Talk:Bravo Two Zero/Archive 1

The claims in McNab's and Ryan's books that the patrol walked 20km and had firefights with Iraqi armour have been heavily criticised and I think even the relatively watered down text on the page at the moment goes too far, even if you don't accept all of Michael Asher's claims. Coburn was on the patrol and does not support them; indeed, part of his case in the court proceedings was that the accounts given by McNab and Ryan were fictitious. I think all agree they obviously had some engagement, with armed locals or with soliders, and walked some distances, but nothing like the superhuman efforts claimed by McNab and Ryan. I think some redrafting or at least acknowledgement of the controversy over the distances covered and the enemy engaged should be made JRJW 20 December 2005There is a program "The real Bravo Two Zero" that re-creates Mc Nab's mission.....The findings are quite different than his accounts.

People have been reading too much into Michael Asher's unconvincing account; Michael Asher had an axe to grind and ground it heavily, basing his argument on the shaky points that Ryan and McNab's accounts differ, and that Bedouins don't lie. This article is heavily influenced by Michael Asher's book, written a decade after the event by walking through the region where Bravo Two Zero operated. I feel this must be corrected 139.168.41.98 12:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I have read Asher's book, and find that it is convincing in some respects - notably, when he points out inconsistencies between the objective facts 'on the ground' (such as distances, habitation, landscape features) and the accounts of both McNab and Ryan. However, I found it less convincing in other respects; in a number of instances he seems very ready to jump to a conclusion based on circumstantial matches between what he finds and what he expects; for instance, is a given cairn of stones actually the remnants of a 'sanger' left by the patrol, or is its presence just a co-incidence... is there another pile of stones elsewhere which is the 'real' one, or is there simply no 'real' pile of stones left to be found any more? While it's often tempting to believe Asher's reconstruction, and on balance it seems a more plausible account of the patrol's likely movements over the terrain in question, too much of his evidence is circumstantial for his conclusions to be regarded as definitive. On one point, though , I agree absolutely that the text of this wikipedia entry ought to be amended: however accurate any of the given accounts are, it seems overwhelmingly unlikely that the initial 'insertion' march covered anything like the distances described in the books other than Asher's.

Chris Ryan- Pseudonym? I was under the impression that Chris Ryan's name was his real name, not a Pseudonym, also why he appears on Television as himself, unlike Andy McNab whose face is hidden. User:86.140.120.224 14:38 9 June 2007

Chris Ryan is indeed a pseudonym - McNab first gave him the name 'Chris' in Bravo Two Zero and perhaps he chose to keep that name for his own work. A number of ex U.K. Special Forces personnel have gone on to media careers, some use their own names and do not disguise their identities whilst others choose to keep both hidden. McNab has said that his decision to remain unseen was out of consideration to others with whom he had served on sensitive operations in the past (particularly in regard to Northern Ireland.) He has also said that this anonymity allows him to enjoy a degree of freedom of movement in public.

Chris Ryan- Exaggerating the amount of enemy troops encountered?

Upon studying both books it appears that Ryan's account of the patrol's compromises with the enemy appear to largely correspond with Asher's research, and from the Wikipedia article, Coburn's and Dinger's accounts. Assume the exaggerations were just McNab's hyperbole rather than Ryan's?

Wrong equipment!!! Weapons Of the eight man patrol the weapons carried by the patrol members were: four fn minimi whilst the others had m16 with 203 thry were not "colt commandos"(which has a collapsible butt stock) there are many pictures in the books which show the rifles with fixed stocks. Food In the article it talks of the MRE(meals ready to eat) which is American, the SAS is British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.236.235 (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All SAS accounts make a big deal of how they often steal equipment from the Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.237.50 (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Sea?

The summary mentions the "Greek Sea". I've never heard of any sea called the "Greek Sea". Does this mean the Aegean Sea? Wardog (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem so, yes. It's a bit unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.237.50 (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aegean Sea is called Greek Sea in a rare frequency, but it's not new.

Edit warring over new image

I see that the image Image:Bravo Two Zero Escape Map RHS 3.jpg keeps popping in and out of this article. Is there any chance the interested parties could come to the talk page and discuss this content dispute? --Salvador Barley (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is not point in having two images of the same map, especially when the diesired content on the second picture can be seen on the original. Any comments/suggestions/opionions would be helpful in the matter. Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that although they are images of the same map, they show different parts of that map, and each image shows unique information that is not on the other image. So in that sense, they are two different images and both could be displayed in the article without fear of redundancy. On the other hand, a single image that shows the entire map would be a better alternative. DerekP (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to discuss. As DerekP points out there are two images. BinAl-Turki (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We dont need two, the first one is fine. For goodness sakes what encyclopedic information is this picture showing - None, apart from signatures that is from an unsourced place. Why the hell do we want signatures of the men shown? When we have a perfectly good list of names. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally concur with PMJ in that the signatures in themselves are not particularly relevent or indeed informative, since like most signatures, many are hard if not impossible to read and therefore carry little useful information. Clealry the two images are cropped from the same larger original; I would agree with derekP that a copy of the single full image would be better. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Only one image is necessary" - Is the Bravo Two Zero page reaching its maximum size and we have to throw something out ?

"that a copy of the single full image would be better" - There are only two fotographs. Look for yourself.

BinAl-Turki (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked, and it seems to me that the two images are different cropped sections from the same larger original. And as PMJ asks, what exactly is the encyclopedic value of highlighting autographs, most of which - as I have observed - mean little unless one knows exactly whose autograph one is supposed to be looking at. In this sense, even one image seems hard to justify. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I dont understand what encyclopedic information a image with signatures on brings. It does little to educate, we only need the current one. This has been the current one for a while, and the original has done us fine - by showing the full map. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"by showing the full map" - the orginal does not show the full map as DerekP points out above. BinAl-Turki (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does yours, signatures mean nothing. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 11:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case somebody who is blind is having this page read to them by someone who is partially sighted, I shall drescribe the two images.

The two images are sections of the escape map from Bravo Two Zero.

The first image displays the lower border of the map, the second image displays the right hand border of the map. The map is covered in annotations and signatures.

The first images, of the lower border of the map, has already been added to the Bravo Two Zero page some months ago. The second image was added but keeps being deleted by an individual, for reasons which are never made express.

Not being an expert in the field of publishing, I am interested in hearing the ghastly publishing error which the addition of the second image produces. The first image has already been added with out any person messing with it.

Not being an expert in the field of encyclopedic publishing, I am interested in hearing the ghastly encyclopedic publishing error which the addition of the second image produces. The first image has already been added with out any person messing with it.

The above does not say, "please state the irrelvant triviality which almost no-one is able to discern which is the reason that the second image keeps being deleted (by one individual)". The reason it does not say that is because the addition of the second image is costless and completes the information available from the Bravo Two Zero escape maps

Since it is costless to add the second image (unless some individual can state the ghastly encyclopedic publishing error requestd), then there is not reason to add something which costs the Bravo Two Zero page nothing, and adds more information (however minor the quantity of information some may think that quantity is). The fact is that even a small figure is larger than zero and thus the image is a benefit.

If I am mistaken in stating that "it costs the Bravo Two Zero page nothing" to add this image, please state the cost, ie the detriment to the page which the adding of the second image causes.

If you fail to state any detriment to the page, then since the image adds information to that page, then by definition, it is of benefit to the page.

Should the person who thinks that an act which benefits the page should not be undertaken I would be very much interested in hearing why.

Readers are referred to this edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bravo_Two_Zero&diff=222325754&oldid=222325416

when pondering this question.

BinAl-Turki (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please test your eyesight, I have typed my reason time and time again - Signatures bring no encyclopedic value, for googdness sakes they are signatures! What value do they bring to the article? THe original is a pic of the map and that is all we need. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you avoid answering the question concerning what it costs the page to have two images. BinAl-Turki (talk)

To all: OK, thanks to this discovery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bravo_Two_Zero&diff=222325754&oldid=222325416

there is more information on these images than I first realized and they will merit a paragraph on the B20 page in themselves. I am going to hand the to a friend who does image enhancement to see what he can do for us. Obviously they are more important than just background information and I may need the help of page contributers in assessing this information for the benefit of the page. BinAl-Turki (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AAAA

LOWER EDGE OF MAP

OK contributors: I need help with identifying the marks on the map. Let us start with the lower edge:

LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER

Looks like: "Andy Hiss"

LEFT OF "HEIGHT IN METERS"

Looks like: Malcolm McGowan - signed as Mal McGowan

OVER "HEIGHT IN METERS"

"A sand dune too far"

BELOW "RESTRICTED"

Looks like: "Bug ##############"

RIGHT OF "HEIGHT IN METERS"

General Schwarzkopf

RIGHT OF GENERAL SCHARZKOPF'S SIGNATURE

Looks like: "Pajice Temple Ticio"

LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER

(Illegible)

BinAl-Turki (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAA

Right Hand Side of the Map

Starting from the top:

(Illegible)

Winged penis symbol

RIGHT HAND SIDE 34.5 DEGREES LATITUDE NORTH

"Des Inglis (not Des Troop)"

(Illegible)

NEXT TO RIGHT HAND LOWER CORNER OF MAP

Ian Pring - signed as "Dinger" and annotated "Go west young man"

NEXT TO "GLOSSARY"

Looks like

"Dennis Corkhill"

BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER OF MAP

(Illegible)

AAAAAA

They are signatures, they have no encyclopedic contributions - they do not educate people more about the article, its a map signed by the men not something terribly important, your version of it is also very bad to see. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection (again)

As nothing seems to have come of the last time the page was protected, I have protected the page again, this time for three days. Please get a resolution of the dispute on the talk page during this time - slow-motion edit wars of this type are unacceptable. _GB^T/C 12:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection (a third time) - anyone getting deja vu yet

Will the two of you please knock it off. The article gets protected for three days, and you're both pointed at the talk page to resolve your dispute, and what do you do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The first post to the talk page comes days after the protection expired, and after yet another revert back to one of the two opposing viewpoints.

User:BinAl-Turki - you didn't even have any other edits to any other article during the time between the article being locked and your reverting back on 3rd August, and fifty percent of your edits are to do with the edit war over this image. As I currently read it, you're the one going against consensus, although since there's only been one revert which wasn't PMJ, it's hardly a clear cut issue.

I've protected the article yet again for a further three days - please bring the discussion in the thread a couple above here through to a conclusion during that time. If either of you, and I mean either of you, just sit it out until the protection expires and then continues this slow-burn edit war afterwards then you'll be blocked. I suggest you get talking. _Gb^T/c 13:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than happy to enter discussion. Problem is that there is nothing to discuss.

Interested in hearing from contributor 77.97.237.50 as clearly he has discerned information in the images which is of relevance to the article, having added this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bravo_Two_Zero&diff=218748988&oldid=217839204

Also, I am interested in hearing what adding the second image to the page costs the page. Poor wording costs the page readability. Material not relevant is a cost because it is wastes the time of a reader. These two things are costs. I am interested in hearing the cost to the page of adding the second image which adds a more complete picture of the escape map. The image is of value as it was included in the book "Bravo Two Zero". If it was not of value, I am interested in hearing why the publisher included it.

The only person to claim it is a cost is "Police,Mad,Jack" and he refuses to state the reason that adding this second image is a cost and avoids discussion as to why he is so keen to exclude the image.

The other contributor wants a full image. That's great but I want a picture of Martin Bormann in Paraguay. We don't have one. So there are two images of the B20 escape map, both partial. That is all we have.

More than willing to entertain discussion from any contributor. BinAl-Turki (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points occur to me from your post (I don't have a particular view one way or the other as to the inclusion of it). Firstly, you seem to be interpreting the IP edit you've linked to above (in both posts) as implying that there is more content in the map other than the signatures, but examining the map doesn't appear to bear that out. Are you saying that you think there's more information contained on the photo of the map than just the signatures?

Secondly, it's not just PMJ - Nick Cooper (talk · contribs) (who is the other user who has reverted your insertion) says above that the signatures are (a) hard to read, (b) contain little information, and (c) aren't particularly relevant. _Gb^T/c 17:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually need either image in the main article? What is the value of any image of the escape map? My view is that having an image of the map lends credence to the existance of such a map and the possibility that the map contains (some) relevant real names of the people involved in the mission (at many levels). So, if we think that seeing the map is valuable, which should be in the article? Is the bottom-of-map image better than the right-edge-map? What criteria could one use to determine the answer to that question? If we cannot empirically select one image over the other, then maybe both or neither should be on display? However, could it not be sufficient that the main article just has links to the images, so that interested researchers could still get to them but they wouldn't be distracting for people reading the main article? DerekP (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I do not see a picture of a map with signatures, as encyclopedic, what does it do to educate? To be honest people coming here to read about B20 are looking for hard, true, encyclopedic facts - and nothing more, a picture of a few signatures from them men invloved means little. It would be a different matter if we did not know the names or aliases of the troopers, but the fact is we do and that can be found in the section with all the names, why just duplicate that with a picture of badly shown signatures, that add very little to no encyclopedic content. I have given my reason, just as I have done before. When is the concensus going to be tallied up and which equals three (me, Derek, and Nick C) against BinAl-Turki. Obviously me, Derek, and Nick all have different opinions but at the end of the day they all boil down to that the image is not needed. Thank you, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PoliceMadJack: "When is the concensus going to be tallied up and which equals three"

The "Consensus" is 1:2 as Nick Cooper has stated:

Nick Cooper: "(I don't have a particular view one way or the other as to the inclusion of it). "

BinAl-Turki (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that doesn't really move the discussion forward, does it. The question that seems to be being put is what encyclopaedia content do you think is added by the inclusion of one or more pictures of the escape map? _Gb^T/c

BinAl-Turki, the consensus is not 1:2, as I did not say the words would have attributed to me above. You seem to have mistaken Gb linking to my User ID for a signature of mine, which it isn't.

The main issue is that - as you claim - it "costs nothing" to add the images, but rather that you have failed to demonstrate the encylopaedic "worth" of the images themselves, either collectively or individually. If it was of sufficient detail, the map itself might be of interest in showing the area in question, but the signatures are little more than decorative trimmings. Your own report on attempting to decipher what they say demonstrates this, and overall the only motivation I can see for someone wanting to show the signatures and "explain" them would be to "out" the "real names" of those involved. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GB: wrote: "The question that seems to be being put is what encyclopaedia content do you think is added by the inclusion of one or more pictures of the escape map?"

Maps on the Page: Put up what you like. As long as any interested parties have access to the information or images, I do not have an interest.

Encyclopedia Content: As a personal preference, I want to see original material, reference through an encylopedia article. The article places the subject into focus. The citations anchor it. I always want to see original material / primary source.

To All: Someone who is better than I am at searching wikimedia might be able to come up with other images. I will try and contact whoever put up the images and ask for more or better images. BinAl-Turki (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll excuse me, if I dont understand what any of that has to do with the above messages before your post. The people against it have explained why it should not be included, and in the nicest way possible all you seem to be doing is just arguing pointlessly, or "beating around the bush" or dragging a dead horse. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you seem to deviate from the cause. Writing about something completely arbitrary, about different things that no one has brought up. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, "flogging", surely? Dragging a dead horse would be more difficult than pointless? ;-) _Gb^T/c 12:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah lol, you seem to have hit it bang on, for what Bin is doing. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 12:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BinAl-Turki (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry I did not catch what it costs the page to include the images. I include space for you answer below, BinAl-Turki (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC) here :-[reply]

It doesn't cost anything to include the pictures. It doesn't cost anything to include a picture of a Scud missle - so let's include a picture of one of those, since they're mentioned in the article. Hang on - probably best to include pictures of rucksacks, radios, an AWACS, a bottle of water, boil in the bag rations, the Greek Sea, a grenade, a grenade launcher, an anti-tank launcher...and that's just the first paragraph.

I exaggerate to make the point that Nick Cooper made above - "you have failed to demonstrate the encylopaedic "worth" of the images themselves, either collectively or individually". It's not a question of "include everything until you can prove that it doesn't merit being included", it's a question of "exclude everything until you can prove that it merits being included". You haven't put forward any argument as to why the images should be included. _Gb^T/c 12:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting) Having reviewed the above, it seems clear that the consensus at this stage is against having any of the images - the quality of the images is such that they add no encyclopaedic value, and any attempt to decipher the signatures on the map is (a) doomed to failure given the technicaly quality of the images, and (b)irrelevant to the wider issue of the article as a whole. I'll remove the images and undo the protection. Having said that, an image of some description would be nice, as the article's a bit bare without one. Given that we're talking about a secret raid in wartime behind enemy lines, I suspect that finding something suitable would be a tad tricky. _Gb^T/c 12:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment

Can anyone find a reference to who was carrying the other two TACBEs? McNab and Ryan were carrying one each but I can't determine who had the others. I think it is mentioned somewhere in either The One That Got Away or Bravo Two Zero in passing: something along the lines of ‘... tried using his TACBE’ or ‘... pulled out his TACBE’ or ‘... threw away his TACBE’. Anyone know who? Mr Pillows (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to be honest, sorry. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]