one on the RIC. But that is not just my opinion, but the opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as seen in this reply here. So your wrong to see it as deliberately provocative, IMO. While you may think it would be sensible to use LD, that is just like you say yourself, an opinion and not supported by WP:IMOS. Now the place to raise this issue is at WP:IMOS talk page, which has been suggested, but flatly ignored. I hope this nonsence stops now, and disagree with the blocking of 91.123.226.1 as they were correct in both their rational and edit summary. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of opinion here from William M. Connolley and not a lot of Good Faith. Bring your opinion to the IMOS page and discuss it there. The consensus is to use Derry for the City and Londonderry for the county. This has been agreed to stop endless edit wars on the issue. BigDunc^Talk 09:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally I'm perfectly happy with the suggested course of Derry for city, and Londonderry only for the county, sicne that the preferred style of my favoured newspaper. However, the latest changes have been in reference to 9th (Londonderry) HAA Regiment. Here Londonderry is part of the regimental title, so I really think we have to follow the actual unit name, it's not directly referrring to the city itself, but it's affilaition and possibly it's recruiting area. David Underdown (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A few refs fo rthis as regimental title: page 4 of this pdf http://www.proni.gov.uk/introduction__mcfarland_papers_d3703.pdf published by PRONI. The unit histories website, which is the most comprehensive website currently available of British military units http://www.unithistories.com/units_british/RA_HAA_Regiments.html though I note that the info on this page is credited to Richard Doherty, and one of the books listed is by him him, and another by a name that will be familiar to those who have been editing the UDR page recently, Ronnie Gamble. This MOD website of a succesor unit http://www2.army.mod.uk/105regtrav/206_ulster_battery/bty_history.htm. This section of the Derry City Council website, http://www.derrycity.gov.uk/ww2/section4.htm. David Underdown (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Refs

Can we have the full names and title of the books that are being used here by Doherty, Blaxland and Milligan thanks. BigDunc^Talk 11:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted the Spike Milligan book title, also could someon get the title for O'Reilly too along with the two remaing from my initial post. BigDunc^Talk 15:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I note a number of websites have been removed with a rather cryptic reference to WP:RSN, now I can see that you asked about http://www.northirishhorse.com but it seems to me that the main comment was merely that it shouldnt' be used for anything controversial. Apart fromt eh recent squabbling about Derry, it's only beig used to provide details on where the unit fought, which doesn't seem particualrly contentious. Also removed was http://www.1914-1918.net/CAVALRY/nirishhorse.htm - in this case, although they are careful to say that they don't endorse the information on the site in anyway, it is recommended as a useful site by The National Archives, and has apparently been recommended by a BBC published magazine as well, I can't see a specific thread on this site on RSN either. You may get more informaed opinion on websites on this topic at WP:MILHIST, rather than at RSN where you'll probably be given more of a snap judgement without deeper knowledge of what the site is about. The removal of http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GREATWAR/2001-08/0997122996 is a no-brainer. http://notoriousstrumpets.com/NIH/Brief%20history/Brief%20history%20home.htm is again probably OK for non-contentious detail on where the unit was at anyone time. It does seem to be based on the primary sources avaialble at The National Archives. David Underdown (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything all I did was add Spike Milligans book title. BigDunc^Talk 18:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

David, this link is dead http://www.1914-1918.net/CAVALRY/nirishhorse.htm, as are the ones removed. On the http://www.northirishhorse.com the reply from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard was "Looking further it's the self-published association website not for the actual unit. normally I'd head over and remove it but since it's on a NI article, I have more sense than to get involved." "The German infantry did not expect tanks to be able to make the crest of the Djebel and as a result were thrown into panic when the Churchills of B Sqn appeared in their midst." Is this supported by secondary sources? Is this article written from a neutral point of view? Now while WP:MILHIST may give more informaed opinion on websites on this topic, it appears they accept cites below that expected by other articles and editors, including editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Could I make just one suggestion, you have mentioned The National Archives a couple of times, why not use them? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It didn't exactly take long to find http://www.1914-1918.net/nirishhorse.htm which is the updated link. One person made the comment you copy, as I said, someone else said it would be fine for non-controversial topics. The regimental association by its nature has access to many soruces otherwise difficult to access, another said it would be fine to use for uncontroversial topics. The particular example you cite could be re-written more neutrally. Why not use The National Archives, by their very nature archival sources are largley primary sources, and due to the size of the holdings, a very small proportion, relatively speaking, are placed online by the Archives themselves, and even those parts which are online generally require the payment of a fee, unless you happen to be onsite at Kew, or belong to certain subscribing institutions. I do make a certain amount of use oftheir records, WWI medal cards, recommendations for hnours and awards, the limited number of service records available and so on where available (though I do try to back these up with secondary sources as well).

I'd expect the sourcing to be tightened up as an article approached FA level, but at B-class it's relaiable enough to be going on with. David Underdown (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Also discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment#North Irish Horse due to editing agreements made by the participants in that case. David Underdown (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The following is copied from the mediation request mentioned above David Underdown (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notorious strumpets

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

The author of the site, Philip Tardif is a published author. His first book, Notorious strumpets and Dangerous Girls: Convict Women in Van Diemen's Land, 1803-1829 ISBN 0207157987 was published in 1990, and has since been released as an interactive CD. This book is referenced by several other books as demonstrated by this google books search. It is also listed as a source for teachers and secondary school students by the official website related to Port Arthur, Tasmania [3]; by the library of Macquarie University [4], by this University of Sydney website; this list of electronic resources from the State Library of New South Wales; by Informit Australia which describes itself as "the premier source of online Australasian scholarly research" and appears to be somewhat analogous to Intute, mentioned above; in this Australian Dictionary of Biography article on Maria Lord; as further reading on this article on female convicts from the University of Tasmania; and in this bibliography for sources on the Welsh in Austrlaia from the National Library of Wales.

His second book John Bowen's Hobart: The beginning of European settlement in Tasmania won a Government of Tasmania local history prize [5]. This announcement also states that he has a history degree. Given all this (the other two sections on the website are both related to his books), he again seems to have reasonable credentials as an expert. David Underdown (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

1RR

Your attention is drawn to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case William M. Connolley (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article is covered under The Troubles but I would agree to a 1RR on it. BigDunc^Talk 19:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If its not it should be, I'd agree to a 1RR also. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)