User talk:The Thunderer/Ulster Defence Regiment

Objective

To achieve a well balanced article, free of any bias from Loyalist or Nationalist perspectives and devoid of any false material, partisan synthesis or non-objectivity.

To provide a historically accurate, verified history of the Ulster Defence Regiment containing sufficient background information to allow users of this encyclopedia to form an accurate impression of the regiment and to quote the page as an accurate source of reference worldwide.

To achieve this all editors are asked to be familiar with and observe the guidelines provided at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia:

• Accuracy of information provided within articles
• Comprehensiveness, scope and coverage within articles and in the range of articles
• Susceptibility to, and exclusion and removal of, false information (a criterion specific to the Wikipedia process)
• Susceptibility to editorial and systemic bias
• Identification of reputable third-party sources as citations
• Stability of the articles
• Whether the articles are well-written.
• Whether the information provided is uncontroversial and compliant to the standards.
• Appropriateness of the images provided with the article and their respective copyright status
• Appropriateness of the style and focus of the articles

A good start

Good idea to do this, Thunderer. I hope that you all can come to some sort of agreement on the disputed parts of the article. I will not comment on the dispute itself. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is actually very hard to comment on. It's typical where long-term ethnic conflict has occurred that people will have very deep seated views and opinions. I'm hoping for progress but I regretfully point out that, even when we get this particular disagreement resolved, future disagreements could arise regarding the content.The Thunderer (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree that the Garland example is relevant. I would suggest that instead you find instances of republicans joining the UDR, or failing that, link to the section on collusion in the troubles article or wherever. I think there are issues with undue weight currently in the lead, focusing purely on controversies surrounding the UDR - this should be briefer and other aspects of the regiment mentioned. On a style point, there is no comma in decades so it's 1970s not 1970's. Valenciano (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm up to a point I agree with you. I still feel the Garland episode is relevant because it was in the same decade as they were formed, it's the same subject matter and it's interesting background. I think it's as relevant as the B Men in the regiment. Perhaps it could be condensed? I have included other citations for IFF members and a known "Republican" and there are one or two more I believe, as well as an accusation by the DUP that the regiment was infiltrated quite heavily by the IRA - that one was untrue. It seems that the DUP took great umbrage against the regiment post Anglo-Irish Agreement. That needs to go in as well to balance what the SDLP were doing to show that ANY politcal party could use the regiment as a political football. I do agree there is too much weight on certain matters and it needs to be thinned out. I didn't want to be the one to do it though because I'd be accused of putting my own slant on the article, plus I doubt my own abilities in that direction. I'd rather somebody else did the pruning. I've been concentrating on adding encyclopedic facts about the regiment to show what they did, how they did it and what difficulties they faced plus successes and failures. I have felt it is getting rather packed lately which is why I started a link page to list relevant operations. I was sort of using the Irish Guards page as a model. I'd be very interested in seeing your edits to thin the article out to remove duplication of facts and undue weight.The Thunderer (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should add; it is correct in English grammar to use an apostrophe when referring to decades. So in Queen's English it would be the 1970's. Websters Dictionary may disagree and there is a tendancy to bastardise English these days anyway so I can accept there may be two schools of thought on the subject and go with the encyclopedia concensus. Same as Derry/Londonderry (a war of words I've always found incredibly pathetic).The Thunderer (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Information added

I'd be very grateful if someone could look at the syntax and synthesis of the new information I've added today, particularly the section on "Subsequent Catholic Recruitment".The Thunderer (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on the collusion section, including removing the Garland stuff (sorry!) but I'd like to see it looking a bit neater. Comments welcome. Jdorney (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? I like it. It reads a lot better and makes more sense and in my view it is much more encyclopedic than it was. Thank you very much for taking the time to do that. I can provide the necessary citations where needed as the information needing citations was taken by me from the Potter book. I also like to propose that the "Original Anti-UDR Poster" be shifted from the "Infiltration" section and replaced in the "Image, Attitudes & Politics" section as I think it would be more appropriate there. Bearing in mind that section didn't exist when the poster was originally included. What say you and others?The Thunderer (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)