Jump to content

Talk:Green beret

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Use by United States Army Special Forces

[edit]

Certain editors have been almost fanatic about reverting edits adding special forces that don't have a direct link to British Commandos, United States Army Special Forces don't have a direct link to British Commandos either, the only source cited in relation to the "Green Berets'" use of green beret talks about "some members" of 10th group having been in the OSS, and that the "Rifle Green" beret used by Canadians started to become popular because of its "reminiscense of the beret worn by British Commandos", how is this supposedly more legit than, for example, the Finnish Marine Commandos' use of a green beret? Ape89 (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think that we had to have this conversation yet again. The reason for the Americans choosing green over any other colour was because quite a few Americans (who initially wore the beret within the American army) had been through the commando course during World War II.[1] This is similar to the relationship between the Chindits and Merrill's Marauders. The distinction between "Special forces" and commandos was not clear cut during world war II, that was something that evolved over time. If you read about other funny American and British units during World War II many of them had men in them who had been through the British commando course (see for example David Stirling (No. 8 (Guards) Commando) the founder of the SAS, or Observer Group that lead to the United States Naval Special Warfare Command etc. It is a complicated family tree, with roots that go back to Churchill's British Commandos. The other reason for including the Americans in this articles is that in the English language green beret always refers to either those who have completed the commando course or are in American special forces. It does not for example refer to "for example, the Finnish Marine Commandos". -- PBS (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence that "quite a few Americans (who initially wore the beret within the American army) had been through the commando course during World War II", the *only* source cited in the article says only this:
"Those who served with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in Europe often adopted whatever headgear their French or Belgian Resistance compatriots wore. This was often a beret, since many of the OSS teams served in France. The beret, worn in a variety of styles and colors, showed even up on OSS personnel in the Far East. Many of the first members of the US Army 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), formed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in June 1952, were veterans of the OSS. Berets of various types and colors began being worn unofficially as early as 1954 on the unit's field exercises in Germany and at Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall, North Carolina. The color green was favored because it was reminiscent of the World War II British Commando-type beret that had been adopted by the Commandos on 24 October 1942."
It doesn't matter how many Americans completed the Commando course & kept using the beret after the war, what actually matters is if any of the members of the 10th or 77th Group, the first units to adopt a green beret as a unit, had completed the Commando course, since the source only says that the color green was chosen because of reminiscence of the British Commandos' beret, not only that it says that the 77th group copied their beret's color from the Canadians, not the British Commandos.
Unsourced material may be removed by anyone, since the cited source doesn't support the claim that US Army Special Forces have an actual connection to the British Commandos I am going to erase the sentence "and the United States Army Special Forces (Green Berets)" from the beginning of the article, I suggest you find a source supporting your claim before reverting my edit. Ape89 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the source I provided in my previous posting or look at the links? -- PBS (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it still doesn't support the claim I deleted as unsourced material & which you then brought back by reverting my edit. Ape89 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PBS: you haven't responded to my notion that you reverted my deletion of unsourced material, but you haven't undone my second deletion either, I'd like to know why so there's no misunderstanding. Ape89 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am busy with other thing at the moment. I have some more sources for you to consider and I will try to find the time to post them here in the coming week or so. -- PBS (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in 'more sources', I am interested in an explanation for the revert you did in order to restore unsourced material.Ape89 (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green beret. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_beret&oldid=1201353757"