Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment

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)

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)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Leitrim Lad (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Having read through this I note it is an incredibly long item which, in my view, is subject to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It also includes the names of people who had left the UDR when they committed their crimes. I seek other views on this but to my mind this section shouldn't be longer than the list of actual UDR casualties as it gravely affects the neutral balance of the article. Mindful of the sensitivities around articles such as this I invite comment from other editors before attempting to improve this section by removing a lot of the padding to concise it. It certainly needs to contain the salient information that serving members of the regiment committed crimes, including murder, but it shouldn't be this detailed.

Leitrim Lad (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I think the Collusion section certainly needs editing per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We can easily summarise what's there in less detail without leaving anything significant out. FDW777 (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I think I'll start by removing the names of anyone who wasn't in the UDR (or "former UDR member) who committed a crime.

Leitrim Lad (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Some weeding out completed. I'd be obliged if someone would have a look and see if I've been too keen or have missed anything.

Leitrim Lad (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

What I had in mind was much more drastic. I would cut out pretty much everything that's covered by Several stolen weapons were used in the commission of sectarian killings, attempted killings and robberies and 18 UDR soldiers were convicted of murder and 11 for manslaughter. Those adequately summarise the information, without the constant detailing of every single incident. FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Also Between 1970 and 1985, 99 were convicted of assault, whilst others were convicted of armed robbery, weapons offences, bombing, intimidation and attacks on Catholics, kidnapping, and membership of the UVF. FDW777 (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

If that's what you feel then make the edits. I support your conclusions but didn't want to be seen as rabid in my own editing.

Leitrim Lad (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I've done a little more but reading through it so many times makes me feel it is rather intended as a hatchet job which is a big imbalance in a article - especially when there is no list of UDR casualties or crimes against UDR soldiers by paramilitary organisations. Effectively I believe the inclusion of this list severely affects the neutrality of the article as a whole. I seek a way to include the information but to concise it in an effective statement which makes it clear that some UDR soldiers committed serious crimes, including murder but not to try and make it a sub-article which has the sole purpose of discrediting the regiment. Has anyone any ideas?

Leitrim Lad (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted to the version of the section before one editor started adding to it with every single news story they could find, ignoring that WP:NOTEVERYTHING says we summarise things (which the article already did) not list every single sodding thing that can be referenced. Any issues with that version, please say so. FDW777 (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly more comfortable with that than I was with the list of newspaper articles. It still educates a reader to the facts but doesn't overwhelm the piece as we saw before. I really think I should study this article in depth to ensure that more sections don't have prejudicial content beyond what is the truth and expressed in the neutral terms Wikipedia demands.

Thank you.

Leitrim Lad (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Those are very helpful and well thought out edits. You do appear to be better at this than I. Thank you.

Leitrim Lad (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was a joint effort. FDW777 (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The Title being "Loyalist Infiltration" is a bit strong, Last time I check Wikipedia isn't some Irish Nationalist Bastion, where there is "Infiltration" from people that don't agree with you.

Your point about "the neutral balance of the article" is fine and reading the responses between you two it feels like your hearts are in the right place. But your title comes across as Sectarian in nature, but with statements like "some UDR soldiers committed serious crimes, including murder but not to try and make it a sub-article which has the sole purpose of discrediting the regiment" and "ensure that more sections don't have prejudicial content beyond what is the truth and expressed in the neutral terms Wikipedia demands" I'm sure you didn't mean it that way and you probably meant more as in "Loyalist Militias" than how people might identify.

But I think a less aggressive title could have been "Bad Faith inclusions in the Memorial page" or "Memorial page should be more sensitive to victims". Poor framing can lead to Comment wars and to Edit wars. ~2026-10935-0 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

References, including the not yet cited UDR Declassified are pretty unanimous that the UDR was full of weapons stealing and/or UVF/UDA members and/or sectarian killers and/or other criminals. FDW777 (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, this page is not a memorial. FDW777 (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this but one thing I can be sure of is that everything which needs to be said should be, warts and all. If you have suggestions or edits on the title "Loyalist Infiltration" then I suggest you go right ahead. It is a recurrent theme in any article which concentrates on the Northern Ireland Troubles but there is a balance to be sought and found. The article has to address the sectarian elements within the subject regiment. I request it be borne in mind that I am not the author of the current item titles in the article but I would support any changes which are in keeping with the standards set out by Wikipedia. What I hope to see is a factual assessment of sectarianism (and other crimes) from some soldiers of this regiment and how they used their position to bring that to bear either in the course of their duties or by collaborating with others but I wouldn't want to be seen as someone who wants a stick to beat the subject with. I seek neutrality in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. I certainly don't want to be involved in comment or edit wars and welcome any guidance to avoid same. Leitrim Lad (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I've removed a sentence from the opening paragraph of "Political Controversy". There was something about the "sectarian culture and character of the regiment, which became explicit following the introduction of internment" sentence which didn't read right so, having the book I checked the page the ref gave and Ryder didn't say that but he did state the previous sentence so I've left that alone. There is however a detailed outline of how Catholics and Catholic soldiers felt under "Resignation of Catholic soldiers".

I've also amended the subtitles under "Paramilitary infiltration of the UDR" but if anyone feels that isn't acceptable just revert the changes. Leitrim Lad (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Leitrim Lad (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

I've carried out further work as interested parties will note. Some new information, some grammatical corrections and a couple of relevant images. I hope this generally meets with the approval of others. Leitrim Lad (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I wonder could someone else provide an opinion for me? I've deliberated over the last couple of sentences under "Political controversy". We have an accusation made by a newspaper which we know is an Irish republican sheet. It seems to me that this newspaper would have an anti-British agenda and therefore be anti-UDR so is it correct under Wikipedia guidelines to use the publication as a source for this article? In addition we have an accusation made and now, by my hand, a statement which appears to disprove it. So it's now tit-for-tat, is that appropriate or should we delete both? What would benefit the article most? Leitrim Lad (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Ref the pictures: I give up. I really don't have the knowledge or experience to resolve the copyright issues. Leitrim Lad (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Leitrim Lad (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

I call this descriptor into question. This regiment wasn't Line infantry at any point in its history. As it states in the article it was a locally raised regiment for service only in Northern Ireland. In my opinion that makes them the same as the Home Guard (United Kingdom) - a volunteer Militia, and if you follow the militia link you'll see that the Ulster Defence Regiment is featured in it under the headings "Other British militias" and "The Troubles and Irish War of Independence". Given the supporting information in the Militia article I am going to edit the infobox accordingly but I invite discussion on the subject in case there is something I've overlooked. Leitrim Lad (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Leitrim Lad (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

After reading through the article so many times it seems to have been originally peppered with references to either enhance the reputation of the regiment from a British POV or make it look overtly sectarian from an Irish republican POV. This has obviously affected the neutrality of the article from Day 1. I suggest an item at the very end which could be titled "Conclusion" in which the successes of using a locally raised defence force such as this can be balanced against the failures of the British government to be able to maintain it as a cross community force and the efforts of the republican movement to ensure it was able to maintain the prejudice that the regiment was a sectarian force. From the research I've done this would appear to be the crux of the matter but thus far I've been unable to write anything which encompasses the views of contemporary historians - mostly because I've been unable to find any one sentence or paragraph which outlines this effectively and concisely. At this juncture I would really appreciate the assistance of anyone whose abilities are better than mine.

Anybody? Leitrim Lad (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Leitrim Lad (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

This is my next task. I feel this section is too long given that the report only deals with activities which occurred in the first three years of the regiment's operational term. It's important that it be included but I don't feel it warrants the current space especially as consideration is given to some of the facts it contains in other sections of the article. My view is that all aspects of the history should be addressed but not rammed home at every opportunity. If anyone has any suggestions or wishes to assist I'd be grateful for any help. Leitrim Lad (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)