This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theUlster Defence Regiment article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text.Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome!Learn to edit;get help. Assume good faith Be polite andavoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seekdispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

	Ulster Defence Regiment was aHistory good articles nominee, but did not meet thegood article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can berenominated. Editors may also seek areassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 16, 2013 WikiProject A-class review Not approved August 21, 2013 Peer review Reviewed October 5, 2013 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status:Former good article nominee

Warning: active arbitration remedies Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related tothe 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 inlimited circumstances) Neutrality: All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such asoutside opinions. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to thepurpose of Wikipedia, any expectedstandards of behaviour, or anynormal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Military history:British /European This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the followingcriteria 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 Additional information: /  This articlehas failed anA-Class review. United Kingdom This article is within the scope ofWikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theUnited Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe 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 theproject's importance scale. Northern Ireland This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofNorthern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe 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 theproject's importance scale. IrelandMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIreland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject'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 than90 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

There are a number of reasons why Catholic soldiers left the UDR. Yesterday I expanded and re-worded the "Loss of Catholic soldiers" section as it focused far too much on one of the reasons: IRA intimidation and pressure from the Catholic community. It hardly explainedwhy the Catholic community became hostile to the British Army, it hardly touched on the fact that a great number resigned in protest at the actions of the British Army, and it didn't even mention that Catholic members reported being intimidated by Protestant fellow soldiers. I included all of this information to make the section more balanced and less POV. I supported everything with reliable sources, some of which werealready being used in this section. Here is thebefore andafter. However,User:SonofSetanta (who wrote the section in the first place) hasreverted my edit completely, claiming that it "introduced POV". Can you please explain how POV was introduced?~Asarlaí13:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an edit clash here. I've tidied it up. Could you read what I've written below please and then we can discuss how best our concerns can be addressed?SonofSetanta (talk)14:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asarlai. Thanks for your edit. I have reverted you because I didn't feel it added anything of note to the information already there. This is the sort of thing I mean:

• Catholics within the regiment also reported being intimidated by Protestant fellow soldiers.

Ryder pp45-46 doesn't support this so I have substituted it with this:Some Catholic soldiers felt uneasy at having to report for duty in former B Special drill huts and experienced subtle intimidation from their comrades

• Other Catholics resigned in protest at what they saw as the Army's harsh and biased treatment of their community.

The section already clearly identifies the problem in softer terms, which is as per the manual of style (WP:MOS). Your comment, taken again from Ryder p46, is certainly true but in my opinion it's beyond what is needed. For a start it isn't about anything the UDR did and that's already covered in the statementVarious events outside the control of the regiment such as: There are loads more factors which any of us could edit in but they won't make the message any stronger. Well, maybe they would, but this article isn't the one to emphasise such matters. With Internment, Bloody Sunday and the Falls Road Curfew already there I think a reader would certainly get the message by using the inline refs.

You have to bear in mind Asarlai that this article is an overview. It's already too long and I'm turning over ideas in my head on how to cut down on what's already there, maybe by creating a separate article for the "Women's UDR". If we edit in every single piece of info we have then the article will just become more overweight. I'm not trying to expressWP:OWN but I am trying to preserve the article in near enough its present form for the good article review. The tasks set out atWikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ulster Defence Regiment have been done and really the only thing I believe we should be doing on this article now is tweaking, which I recognise you have tried to do. I hope you're happy with how I've compromised?SonofSetanta (talk)14:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having read your comments written during our edit clash and hoping you've read mine, could I ask what you feel still needs to be done?SonofSetanta (talk)14:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section needs to be re-worded and re-structured. It's about the loss of Catholic soldiers from the regiment. Thus, it should start by saying how many Catholics were in the regiment to begin with and how many left. Then it should explain the reasons why they left, giving proper coverage to all of them. Currently it doesn't do this. It goes straight into blaming the IRA and Catholic community and only briefly mentions the other reasons in passing.

The statement"Catholics within the regiment also reported being intimidated by Protestant fellow soldiers" is clear, direct and fully supported by the source. You made the sentence less direct and then tacked it on to the end of the paragraf, as if it hardly mattered. What's wrong with being direct?

The statement"Other Catholics resigned in protest at what they saw as the Army's harsh and biased treatment of their community" is also clear, direct and fully supported by the sources. Again, you replaced this with a sentence that is less direct and less clear:"as a result of IRA pressure and disillusionment with the government's attitude towards the minority community over internment, 25% of Catholics in the regiment resigned". That doesn't make it clear that it's thesoldiers who were disillusioned and that the resigned in protest. Again, what's wrong with being direct and saying exactly what happened?

You write that the loss of Catholic soldiers had nothing to do with the UDR and was a result of"events outside the control of the regiment". That's untrue. As we've just discussed, some Catholic soldiers left due to intimidation within the regiment itself. Furthermore, Ryder wrote that some Catholic soldiers were angered at how their comrades abused people at checkpoints and how most of their actions were directed against the Catholic community.

Also, the tone of the following sentence is utterly biased and it has no place in an encyclopedia:"Without the support of community leaders, shunned by their own community and with their lives under threat, the vast majority of Catholic UDR soldiers resigned or simply stopped turning up for duty".~Asarlaí17:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Catholic recruitment" clearly states the regiment was 18% Catholic in April 1970. We don't need to repeat that. That's justWP:MOS.

The section blames PIRA and the Catholic community because it was assassination by one and pressure from the other which caused the loss of most Catholic recruits. I could go into more detail, because I've got the detail, but it's overkill and would produce an article which wasn't balanced. You must try to understand however, no matter how unpleasant it is, that the campaign against UDR soldiers by PIRA and member of the Catholic community who were influenced by PIRA and Sinn Fein were the main reasons. The section is accurate when it says that various incidents cause the church and political parties to withdraw support and this is a factor, but it led to few Catholics leaving.

Very few Catholic soldiers left because of intimidation from within the regiment. That's a fact.

"Without the support of community leaders, shunned by their own community and with their lives under threat, the vast majority of Catholic UDR soldiers resigned or simply stopped turning up for duty" is a direct lift from the regimental history.

No matter how unpalatable you may find it the facts are there but softened as perWP:MOS. So in my opinion we don't need a rewrite and that's one shared by the A Class reviewers.SonofSetanta (talk)

I've given this a little more thought but I'm still not convinced that putting anything in about army brutality adds anything to the article. The whole area of army brutality is a very spurious one with many false complaints made. I don't want to dismiss it out of hand however so may I ask: how many Catholic UDR soldiers left because of army brutality to fellow Catholics? If it is a significant number we'd have to find a way to edit that in.SonofSetanta (talk)10:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is a source that details it. If it's not sourced you shouldn't mention it especially if it is controversial which in regards to this article almost everything can be.Mabuska^(talk)10:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a source can be found for it (like Jack Charlton, you find the players and I'll find them an Irish granny). The thing is though, for every source which supports such a contention there will be one saying that the vast majority of complaints against the army by Catholics/nationalist/republicans were contrived. I was reading something on this by English or Doherty just last week. The regimental history (Potter) is the best source we have for facts and it clearly states the IRA campaign against Catholic soldiers as the main reason for them leaving. The various army operations mentioned in the article caused a loss of support for the regiment by political parties (notably the SDLP) and the church. From that I think we can assume that recruitment and morale of Catholics may have been affected and I think it's certainly worthy of keeping in the article, but spurious claims of brutality - I couldn't see that as being free of POV.SonofSetanta (talk)11:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This weird creepy revisionist lunatic is part of the problem " The regimental history (Potter) is the best source we have for facts " no it's the best source for english lies.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2A02:8084:2163:2300:91A:37F0:EA30:7396 (talk)13:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This review istranscluded fromTalk:Ulster Defence Regiment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:Khazar2 (talk·contribs)01:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be in an unusual situation, as its nominator is topic banned from working further on the topic.[1]

On first pass, the article has a lot of good information, but also seems to have some ways to go to meet the GA criteria. Some issues I immediately see:

• Needs to consolidate lead to four paragraphs perWP:LEAD
• Needs to reduce overuse of single-sentence paragraphs and very short sentences perWP:LAYOUT
• Needs copyediting (The sixth sentence, for example, is a comma splice: "The regiment was intended to be nonpartisan, and began with Catholic recruits accounting for 18% of its soldiers, however due to various circumstances by the end of 1972 this dropped to around 3%." A few paragraphs down is a sentence with no period, etc.) I've tried to fix some of the more obvious errors as I went, but this was only a quick pass and still more needs to be done. Future editors of this article might consider requesting a read by theGuild of Copyeditors before this is renominated.
• "It is doubtful if any other unit of the British Army has ever come under the same sustained criticism as the UDR" -- an opinion this strong probably needs attribution to a specific author, or at least multiple sources, to meetWP:NPOV
• Some statistics lack citation, such as "In time a combination of these factors reduced Catholic soldiers to around 3% of the Regiment's strength."
• The article seems to rely quite heavily on Potter, to the point that it clearly endorses his view over another book and the BBC:

"This is not noted in Adams' Sinn Féin biography[205] and the BBC still insists the assailants were arrested by "plain clothes policemen".[206]" It would be better to note the diverging viewpoints here impartially.

• The article needs work to meet the "concise" criterion (1a); at 69kb of readable prose, it's far longer than needed for a topic of narrow scope.

Given the nominator's situation and some clear issues with the article, I'm not passing it for GA at this time. I hope others may find the above comments useful as a starting point for future revision, however; this would be a great one to get to GA status. Thanks to all who have worked to bring it to this point. --Khazar2 (talk)01:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AtUlster Defence Regiment#USC recruitment it saysOthers joined the newly formed RUC Reserve instead, especially in Belfast, where during the first month of recruiting, only 36 Specials applied to join the UDR compared to an average of 29% – 2,424, one thousand of whom were rejected, mainly on the grounds of age and fitness

I assume it's attempting to say the percentage of B Specials who applied to join the UDR was lower in Belfast than in other parts of Northern Ireland, except it's not saying it particularly well. It doesn't even match the mini-table on the right hand side next to it, which says 70 B Specials had applied and 36 had been accepted.FDW777 (talk)12:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- The 5,351 total is incorrect and should be 4,776. Needs changed in the recruitment summary paragraph too.Gavin Lisburn (talk)16:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ulster Defence Regiment Crest.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at thenomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk)17:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is sgt h Connor number 22968464 I’m trying to find more information on him but can’t find anything all I know is he was awarded the campaign service medal2A02:C7E:331E:8700:88FA:C145:50CD:BC5 (talk)23:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By March 1970, there had been 4,791 applications to join, of which 946 were from Catholics and 2,424 from current or former members of the B-Specials. 2,440 had been accepted, including 1,423 from current or former B-Specials.^[1]

The numbers don't match unless Potter is claiming 560 consecutive applications were rejected, and that 70 former B-Specials were accepted then rejected.FDW777 (talk)16:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Since Hansard includes essentially the same table (without the 5,351 and 1,353 figures, which don't add up) I've standardised the data.FDW777 (talk)16:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• 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
• Failed requests for military history A-Class review
• B-Class United Kingdom articles
• Unknown-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• B-Class Northern Ireland-related articles
• Unknown-importance Northern Ireland-related articles
• All WikiProject Northern Ireland pages
• B-Class Ireland articles
• Mid-importance Ireland articles
• B-Class Ireland articles of Mid-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages

• Talk pages with reference errors
• Wikipedia pages subject to a one-revert restriction
• Wikipedia pages about contentious topics