Jump to content

Talk:Special Air Service/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Merger proposal

The articles 21 Regiment Special Air Service‎, 22 Regiment Special Air Service‎ and 23 Regiment Special Air Service‎ are stub articles created by copying large segments of Special Air Service. It should also be noted that 23 Regiment Special Air Service and Artists Rifles are subjects which greatly overlap. I don't believe that the existence of these subjects as separate articles is adding to the quality of the encyclopedia. --Deadly∀ssassin 18:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here, here. (See message on above user talk page for my input) Support. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

They are NOT stub articles: That is a untrue. A stub is only a few sentences, these articles are long.
Any overlap between 21 SAS and Artists Rifles would suggest a merger between 21 SAS and Artists Rifles. Otherwise the overlap between SAS and Artits Rifles which you claim to oppose will continue to exist.
Mesoso2 (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem from me, there is potential to break them out as daughter articles at some point when there is some substance, but straight cut and paste doesn't add anything. I'm also unconvinced about understanding, use of the American term for recce doesn't inspire confidence.
There is a potential issue around the Artists article, since that Regt has some considerable non-SF history, however that article can cross refer to the SAS article quite easily, with a summary.
ALR (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe the 23 SAS article should continue to exist, as it is a separate regiment with just as much call for an article as Artists Rifles but that 22 SAS should merge here. My 2 cents. Buckshot06(prof) 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
As ALR says, the Artists Rifles has considerable history previous to becoming 21 SAS, and I think that while 22 SAS and 23 SAS should be dealt with in the main SAS page, the other unit merits separation. Perhaps the best course would be to amalgamate all the SAS material into the main article, retain Artists Rifles for its pre-SAS history, and then have it refer on to the SAS page for the its current role. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I wholly agree with Nick Cooper. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this discussion has been running for quite a while. I think there's consensus for a merge of the regiment articles into the main SAS article, while the artists rifles article should remain separate. Note - this is how it was previously anyway. I'm going to be bold and make those changes shortly. --Deadly∀ssassin 07:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I have now made those changes, and in order not to loose important content have created separate sections for the various regiments in the main article. These could do with some pruning to make them more concise and encyclopaedic, but there was no consensus on that so I have not made those changes. --Deadly∀ssassin 07:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article and Cleanup

I think that this article has the chance to become a Featured Article as there is a lot of good solid information about the subject, but quite a bit of cleanup needs to occur first.

I have bolstered the history section in this article somewhat, and also removed large sections of text in the regiment sections which repeated information either in the history article or the Artists Rifles article. I have also rewritten or removed large sections of text which were very dense with jargon or minutia. I've also made some word changes where I think they may be typos e.g. formally to formerly. The bottom line of my changes are basically to make the article more readable, less focussed on minutia, and relevant to an encyclopaedia. I have also added the fact tag to encourage editors to provide references, and converted the Bibliography references to {{citebook}}s.

I have added a todo list with the items I believe that need to occur before we submit to peer review. --Deadly∀ssassin 08:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Regiment roles

The three regiments have different roles:

21 SAS - to provide depth to the UKSF group through the provision of Individual and collective augmentation to the regular component of UKSF and standalone elements up to task group (Regimental) level focused on support and influence (S&I) operations to assist conflict stabilisation. 22 SAS - Medium and deep battlespace ISTAR and offensive operations, Counter Revolutionary Warfare (CRW), Counter-Terrorism (CT), close protection and defence diplomacy. 23 SAS - to provide depth to the UKSF group through the provision of Individual and collective augmentation to the regular component of UKSF and standalone elements up to task group (Regimental) level focused on support and influence (S&I) operations to assist conflict stabilisation.[4]

Three regiments, two different roles. 21 and 23 both share the same overly long description of their role.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.119.148 (talk • contribs)

Good point, I've merged the descriptions of 21 and 23 SAS. --Deadly∀ssassin 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

About The Wording of Section I...

Section I (History) makes it appear at first glance that the SAS were no longer in operation --

"The SAS was formed in 1941 as a commando force operating behind enemy lines during the war in North Africa and Europe then disbanded in 1945. In 1947 the Artists Rifles regiment was remodelled as the nucleus of the reformed Special Air Service which has become the model upon which many other countries have based their own special forces units."

It's all well and good to provide a link to the main History entry but as it's written Section I appears to only mention the SAS post-WWII role in passing. A history or intro section should be able to stand alone from the rest of the article whereas this is just taken verbatim from the intro of the main History article and goes no further.

Fernblatt (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Special Dispensation for the SAS

Is it not the case that the SAS are given special dispensation ? For example, they get to select their own weapons (e.g. they were not forced to use the SA80). Does anyone know the extent of this ?

86.164.181.114 (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The SAS do not have to follow the same weapons choice as the rest of the British Army for several reasons (one being the original SA80 A1 was a pile of pants!) however each individual is not allowed to choose their own weapon as this would cause logistical problems with spares and ammunition etc.

The weapon of choice is unsually the M16 or varients of it (plus or minus the M203 granade launcher) and someone in a patrol may carry an FN Minimi light support weapon. The regiments commonest sidearm, last I heard, was the SIG Sauer and (as with virtually everyone else) the sub-machine gun of choice the HK MP5 however for specific missions weapons may vary consideabley from this.

Resus2222 (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

One known weapon in use by British Special forces including the SAS is the L119a1, which is the British designation for the Canadian C7/C8sfw. This has replaced the M16 varients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanomanc1 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo illustrating the article

The first person on the right of the the 1943 photo (Special Air Service in North Africa E 21337.jpg) looks to be the explorer Sir Wilfred Thesiger, who I believe was a major in the SAS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.208.31 (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

SAS Insignia Colours

I've changed back the SAS insignia/badge colours to reflect the official Cambridge/Oxford blue. Dragases (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS IN IRELAND

Why no mention of death squad operations against the Provos in Ireland? No evidence? No problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.25.122 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

there is no mention of french and belgian SAS members during the WWII era neither. obviously some english editors here have a restricted view of History. please sign your post using ~~~~ and use source (as in Google Books). thanks. Cliché Online (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

the famous pic with the jeep

the guy in the frontground is Paddy Mayne. however this is a picture of L detachment of the SASA in the sidi hanneish raid. there were three free french jeeps engaged in this raid. Cliché Online (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

there's a 2-part video about this raid and the free french squadron here and there (that's an official source the french minister of defense's ECPAD with video hosted by the free french official website).
You have no evidence to support any of that. The owner of the photo, the Imperial War Museum, states the photo was taken in 1943, see here. There is no evidence to prove that French forces are included in that photograph, which according to the owner was taken after the point you are discussing.
No one is claiming the French had no involvement, however the claims you make do not pertain to the photograph. May I suggest you look into the history and reference for that actual photograph, and not just what the French site tells you about (which incidentally is just using it for illustration and makes no specific claims as to the contents.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
could you possibly imagine that the holy brtish website caption is a mistake? or is it too much to ask for? the czaptio said its 'L' detachment which includes french. and i bet this is sidi hanneish. Cliché Online (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
You bet, so you have no evidence? Or can you imagine a French website written that has taken a British photograph may be wrong? The Imperial War Museum is a very reliable source, and unless you can provide extremely compelling evidence that it is incorrect, then don't change the captions again. The Free French website making a contrary claim on the image isn't reliable. Canterbury Tail talk 12:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
there is not a only a french website also a video made by the french minister of defense which is more reliable than your tiny pic in the museum, the msuem only holds a pictuer that was taken by a soldier on his duty the museum only upload the file that don't make it free from date mistakes. L detachment includes free french, and this is a picture of L detachment which means there are fench and british. the caption don't say there are only british. Cliché Online (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, please read up on our policies and guidelines WP:REF will tell you about references and reliable sources. Putting your own interpretation on things isn't what Wikipedia is here for. The source, a reliable source, says it's 1943. The source, a reliable source, doesn't say that any French are in the image. Therefore we cannot say that the image is from 1942 and contains French. If you want to put that spin on the image on your own website then feel free, but not on Wikipedia. This conversation is about this image and the sources say 1943, and make no claim to French inclusion in the image. Canterbury Tail talk 13:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies are also Assume good faith and No personal attacks so hold your horses. For sure the imperial war museum archive contains propaganda and misleading original captions as demonstrated here "Contrary to the caption title below the invasion was not as successful as implied." [1], as i said before, such archives can contain mistakes of this kind (just like the US Library of Congress picture caption which sometimes contain contradictory dates). that's a fact, british or not.
well, that being said i got the answer to the question, which SAS is this?! the answer was not given by the almighty british war museum, but by the SAS International Museum in France, Sennecey le Grand. this int'l museum is born in 2008 from a british, french and belgian collaboration and involves veterans.
  • 1 SAS (British), L Detachment
  • Location: west from Matmata, French Tunisia
  • Date: January 19, 1943
  • From left to right:
William HENDERSON gunner, Robert « Bobby » Mac Dougal driver
Frederick BRIAR gunner, Michael « Mike » SADLER( ?) driver
William “Bill” KENNEDY gunner, Lieutenant Edward Mac DONALD driver and detachment.

voilà, thats an all-british SAS, french were 3 SAS and 4 SAS, belgian was 5 SAS. a poster in the museum had my attention, its about the 1942 sidi hanneish raid, the guy featured there looks much like those of the jeep picture. i'm gonna ask details about this. Cliché Online (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your post above is trying to say. It does nothing to provide any evidence that the image is anything other than what the Imperial War Museum states it is. If you believe it to be otherwise, you need to provide reliable sources, and not conduct your own assumptions and original research. Continued comments such as "holy british museum" and claims of propaganda against any British source, while upholding the accuracy of French web sources created many many decades after the events in question, and from other sources, do not do much to speak against the references. Canterbury Tail talk 12:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
i've contacted the imperial war museum and asked details about the jeep picture, the spokeperson said they dont have more details than what is written. however since the sas museum is france hs details, as i said the french museum is managed by sas veterans in conjunction with the british, i'll give these details to the imperial museum. it seems you're not givig credit to the french museum calling it not "reliable source" which shows your POV. but it doesnt matter anymore. english chauvinism is a well known fact and i've no time to waste trying to convince such person like you. there are sas veterans in france, there is a sas museum in france and they have reliable and valuable informations that don't have the war museum. bye. Cliché Online (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

SAS an Infantry Regiment?

'Jim Sweeny' has made a number of revisions claiming that the SAS is an Infantry Regiment and that 21, 22 and 23 are Battalions! Below is an extract from Queen's Regulations:

Queens Regulations for the Army

PART 1 - PRECEDENCE Precedence of Corps and Regiments 8.001. The following table gives the order of precedence of corps and regiments in the Army. Regiments shown collectively therein take precedence amongst themselves as shown in the Army List. Order Corps or regiment

1 The Life Guards and The Blues and Royals.

2 Royal Horse Artillery (a).

3 Royal Armoured Corps.

4 Royal Regiment of Artillery (Royal Horse Artillery excepted).

5 Corps of Royal Engineers.

6 Royal Corps of Signals.

7 Regiments of Foot Guards.

8 Regiments of Infantry (b), (c).

9 Special Air Service Regiment.

10 Army Air Corps.

11 Royal Army Chaplains' Department.

12 The Royal Logistic Corps.

13 Royal Army Medical Corps.

14 Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.

15 Adjutant General's Corps.

16 Royal Army Veterinary Corps.

17 Small Arms School Corps.

18 Royal Army Dental Corps.

19 Intelligence Corps.

20 Army Physical Training Corps.

21 General Service Corps.

22 Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps.

23 Corps of Army Music.

24 Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers (Militia).

25 The Honourable Artillery Company.

26 Territorial Army (d)

27 The Royal Gibraltar Regiment 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.33.10 (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I would observe that the fact that it's listed there as a Regiment rather undermines your own assertion in the ongoing edit conflict that it's a Corps.
For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with Jim on this one.
ALR (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Copied from the article under Order of precedence The SAS is classed as an infantry regiment, and as such is shown in the infantry order of precedence. However, because of its role, it is listed 'next below' the other designations (foot guards, line infantry, rifles). The expression 'next below' is utilised in British official publications as a form of 'grace note' to avoid the connotations of first/last since, in spirit at least, no Regiment admits of the claim to being last and all are deemed equal in the scope of their service under the Crown-in-Parliament.

In spite of being an infantry regiment, the SAS has always used cavalry nomenclature for its sub-units, e.g., troops and squadrons.

so it an regiment of three battalions 21,22 and 23 but they use cavalry terminology.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Queen's Regs is the definitive document for army precidence, not wiki, so it doen't look like 'the boss' considers them infantry - time to revise the wiki precidence article perhaps? Tragino (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Short, James; McBride, Angus (1981). The Special Air Service. Osprey Publishing.

Anything written by James Shortt should be taken with a pinch of salt.Tragino (talk)

It should also be noted, that anything written by The Sun should also be taken with a pinch of salt. Unless something can be proven one way or another, Wikipedia has no reason to look negatively upon his works published by a reputable company in a reputable series. Canterbury Tail talk 18:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree with the caution, the book was published well before his credibility was torn apart. In this instance it's not really being used to support anything particularly contentious so probably not a big issue, but I'd avoid using it for anything else.
ALR (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
And yet you have edited the article from another source that confirms his information was correct.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Just be careful with anything uncorroborated written by or originating from him. Unfortunately that includes information from other writers who have innocently used the information his publications at face value. Sadly there is a lot of fanzene quality material out there from otherwise reasonable publishers. A good example of which is:
"the Commanding Officer and Officer of the day wear a black leather pouch belt mounted with a silver whistle chain and the Mars and Minerva badge of the Artists Rifles"
I just love the idea of the duty bod mincing around camp in a "black leather pouch belt" TangoSixZero (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Its a left over from the "redcoat" days, or being a former rifle regiment green coat days ?. Like the cavalry cross belt. HereS a link to see what they look like [2] --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Special Projects Team

The Special Projects section needs altering. The purpose of the Special Projects team is to provide a response to a terrorist incident or hostage situation in the UK should the need arise. It is not a permanent specialist cadre as implied, rather the squadrons of 22 SAS rotate through Special Projects duty in 6 month increments, as they do on operations overseas.

The Christian Peacemaker crisis was not resolved by the Special Projects team, naturally as this was outside UK soil. The raid that freed Kember and the others, and 44 of the 50 intelligence gathering raids beforehand were conducted by the Squadron on duty in Iraq at the time, specifically B Squadron 22 SAS. It might also be worth noting that the search for Kember was codenamed Operation Lightwater. The stuff about the Christian Peacemaker crisis should be moved to the “22 SAS Regiment” section. --AshBoss (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Kember details have been moved and more added to the SPT. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"22 SAS Regiment"

The grammar in this section is non-paragraph-like. Perhaps a list with bullets is more appropriate (unless we use semicolons instead of periods)? Submachine0 (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

"The three regiments' tasks are special operations in wartime and primarily counter-terrorism in peacetime."

This statement is complete bollocks.--AshBoss (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Special operations including counter-terrorism operations are conducted regardless of whether it is wartime or peacetime and the opposite of that statement is true for many past instances. Also irrc 21/23 SAS are not qualified for counter-terrorism operations.--AshBoss (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not wings, FLAMES

The sources are quite clear that they are flames, the designer Bob Tait says they are flames, why are people still arguing this? The article could state that the badge is often called a "Winged Dagger" but cannot state that it is a winged dagger, simply because it isn't, and the sources clearly state that they are flames and it is a sword.

There is nothing to achieve consensus on, this is a matter of fact not opinion. It is a flaming sword....this is verifiable FACT on which sources have been amply provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.60.123 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Jim please re-read the above the references clearly and unambiguously state they are flames, and that the designer himself says they are flames. There is nothing to achieve consensus on. Brookesward (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As a GA article you need the refs to support any changes I have removed the word erroneously --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
"need the refs to support any changes"? Nothing in the WP:GA article says that you need anyone to 'approve' edits to a GA. All articles can be edited by anyone. Jellyfish dave (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
And the reference is also pretty clear it's supposed to be a flaming sword. It's saying that some seem to have now taken it to be, or now think it is, a winged dagger, but it was designed as a flaming sword. It's never been officially changed from that. Jim was the editor who changed it from the Flaming Sword to Winged Daggers in part of the great work he did to the article early last year. The original reference stated (Bob Bennet)....designed by Bob Tait....he called it a Flaming Sword, but it became a winged dagger over the years", "(Johnny Cooper)....Bob Tait MM & Bar....designed it......and it's not a winged dagger. They're flames. The sword of Excalibur. When "The Winged Dagger" came out we laughed our heads off.
Last conversation that was had on the subject was just get consensus for the change on the talk page, and it seems the consensus is forming in favour of the article's original wording. Canterbury Tail talk 19:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Of course anyone can edit an article. But to retain its GA status see Wikipedia:Good article criteria.

2 Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and (c) it contains no original research. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

SAS Regiment

The SAS is a regiment, 21 SAS, etc. are sub-units in the same way as battalions are to full-size regiments in the British Army. For some reason the SAS which was mostly formed from British Commandos used the troop as a unit designation. They then used squadron and regiment, instead of the normal infantry company and battalion to identify higher formations.

  • Army Council Instruction (ACI) 460/1952 (dated 16 July), which covered the changes to the War Establishment, was the instruction that brought the Malayan Scouts into the British Army Order order of battle as 22 SAS Regiment, a battalion of the SAS Regiment.
  • ACI.376/1953 (dated 4 July 1953) brought revised conditions of service for 22 SAS Regiment as a unit of the Special Air Service Regiment.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Whilst the service as a whole may be considered a regiment - and seeing as the only information supporting that is well over 50 years old it's rather suspect - it still consists of three regiments, and thus the size is three regiment, in this case referring to a unit consisting of two or more squadrons, as per the cavalry-based organisation of the SAS. The up to date cite clearly states - and bear in mind that the cite refers to strenght and not naming conventions - that there are THREE regiments. If the SAS as a whole is still considered a regiment - and it is entirely possible for a regiment to consist OF regiments as per the RTR and Royal Artillery then this should probably be explained in the article itself to avoid confusion. Jellyfish dave (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The British army regimental system can be confusing to those who have never served. The SAS is a regiment of three battalions or sub units just like other large regiments in the British Army. I must say you are editing against consensus, its still the same as with this edit in December [3]. The Army Council Instructions above are pretty clear and it does not matter if they are 50/1oo years old they still count. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand the regimental system - my point is that whatever type of unit the SAS as a whole is, it consists of three regiments as clearly stated in the cite, in just the same way as one would express the size of the Royal Artillery in terms of the number of regiments it contains. Additionally, expressing the size of a unit by describing the type of unit it is is not especially helpful - look at pages such as PWRR or The Rifles and you'll see that the size is not expressed as 'one regiment' but as 3/7 battalions.Jellyfish dave (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Grupo de Operações Especiais (Portugal)

The Grupo de Operações Especiais (Portugal) has been deleted from the Influence on other special forces having checked their web site there was nothing to confirm they were formed by the SAS. A check on the web and Google books failed to provide any sources. On another point would a police organisation be classed as Special Forces ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To the latter question, no. Policing and Law Enforcement organisations operate under domestic legislation whilst military organisations are regulated under both domestic legislation and the Law of Armed conflict. They're also not capable of most SF capabilities.
With respect to the former, we're probably approaching the issue of the old list of organisations with black balaclavas and a neat line in Oakleys again. The consensus then was that it was an unmaintanable and unverifiable list so we need clear derivation of lineage.
ALR (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes I tend to agree with police not being SF but we could add a section to the SAS influence of police forces. I know they have a annual hostage training exercise in the UK with a different police force taking the lead each year. Sourcing would be a problem but any thoughts. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
ALR, the problem with sweeping generalisations is that they are just that. GSG 9 is Germany's de facto special forces unit, but for political reasons it is part of the police. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
With all the challenges that brings in terms of their ability to participate in military operations. From a C2 perspective they're well nigh impossible to use as they're not empowered under LOAC.
They perform a subset of SF operations, not the full range.
ALR (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps listing such units under Influence on other Counter-Terrorist Units would be an appropriate title? (assuming that there are units that come under that category) Jellyfish dave (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The broader issue is the availability of sources that clearly identify the influence, and identifying a threshold for where influence becomes noteworthy.
Is it the use of TTPs developed by various UK Commando and SF, is it active training of personnel, and then would we consider training as part of the tasking or training of foreign nationals on selection?
Personally I would avoid anything more explicit than what we have now.
ALR (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Updating the lead image

When i picture an SAS soldier i don't think of some guys in the desert with beards and funny hats i think of dudes wearing all black with lots of straps and clips and magazine webbing etc, wielding an MP5. They have those round helmets and will either have flip-up optics or a full mask. Like this: http://onthemarkb.com/call_of_duty_4.html Consider also that their get-up in CoD4 was based on what they wore during their Iranian embassy rescue. I think it's time we updated the lead image to reflect what people imagine the SAS looks like today. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because that's what people imagine doesn't mean that it's representative of the majority of work done by the troopers of the regiment.
ALR (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

jeep raid?

so do any of you experts have a clue as to the coord. of Sidi Haneish airfield LG-12 ? Brian in denver (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You will find the answer here Sidi Haneish Airfield Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

been there done that. I annotated on that talk page that there are apperently two airfields LG-12 and LG-13. a north and a south. I'v been through all the web sites, and no one seems to know anything definitive. "stirlings desert raiders", makes no mention of crossing the highway (And Railroad) to get to the airfield, wich of course leads me to believe its south of the road. Brian in denver (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Flaming Excalibur?

does anyone have any back history on the SAS logo? i queried it once with an aussie ex SAS officer at a surpluss shopa nd was told it was ment to be a greek myth item. like the winged sword of hermes (not the real god wa snamed from but can't think what was claimed) or something which represented helping the world via superior strength. until i read it today i had never heard of it ment to be excalibur let alone on fire (looks very much like wings though you gotta admit).152.91.9.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC).

further research seems inconclusive as to origin of logo or any meaning outside of a random image chosen to represent the corps. there are several sites listing the logo as a winged excalibur but none worthy of using as source material. appears that because they are a air born and a parachuting regiment the wings have become expected over anyhting else. if anyone can confirm either way like to read more. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.153 (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

One regiment or three?

In the intro the article states that the Special Air Service is a special forces regiment of the British Army, and again in the info-box that it is one regiment separated into three battalions.

However the article, like all sources I've seen, identify these "battalions" as regiments, 21 SAS Regt, 22 SAS Regt, etc. It seems a bit inconsistent.

83.233.139.169 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Three battalions of the Special Air Service Regiment 21st, 22nd and 23rd. So 23rd Special Air Service Regiment etc. Just like other British regiments. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually the regiments are 21 Special Air Service Regiment (Artists) (Reserve), 22 Special Air Service Regiment and 23 Special Air Service Regiment (Reserve), no battalions involved in either the nomenclature or the structure. Technically the SAS as a whole is a corps (raised under a Corps warrant). Your assumption of an analogy to the (current) infantry regimental structure is wrong. Blackshod (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
No if you check the articles references you will see they are battalions of the same regiment.Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the references (4 and 5) don't support that assertion entirely. 4, from the "SAS Regimental Association", apparently quoting some directive from the 1940s, mentions 21 SAS as a battalion of the SAS Regiment, but it also states that by 1950 the SAS had become it's own Corps (and then goes on to identify 22 and 23 as regiments).
5, from a MoD site (DASA), identifies "Special Air Service" as having one regiment, and "Special Air Service - Territorial Army" as having two. Which all makes perfect sense. 83.233.139.169 (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
They are battalions see ref 6 from 23 December 2003 About 60 members of the Special Air Service's two territorial battalions, 21 and 23 SAS and ref 4 from the regimental association “that the SAS Regiment shall be reconstituted and be a component body of Our Army Air Corps”, “that the Artists Rifles (TA) shall henceforth be entitled the 21st Battalion, SAS Regiment, (Artists Rifles) (Territorial Army)”. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The daily telegraph can hardly pass as any sort of authority on the issue. You're selectively quoting the SAS Reg. Association website, as it states when SAS was re-formed after the war it was a Regiment of the Army Air Corps then it became it's own corps in 1950, thus ceasing to be a regiment.
Either which way, the Ministry of Defence, thru the Defence Analytical Services and Advice unit, offers by far the most credible and recent source on the issue. It's 2009 report establishes that there are 3 SAS Regiments, and that this has been the case since at least 2003, contradicting the Daily telegraph article on the organizational issue.
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2009/c4/table404.html 83.233.139.169 (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
No there are not three regiments there is one regiment of three battalions with one regimental headquarters at Hereford. This is just a quirk of the British naming conventions. The full names are 21st Battalion Special Air Service Regiment shortened to 21 Special Air Service Regiment etc. If there were three regiments there would be three regimental headquarters. If you want to change it provide a RS that states they are not battalions and then get consensus for the change. Don't change without consensus.Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
RS: http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2009/c4/table404.html, see my previous comments on the talk page. 83.233.139.169 (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you stop edit warring and gain a consensus for this change. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok let's get a consensus. I count three people on this section, you are the only one arguing for "battalions". 83.233.139.169 (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I changed the article only after commenting on the discussion page, and did so with what looked like a consensus 83.233.139.169 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Badge - spurious copyright claims

There seems to be a bit of a spat going on over the inclusion of the SAS badge, with Jim Sweeney claiming it can't be because it is Crown Copyright, even though the image appears to have been created by another editor, rather than lifted from any MoD or official source. However, since Crown Copyright for published material only lasts for 50 years, that on the badge expired in the 1990s, so the design is now public domain. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This has been asked at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2010/June#British Army there is no evidence that the Crown published the badge before 1960. If they were they would be PD. Anyone making their own copy/version of the badge obviously doesn't hold the copyright over it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Such a claim of "no evidence" would depend on how hard anyone has actually looked for any. Regardless of that, it seems rather bizarre to be so intransigent regarding the use of a badge that has been - and continues to be - widely published and reproduced, without the Crown asserting such ownership. It is also notable that the image has the same fair use boilerplate applied to so many other UK regimental insignia, some of which are less than 50 years old, regardless of issues of "publication." Nick Cooper (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
WP approach to image copyright is very driven by a US approach, so I'm not that familiar with the corpus it's derived from. Notwithstanding that there may be some interpretation around what we mean by "published". We're talking about embroidered uniform items, and I'd suggest that contracting for production could constitute publication.
With that in mind we're then in the situation of demonstrating that the badges were in use before 1960.
ALR (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The main point is we need evidence that it was published, not merely displayed. Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
And the question needs to be "what do we mean by published, when the item in question is an embrodered badge, not a document"?
ALR (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
It would seem that, for reasons that are not entirely clear, some parties are relying on a rather pedantic point, the implication being that "published" must - and can only - mean being rendered in print form by the copyright owner. To be equallty pedantic, a more appropriate question would actually be whether the badge is a work of art, or a mere design, either of which would be copyrighted from creation or implementation respectively. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I presume you mean me? When the article was nominated for GA, it had the cap badge displayed and that's when the question over copyright was raised. If being pedantic is wanting to keep the GA classification, yes I am guilty. I have sourced a new image and used the Non-free Crown copyright license, which seems to cover Crown copywrite. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A second SAS badge is shown in the Sun, today. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3911459/Olympic-HQ-builtbr-in-secret-for-SAS.html . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The second badge is that of the SBS; Maritime SF. You'll note the sword, which is common across the badges of the UKSF Group.
ALR (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
ALR (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

SAS to protect Olympic Games 2012 in London

"The Sun can reveal" means they are authorized to speak about planning and preparations of the Special Air Service (SAS). This is a good article: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3911459/Olympic-HQ-builtbr-in-secret-for-SAS.html ... Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The Stun is a leading proponent of the "stating the bleeding obvious" school of journalism.
They're neither reliable nor authoritative in this instance.
Security of the Games is the responsibility of LOCOG supported by the Met Police. Any military intervention required will be Military Aid to Civil Power (MACP) and requires the placement of some significant level of military capability in and around the Olympic sites. Some of that force level has already been discussed in reliable sources; naval platform, infantry uplift etc. There is unlikely to be any authoritative statement on SF activities although it would be a reasonable assumption that there will be some form of deployment in support of MACP contingency planning.
ALR (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
"SAS squads will be based in a secret riverside bunker by the Thames for the London Olympics to combat terrorist threats more effectively." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8866708/SAS-squads-based-in-riverside-bunker-for-London-Olympics.html . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC) . . . So much for 'secrets'.
To quote the article "a source told the Sun newspaper"...
So the Telegraph is now reporting what the Stun says...
ALR (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

SASR Influence on American creation of LRRP units

I've often come across people claiming "Also, impressed by the Australian SASR's methods in Vietnam, American General William Westmoreland ordered the formation of a Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol (LRRP) unit in each infantry brigade or division to conduct similar operations." I was curious where everyone was hearing about this, so I tracked it down to the SAS & SASR articles. When I went to find the source of this information, the only item I could find was a 48-page picture book which can be seen here... http://www.amazon.com/Special-Air-Service-Men-Arms/dp/0850453968. Not wanting to take the word of a book that is most popular for it's illustrations, I did a little more research and found the following information, primarily from Chapter 3 of Major James F. Gebhardt's "Eyes Behind the Lines: US Army Long-Range Reconnaissance and Surveillance Units" published by the Combat Studies Institute Press, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 200 (which can be found here http://www.amazon.com/Eyes-Behind-Lines-Reconnaissance-ebook/dp/B0076M2O68/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367628829&sr=1-4). Major Gebhardt wrote that certain American unis, such as the V & VII Corps, had created LRRPs in Europe as early as 1960. But still, these were not widespread. However, in Vietnam as early as December, 1965, the 1st Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division had created a LRRP platoon. By April of 1966, the 1st Infantry Division as well as the 173rd Airborne Brigades had created LRRP units and by June of the same year, the 25th Infantry Division had done the same. Then on July 8th, 1966, General Westmoreland formerly authorized the creation of LRRP units. By the time this decision was made, half of the US parent commands in Vietnam had already created and deployed LRRP units.

Moving on to the possibility of an SASR contribution to the decision, the first SASR unit (3 Squadron) arrived in Vietnam in April of 1966 and worked primarily with the 1st Australian Task Force (1ATF), meaning they most interacted with other Australians. It is for this reason that I find it doubtful that in 3 months they influenced General Westmoreland more than the LRRP units of 3 American Divisions and an Aiborne Brigade.

It is for these reasons that I believe the information contained in the book written by Shortt & McBride is not entirely accurate and that portion of the "Influence on Foreign Special Forces" should be removed. ~~ForwardObserver85~~

Really

"The Special Air Service or SAS is a regiment of the British Army constituted on 31 May 1950[5], and is regarded by many as the best such force in the world." Get more references that actually are not biased or copied of listverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.34.6 (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"...and is regarded by many as the best such force in the world."

End of the first sentence of the introduction strikes me as being the following things:

  • Not supported by the source. There is nothing in the source that says that many believe the SAS are the best in the world, only that they are among the best.
  • Source is not entirely convincing. It's a discussion page of part of the Armed Forces Museum. It doesn't pretend to be a decisive list, it's just an opinion piece / discussion piece.
  • Weasel words - "regarded by many..." is classic weasel words - see Wikipedia:WEASEL#Unsupported_attributions. It's unencyclopaedic and not authoritative.
  • Unencyclopaedic: checking through the talk page archives, it seems consensus here is that edits that state: "SAS is the best" are discouraged on the grounds (rightly, in my view) that this is a meaningless statement.

Despite the policy of Be Bold, I thought this should be discussed here first. I'll check back in a few days and if there's consensus (or no reply), I'm happy to make the change. Otfordian (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. The SAS certainly has a very wide reputation and is arguably the most 'famous' special forces in the world, but that quote as it stands is just farcical and needs to be taken out.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I'll take it out. Otfordian (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"just farcical" - On the rare occasions special forces are rated the SAS come first and every now and then second. The idea that the SAS being considered the best is farcical is farcical itself. It is by far the least far fetched idea of all time. The SAS are the basis for special forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinos (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Any instant where Special Forces are "ranked" is usually an opinion in and of itself. Most are either amateurs or a short action channel list that have no real source and are typically inaccurate to begin with. The SAS are not the basis for special forces, as many special operations units were created before their exploits became widely known. Their main claim to fame is pioneering counter-terror techniques, but that is only what facet of what special operations do. Needless to say, any special forces in the world could claim that they are "widely considered to be the best" due to a large portion of their populations wanting to believe it. It definitely needs to go. ~~ForwardObserver85~~
Correction, meant to say that counter-terrorism is only one facet of the many capabilities of special forces. ~~ForwardObserver85~~

mystique shattered=

Recently their reputation has been extensivley damaged by book after book about everything from their ex-wives to Afghanistan,it is a fair question to ask wheather they are exaggerated as a special forces unit after all the SBS do everything the SAS does and then do it all again on and under water.Up until the first gulf war they were an unquestioned unit,but that war was a disaster for them,the US did not want to use special forces but the British persuaded them.The result of this was among other things Bravo two zero and it is also very questionable as to wheather they destroyed ANY scud Missile.There roles in various conflicts although important have to be put into context for instance how important were they in Malaya,Borneo or Oman ect as opposed all the other forces deployed,and as for the Battle of Mirbat this was far from a nine man effort.....Also their cap badge is a cloth version it has a black backgound.Bullseye30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullseye30 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Any 'sources' for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equinos (talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Jeep picture

The driver is wearing a knife, looks like a Fairbairn-Sykes 2nd. pattern? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.134.151 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

French article for 2e RCP and 3e RCP

Hi, you can find 2 articles in the french wikipedia about the 2 french SAS regiment fr:2e régiment de chasseurs parachutistes - fr:3e régiment de chasseurs parachutistes. They are not translte into english but perhaps some of you can do the job! Regards. BKLXtalk 08:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC).

Gas masks?

I must say, I am quite baffled that there is no information about the SAS's use of gas masks in this article. I would add said information myself, but I lack the referencing experience to add verifiable information that won't immediately be removed. So, can someone who is more experienced in referencing add information somewhere in this article pertaining the SAS's use of gas masks, since, from what I know, they seem to use gas masks more habitually than most special forces. For starters, one could include that the SAS uses gas masks not only for protection against hostile gases, but also to hide the identity of their troopers. How about it? 67.237.177.47 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Special Air Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

SAS Equipment section/page?

It would be nice if someone started a section on this page or a new page, if required, about the equipment the SAS employs (knives, pistols, rifles, SMGs, sniper rifles, etc). Phantom in ca (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The best I could find was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_of_the_British_Army But I'm sure the SAS does not regularly use all listed there and may use some things not listed there. Phantom in ca (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Blue Thunder

Lots of references in the press today to SAS "Blue Thunder" unit - perhaps somebody who knows more could update the article? 46.208.57.26 (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Roles

Jungle warfare should be added to the list of roles since it is a major section of their training even though as far as I know they know longer participate in major operations in jungles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.235.80.254 (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Cap Badge

There have been some edits recently around whether the cap badge in the infobox is correct. User:Neddyfram has pointed out that the badge icon is based on a photo taken from a forum where it was also called into dispute. People have reverted saying that forums are not reliable sources, and I couldn't agree more. The issue here is that the brass badge in the current infobox is based purely on that forum post and the photo there that people say isn't correct. If you click on the image you can see it's sourced from there. Since it's sourced from there, it's not reliable and the current image should go. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

And it's still being reinstated without any discussions by the original uploader. The brass badge cap image is being sourced to a forum which fails Wp:RS. Therefore cannot be used on Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 22:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Some of the entries in the "In popular culture" section are fine. They are works entirely based on real or imagined SAS actions. However, the following two entries are not and should be removed. They just have SAS as incidental to the plot, and the second isn't even referenced.

References

  1. ^ Hibbard, James (2 October 2015). "Strike Back Movie in Development". ew.com. Entertainment Weekly Inc. Retrieved 28 November 2016.

(Hohum @) 20:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Dormskirk (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

SAS unit at Ethiopian embassy in 1991

In Ethiopia in 1991, there was a revolution that displaced the Communist government. There was a credible report as follows: The British government had sent in an SAS unit and stationed them at their embassy. A team of thieves attacked the office of Signum Vitae, an NGO that provided medical services related to eyes and blindness. The Signum Vitae staff called their embassy that then contacted the British embassy which was quite near the Signum Vitae office. The SAS team quickly travelled to the office and overcame the thieves.

I would be interested to hear if anybody can substantiate this. Pete unseth (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancy or not?

This article states that the unit initially consisted of five officers and 60 other ranks (65 men total), and states that "22 men, a third of the unit, were killed or captured" in the first mission. The David Stirling article comments about the first mission saying that "Of the original 55 men, some 34 were killed, wounded or captured..." It is possible for both articles to be correct. Maybe of the 65 men in the unit, only 55 were sent on the mission. Maybe 22 were captured or killed and 12 more were wounded. Maybe. Does anyone have access to the sources used for each article, and could you rewrite one or both so that there isn't an apparent discrepancy between them? Thank you. 2806:108E:2:7C53:8424:6AE9:35AE:2BF (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No mention of war crimes in Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4039:0:90E5:28EC:2851:2278 (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

21 and 23 SAS

This change was reverted with both 21 and 23 SAS returning as an integrated part of United Kingdom Special Forces.[1]

But the ref does not specifically show 21 and 23 SAS moved and [4] state those units are under its command. So what is what?

Dormskirk Your thoughts?

BlueD954 (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ "21 & 23 SAS (Reserve)". www.army.mod.uk. Retrieved 2020-06-03.
Hi - I think I would use [5] as the definitive source. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. BlueD954 (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

21 and 23 SAS (cont'd)

This change was reverted with both 21 and 23 SAS returning as an integrated part of United Kingdom Special Forces.[1] Can someone give a more reliable source saying 21 and 23 SAS are directly under Director SF? BlueD954 (talk) 09:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ "21 & 23 SAS (Reserve)". www.army.mod.uk. Retrieved 2020-06-03.

Hi, the MoD's own website for the armed forces confirms[1] this. I attempted an edit, but it was reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Air_Service&oldid=996965482). Please may I have a little help with the etiquette BlueD954, Dormskirk and Kemalcan?

Julian Brazier (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources
Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Dormskirk. At the risk of being a pain, I believe there are two issues left with the two paragraphs under 'Reserve'. (1) We need to add an approximate departure date from ISR Brigade after final paragraph (I think it was April 2019, when the Special Forces section on the Army Website changed, but I can't find a date-marked published source at the moment) otherwise the two paragraphs contradict each other, and (2) The first three sentences in the final paragraph seem irrelevant. The one source for them, Sean Rayment's article, makes it clear that the 2009 report was controversial, and it can hardly have been the main reason for a reorganisation five years later (especially as things were changed back less than 5 years after that!). I propose we simply reduce that paragraph to 'On 1 September 2014, 21 and 23 SAS left United Kingdom Special Forces and were placed under the command of 1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade. This was reversed in April 2019 when they returned to the Special Forces group.'
Julian Brazier (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi - That would need some discussion: let's see what others think. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Melbguy05 I have reverted your edit, reinserting the fact that 21 and 23 SAS have been restored to the command of UKSF. We are trying to build consensus here - please could you contribute here rather than making further reversions? We are all agreed that 21 and 23 have left the ISR brigade as shown in the Force troops Command handbook[1]. The MoD's official armed forces website not only lists 21 and 23 as being an integrated part of Special Forces but also gives contact details for them, a summary of their selection and a list of skills needing for those applying for supporting roles.[2] Julian Brazier (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Sources
Seems all the sourcing is solely the single, primary MoD website source, and while it would be nice to have some secondary sources, those can be difficult to come across, due to the nature of the article subject. That said, if the MoD site clearly states that 21 & 23 SAS are back under UKSF, then I don't see why this page shouldn't reflect that (though additional info would be nice, ie; the reason for the change, and especially the date). jmho - wolf 03:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Julian Brazier:

History of www.army.mod.uk information on 21 SAS and 23 SAS since 2014
1 Old website - Titled "Special Forces (Reserve)" stated "United Kingdom Special Forces Reserve UKSF(R) comprising of 21 SAS(R), 23 SAS(R), SBS(R) and 63 (SAS) Signals Sqn (R)". The wording did not change following 1 ISR Bde forming in Sept 2014 and remained the same until new website late 2017/early 2018.[1]
2 Old website - Titled "Special Air Service (Reserve)" wording did not change after Sept 2014. It still stated that "It also provides an excellent grounding for those who aspire to serve with the Regular UKSF units".[2]
3 Old website - Titled "The Army Reserve" wording did not change after Sept 2014. It still stated "21 Special Air Service Regt (21 SAS) & 23 Special Air Service Regt (21 SAS) Part of UK Special Forces."[3]
4 Old website - Titled "1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade" stated "the Brigade will field a number of specialist Human, Environment, Reconnaissance and Analysis patrols drawn from Reservist Units" dated 2016.[4]
5 New website - Titled "Special Forces (Reserve)" had same ORBAT wording as 1. Also, had similar wording as 2 with SAS "provides an excellent grounding for those who aspire to serve with the Regular UKSF units." This page has been removed.[5]
6 Replaced the above webpage titled "UK Special Forces (Reserve)" has same ORBAT wording. Regular UKSF units wording was later removed.[6]
7 New website - 1 ISR Bde states 21 Special Air Service Regiment and 23 Special Air Service Regiment are "Brigade Units". Has been removed.[7]
8 Replaced the above webpage in 2019 (corrected from 2020 on 9th Jan by Melbguy05) states same that they are Brigade Units.[8]
9 New website - Titled "21 & 23 Special Air Service (SAS)" states "21 & 23 SAS are an integrated part of the United Kingdom Special Forces (UKSF) group" dated 2020.[9]

In summary, the old website had conflicting information from 2016 as does the current website.

MoD doesn't comment on special forces and Freedom of Information requests are exempt such as FOI2019/04737 to the British Army for higher command of 21 SAS and 23 SAS in May 2019.--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[10]

Sources

  1. ^ "Special Forces (Reserve)". British Army.
  2. ^ "Special Air Service (Reserve)". British Army.
  3. ^ "The Army Reserve". British Army.
  4. ^ "1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade". British Army.
  5. ^ "Special Forces (Reserve)". British Army.
  6. ^ "UK Special Forces (Reserve)". British Army. Retrieved 5 January 2021.
  7. ^ "1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade". British Army.
  8. ^ "1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade". British Army. Retrieved 5 January 2021.
  9. ^ "21 & 23 SPECIAL AIR SERVICE (SAS)". British Army. Retrieved 5 January 2021.
  10. ^ "21 and 23 SAS higher command". WhatDoTheyKnow. 2 May 2019. Retrieved 5 January 2021.
Thanks Melbguy05. There is another source on the ISR Brigade confirming that 21 and 23 have left it (even though the ISR section of the Army's website has not been updated, as you point out). [1]. This is much more detailed than the brief ISR section of the main Army website, and was signed off by the ISR itself. Thewolfchild is right that it would be best to put in a date for the transfer back. There is no public source for the exact date but we know the FTC handbook had to be issued before General Copinger-Symes left command in 2019, as he is shown as commander. [2]. I suggest we say 'This was reversed in approximately 2019 when they returned to the Special Forces Group.'
On a separate point, there is a section in that paragraph that does not seem to be relevant and should be either moved up into the earlier history or removed, I suggest. This reads "During Operation HERRICK the SAS Reserve were responsible for mentoring members of the Afghan National Police. Following a review of the unit's operational capability, they were withdrawn from this tasking and the task handed over to a regular infantry unit. The report found that the SAS reservists lacked a clearly defined role and also stated that the reservists lacked the military capability and skillset to serve alongside the regular special forces.[97]" The sole source for this passage refers to a report five years before the move to the ISR Brigade (and the solitary source makes it clear that the report was controversial). It can hardly be the reason for the move so many years later so does not belong here. Julian Brazier (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Sources
@Julian Brazier: My point was that you cannot say that they have moved back to the UKSF. In my edit I stated the fact that they are not in the latest structure of Force Troops Command. To state that they have moved back to UKSF is pure speculation. The website has conflicting information now as it did from 2016.--Melbguy05 (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Melbguy05: Understood - let's go back to first principles. The move of 21 SAS, 23 SAS, and the HAC from DSF to ISR Brigade in September 2015 (to develop human terrain reconnaissance) was from two sources - a hardcopy report in Janes and their appearance on the ISR section of the Army's website. During this period the Army's website continued to use the Special Forces page for purposes of recruiting etc - the details for that (phone numbers, description of selection etc) never transferred over and numerous articles after 2015 about the (2013) Brecon Beacons deaths eg [1] imply that responsibility remained in the special forces area, even though operational command had transferred across. Your research above also shows that the UK Special forces element of the Army's website was updated occasionally on other matters although not noting the move of command. We agree that 21 and 23 left the ISR Brigade before late 2019, although the HAC remained. As there is no other part of the Army which is covert and suppressed in terms of public info and 21 and 23 have not popped up in any other section of the website which is the showcase for Army recruiting, it is reasonable to suppose that the Army's website is now accurate in describing 21 and 23 SAS as 'an integrated part of the United Kingdom Special Forces (UKSF) group' [2],
On a separate point, does anyone have a comment on my proposed edit of the 'history' element of the paragraph explained above starting with 'During Operation Herrick? I propose to take it out as it does not seem relevant to the paragraph but it could be re-inserted further up. Julian Brazier (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Sources
@Julian Brazier: The transfer of 21 SAS and 23 SAS to 1st ISR Brigade was in the Autumn 2014 edition of ARQ Army Reserve Quarterly, in Jane's in May 2014 as you have mentioned, an unregistered user added "Army Briefing Note 120/14" to this article in Oct 2014 and in 2016 the British Army website published their first 1st ISR Brigade page mentioning HERA but not specifically 21 SAS or 23 SAS. I've never read that the HAC was in the UKSFG. The Telegraph article that you cited discussed the Defence Safety Authority report dated 2017 that found they were "were placed into the brigade ... with a role that appears to the Panel to be still not well defined."[1] They had earlier found their role had not been well defined before the move.[1] I agree that their not in the structure of 1st ISR Brigade in a Forces Troop Command document dated 2019 compared to an earlier document. A 1st ISR Brigade structure in a 2014 dated Forces Command Troop document had "HERA" as a unit whereas the 2019 does not. But I don't agree that they have moved I have not seen a source that has stated that they have moved.--Melbguy05 (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ a b Defence Safety Authority (2017). Releasable Extracts of Service Inquiry into the deaths of 3 soldiers in the Brecon Beacons Wales, in July 2013 (PDF) (Report). Ministry of Defence. pp. 1.6 - 3. Retrieved 7 January 2021.
@Melbguy05: We seem to have reached an impasse. I cannot see that any of that alters the fact that the current Army website says that 21 and 23 are under Group and the handbook from the ISR Brigade confirms that they have left that organization. Had they gone anywhere else, there should be an entry somewhere else on the Army's website. Let's wait and see what others have to say Julian Brazier (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Julian Brazier:,Melbguy05 Dormskirk and Kemalcan On the basis that wiki tries to stay up to date, this seems to me straight forward. Thewolfchild is right that this is the best we can do. For what it is worth, the Army Rumour Site has several references - all unchallenged. Usually, mistakes on ARRSE do get challenged especially on sensitive matters. eg [1] [2]. I also agree that relating the move to 1ISR Brigade to a (then) 5-year-old paper is unwarranted.Dasher555 (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Sources
Forums are not reliable sources WP:USERG. The reliability of information on the British Army website regarding the units is questionable. I recommend that the wording be that they were part of UKSF and in 2014 became part of 1 ISR Brigade. In approximately 2019, they were removed from the command of 1 ISR Brigade (the Force Troops Command Handbook document is undated but the PDF Properties is created January 2019).--Melbguy05 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

Thewolfchild, Melbguy05, Dasher. There is one loose end which needs tying up here. The two remaining sentences in the reserves section of operational command appear to conflict unless we add something about when 21 and 23 left 1 ISR Brigade. We don't have an exact date but it had to predate the Force troops Command handbook[1], which cites its commander as General Copinger-Symes who left command in 2019[2]. I propose to add the following words "This was reversed at some point before the end of 2019." citing the handbook as the source.Julian Brazier (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources
@Julian Brazier:,Melbguy05 This seems to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion.Dasher555 (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that could work. - wolf 18:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The Handbook is a source for "removed" from 1 ISR Brigade not "reversed". It does not state that they are part of UKSF.--Melbguy05 (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
melbguy,Thewolfchild, Dasher DormskirkWe have dealt with that at length above and everyone else seems satisfied so am doing that now.Julian Brazier (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
There needs to be a proper consensus before new material is added: this article has been through the assessment process and assessed as a "good article"; material which is not fully sourced in my view threatens that assessment so please do not add it. Also please do not just cite a bare url: you should give a title and page number so the reader can be satisfied that the terminology used is consistent. Dormskirk (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it was an unreasonable addition, but I also see the point you're making. Can we at least add something(?) supported by the current refs and factually obvious to help eliminate any confusion interim, for example;

"On 1 September 2014, 21 and 23 SAS left United Kingdom Special Forces and were placed under the command of 1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade", but have since returned to UKSF command.

(or something similar) I can't see this being an issue with any current consensus, or lack there of here, or with any GA status, until this section get the proper write it really, really needs. (jmho) - wolf 03:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to bear in mind WP:SYNTH. I sympathise with Melbguy05's review that the Force Troops Command handbook suggests that the unit has been "removed" from 1 ISR Brigade. However, in my view, it would be synthesis to state or even suggest the place to which it has gone (or returned) without a proper source for that (unless I am missing something). Dormskirk (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Dormskirk,Thewolfchild,Melbguy05,Dasher. Understood but the Special forces page of the Army's Website can be given too as can the various sources on ARRSE (I have checked out both {{u:Dasher's quotes from ARRSE and there are others too - none of which has been challenged, on a web site which thrives on controversy). I suggest that we go for Thewolfchild's wording and give both the Army's website and the ISR handbook (with page ref - thank you Dormskirk, I am still learning the ropes) as references. If people wish we could add one of the references from ARRSE too, although three footnotes looks excessive (The best one is[1]Julian Brazier (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Sources
Sorry but ARSSE would count as blog, is therefore not a reliable source per WP:RS and cannot be used. I am OK with "On 1 September 2014, 21 and 23 SAS left United Kingdom Special Forces and were placed under the command of 1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade. It then left that brigade before the end of 2019." The handbook can be used as the source. However you also need the support of Melbguy05 for a consensus. Dormskirk (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Dormskirk,Melbguy05,Thewolfchild,Dasher I am happy with that as long as the first sentence in that para stays inJulian Brazier (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Fine. Let's now try and get agreement from the other interested editors for that solution before adding anything. Dormskirk (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Happy with proposal by Dormskirk and Julian Brazier--Dasher555 (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The wording is fine.--Melbguy05 (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, All. Dormskirk, do you want to do the honours as you seem to be moderating? The full reference is [1] page 6 Julian Brazier (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Sources
Let's just get the OK from Thewolfchild as well so we have a full house. But I am happy to go ahead after that. Dormskirk (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence not sure why it has "21 SAS (formerly the Artists Rifles)". As "21 Special Air Service Regiment (Artists) (Reserve)" was used in ARQ Army Reserve Quarterly as well as "21 SAS" in 2014.--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed Dormskirk. Also agreed melbguy. "21 Special Air Service Regiment (Artists) (Reserve)" reads better. That entails changing 23 SAS to 23 SAS (Reserve)Julian Brazier (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
If Dormskirk feels we need to take soundings on that last point on names, no need to hold main edit up, once we have views from Thewolfchild, I suggestJulian Brazier (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, count me in. - wolf 18:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Sorted now, I think. Dormskirk (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience, guys, looks goodJulian Brazier (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Policing mission

(edit conflict)The paragraph about the issues that arose from policing during Operation Herrick, places too much weight on that single issue, when compared to the rest of the info in that section that can charitably be described as 'scant' right now, as well as incomplete, conflicting and debated. Additionally, while the Op is linked, there is no mention of the SAW in that article. I have suppressed it for now, until a more balanced and complete section can be written. - wolf 18:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

In the History section, a subsection could be created after Influence on other special forces such as Special Air Service (Reserve) or similar to discuss their operational deployments in Afghanistan as reported in the Telegraph article also the Balkans and first Gulf War.--Melbguy05 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, just about anything would be an improvement. Right now the "Reserve" section has just 2 sentences; one that says they exist, followed by one that says something about 2014. Until yesterday, there was a whole paragraph in between about how they were sent to Afghanistan to teach local cops and screwed it all up. The section needs significantly more content, for balance sake if anything. - wolf 04:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, Melbguy05, Dasher Agreed but one thing needs to be asserted, the record of the service in Afghanistan of 21 and 23 SAS cannot just be based on a single article, whose author admits that his sources have strongly conflicted views.Julian Brazier (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

UKSF content

The exact composition of UKSF, Regular or Reserve, is Top Secret. The British Army website is not reliable; it can't even update regiments regularly and has conflict data. Whatever editors edit may violate [6]. Do not @ me. I'm retired; Wikipedia kills mental health.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueD954 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia will undoubtedly continue to maintain this article as best as can be done, with whatever sources are available, and will include any verifiable content available to the public, regardless of 'secret recipes'... iow, UK D-notices do not apply to WP. But anyway, good luck with your convalescence. Bye - wolf 05:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Only (Personal attack removed) trust Wikipedia. DSMA will hunt you down. BlueD954 (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
WP has had articles on UKSF, SAS, SBS, etc for a long time, and there's always been specific security concerns about SF. Was BlueD954's post prompted by some specific leak? Otherwise I am bit confused; not sure why this point is at all new? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing new here and nothing to see, especially any DSMA bogeyman... just someone who self-admittedly needs a break from WP. Let's not turn this thread into a beach house. - wolf 12:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

21 & 23 SAS revisited

We're now talking about the same units on two additional talk pages. Perhaps we can keep the discussion all in one place? The wording here, as it is now, seems... clunky. I think it would be better if it were chronological. Also, we have sourcing that states these units are currently with UKSF, so why not add that?

For example;

The two reserve regiments, 21 (Artists) SAS and 23 SAS, were transferred from United Kingdom Special Forces (UKSF) to the 1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade (1 ISR Bde) on 1 September 2014, but were then transferred again out of that unit during 2019. The two regiments are currently with UKSF again, under the operational command of the Director Special Forces.

For the sake of continuity, we should try to keep this as similar as possible for the two individual 21 (Artists) & 23 pages, with unit-specific changes and sourcing where appropriate. JMHO - wolf 16:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

As I have written previously the source is not reliable for currently in UKSF. I would have suggested previously a Unreliable source? inline cleanup tag or Better source needed tag (no change on website since 2014 on UKSF status and website states in UKSF but also 1 ISR Bde) but didn't as I doubted there would be consensus for a tag. As discussed above a new subsection is to be created in the History section, a title suggestion was Special Air Service (Reserve). You hid the txt. This would include the 1 ISR Bde history. I am not sure what you meant by "incomplete, conflicting and debated. Additionally, while the Op is linked, there is no mention of the SAW in that article." when you hid it. The Telegraph article stated their role changed from mentoring the Afghan police and that their guarding members of Foreign Office in Kabul now. It also mentioned a report (secret military document) that they lacked a clearly-defined role. I would have drafted the wording for a new section but it has been difficult as there is some conflicting information on roles/dates of the Reserves in Afghanistan in books and newspaper articles.--Melbguy05 (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Melbguy05,,Dormskirk,Dasher I agree with Thewolfchild on both points - the proposal to make it chronological on his wording and the decision (a couple of weeks ago) to suppress the poorly - and conflicting - sourced material alleging 'secret' report etc.
Taking upThewolfchild's point about centralizing the discussion between the three articles to save repetition - and Dormskirk's earlier point on the Artist's Rifles site on getting common wording - let's go with that same wording across all three articles, on those matters. That leaves one anomalous sentence still in the 23 article (only) referring to that same report on roles (cited, as it was in the other two articles, until removed, from one of the Breacon Beacons inquiries) which I suggest we should take out.Julian Brazier (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Thewolfchild, Julian Brazier We seem to be getting there. The wording needs to be chronological, the poorly-sourced material suppressed and the three sites should show the same information with regard to the Reserve. - Dasher555 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I would be OK with changing the order of the sentences so they read chronologically but we should do this on all three articles so they read consistently. Dormskirk (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Melbguy05,Dormskirk,wolf,Dasher I have just realised that, after apparently agreeing to flip the order of the two sentences under Operational Command - Reserve some weeks ago, we never did it. If all are happy, I propose to reverse their order on this page and the corresponding portion of the Artists Rifles and 23 SAS articlesJulian Brazier (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
OK with me. Dormskirk (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of a post-Cold War Reserves section

Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED. Articles must be written in a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and be verifiability WP:VERIFY from reliable sources WP:RS. A post-Cold war history of the Reserves would need to contain information on the reviews of the Reserves as it is a significant part of their history. Indeed, this article (since 2015) and 21 SAS and 23 SAS articles had contained information for a number of years. However, the information is controversial now as it has been suggested it be "take[n] out" or "suppressed" and earlier in a edit comment it was described as "..sweeping statements that are thinly sourced, heavily based in opinion, and in any case, have been overtaken by events".

I have drafted the following paragraph, which would form part of a proposed section that would also contain information on their service in Afghanistan and their move to 1 ISR Bde, for discussion in regards to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. As it controversial, I have not paraphrased and instead directly quoted.

In 2017, the Ministry of Defence released the Service Inquiry into the deaths of 3 soldiers in the Brecon Beacons Wales.[1] The Director General (DG) of the Defence Safety Authority as part of the inquiry reported on the post-Cold War role of the Reserves, including their role after moving to Force Troops Command. The inquiry found that during the Cold War the Reserves "had a clearly defined and understood role"[1]: 1.6-3 , that their role "had not been clearly defined since the end of the Cold War"[1]: 1.2B-3 , that HQ UKSF "had struggled to articulate a meaningful role"[1]: 1.2B-3  and there was "uncertainty about the operational requirement for these units".[1]: 1.6-1  Examination of the history of the post-Cold War role found that there had been "A number of reviews" of the Reserves that "had been conducted over the years" which "included the prospect of a merger or disbandment".[1]: 1.6-3  The review proposals were "met with significant resistance from both serving Reserves and ex-members in positions of influence".[1]: 1.6-3  The investigation panel found that following their move to 1 ISR Bde their role "appears.. to be still not well defined".[1]: 1.6-3  The Times reported on the review quoting the DG, Air Marshall Richard Garwood, and stated that the future of the Reserves remain in question with a review into their role and command to be completed in the summer.[2] The Times did not challenge the report and did not contain any comments from Reserves sources. Earlier in 2010, the The Daily Telegraph had reported that a review of the Reserves had been completed in 2009 that had found the Reserves "lacked a clearly-defined role" and that they "lacked the military capability and skillset to serve alongside the regular special forces".[3] The Daily Telegraph did not challenge the report, it did not contain any comments from Reserves sources but reported that the Reserves "were said to be furious", and a senior military source was quoted giving a praising comment that "they are a fantastic talent and a role should be found for them".[3] Melbguy05 (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h Defence Safety Authority (2017). Releasable Extracts of Service Inquiry into the deaths of 3 soldiers in the Brecon Beacons Wales, in July 2013 (PDF) (Report). Ministry of Defence. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  2. ^ Brown, David (22 April 2017). "Plans to abolish SAS reserves 'blocked by political influences'". The Times. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  3. ^ a b Rayment, Sean (11 April 2010). "SAS reservists withdrawn from Afghan front line". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 13 April 2010.
Hi - This looks well sourced to me. My only observation is that, for consistency with the rest of article, we should not use "rp" type citations. I would also give the paragraph a heading of its own to keep it separate from the material we have previously agreed. Dormskirk (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I usually use "sfn" for citations I wasn't sure that would work in Talk. I thought perhaps a heading of Special Air Service (Reserve), which would placed either after or before the Influence on other special forces section, would incorporate this information. The last paragraph in the Malayan Scouts section "In 1959 the third regiment," could be moved to this new section as in introduction to be followed by information on the Reserves Cold War role, service in Afghanistan, move to 1 ISR Bde, the above information on Reviews and then the agreed wording of "The units then left.." 1 ISR Bde. This would leave Reserve in Operational Command with the agreed wording of "The two reserve regiments..".--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Dormskirks comments. - wolf 18:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
melbguy05, wolfchild I had understood that wolfchild had ruled that the original piece on Afghanistan was so bad that 'just about anything would be an improvement.' (See above under 'Policing mission'). Instead of citing new sources, melbguy05 has now provided longer quotes from the same two, almost entirely knocking the Reservists. Furthermore, I am not altogether clear why a report from a safety enquiry is relevant to Afghanistan. There is very little here that mentions the SAS Reserves, but more neutral material can be found in the articles on the History of the Special Air Service and the Artists Rifles, or even from Theo Farrell's much acclaimed book. I don't believe that this proposed section adds anything to this article. The one loose end which does need tying up is getting the two parts of the material under Operational Command - Reserve in chronological order. - Dasher555 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Dasher555: I think you have me confused with someone else. Also, we don't singularly "rule" on anything here. We can boldly edit, but anything finalized is usually determined collectively via consensus. FYI - wolf 19:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thewolfchild, Melbguy05, Dasher Dormskirk. I am happy with inserting a new section on the Special Forces Reserves but it needs to be based on what they have actually done. This proposed paragraph is swung on the premise that it "...would need to contain information on the reviews of the Reserves as it is a significant part of their history". It is even suggested that it would be a breach of neutrality not to do so - a pretty heavy allegation. Just for a bit of perspective, the Territorial Army/Army Reserve has been subject to a dozen or so reviews since Haldane in 1906/7 but none of them are discussed in the extensive and well-researched Wikipedia article - instead it only covers the reorganizations which came out of (some of) those reviews. The heart of the article is focused on what the reserves did including combat from WW1 to Iraq and Afganistan. As Dasher says this proposed new paragraph is all based on the same two sources as the earlier material which wolfchild removed. Plus - oddly - a brief new article claiming that there was a review in 2017, considering disbanding the Reserve regiments, at a time when ministers and generals were all talking about the importance of growing the reserves. It was also shortly before the two regiments rejoined the Special Forces Group (On the timeline we agreed based on published sources).
What is needed is a short historical section, placed where Melbguy05 suggests, on what the SAS reserves actually did in the various theatres. There is not much on this in the public domain at present but we could make a start by bringing together the sources from the History of the SAS and Artists rifles articles.
On an earlier point of discussion I see that the Army's website has at last been updated removing 21 and 23 from the ISR Brigade [1], so it appears on the SF section onlyJulian Brazier (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Julian Brazier:, I am "Thewolfchild", the "wolfchild" you pinged is some other dude. No worries, he's been inactive since 2007. FYI - wolf 16:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Apologies @the Wolfchild - I shall try to do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Brazier (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No apology needed. There is no such user as "the Wolfchild". But at this point, probably best to just leave it be. - Thewolfchild (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Got it Thewolfchild. Third time lucky!Julian Brazier (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Conducting research there were no opposing views in published sources with the exception in the The Daily Telegraph that Reserves were furious. If there are different published viewpoints these should be included. Emphasis is made that neither newspaper articles have comments from Reserves sources. A 2017 The Daily Telegraph article also reported on the service inquiry and it did not have any opposing viewpoints or comments.[2] The only response to the 2010 The Daily Telegraph article was by the Daily Mirror.[3] Viewpoints which were biased in the 2010 The Daily Telegraph article attributed to the regular SAS were not included as it was reported they held prejudicial views. Instead, a quoted opinion that "they are a fantastic talent" is included. The 2017 The Times article did not write that there was consideration of disbanding regiments but that their "futures .. remain in question" and there is a "review into .. role and command".--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of effort expended on these talk pages about what wiki policy says and what different sources say... and that's all fine, it's what these pages are for. But at some point, actual content needs to be proposed. Melbguy05, you have said you intended to create a new "History" section for the reserves. So how about putting something together to post here for discussion? This is just a suggestion of course, not a demand. And if you say you will take this up, there is no hurry. Take your time, do your research, write something your content with. I'm sure everyone here will be patient. We should keep in mind that whatever is ultimately posted to this article will almost certainly be posted to the two other (R) articles as well (with unit-specific notes or omissions, as well as unit-specific additions). Of course if anyone else wishes to propose something here in the meantime, that will be considered as well. We seem a little bogged down here, it would be nice to see things move toward a conclusion. (JMHO) Cheers - wolf 16:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Follow up

@Melbguy05:, just wanted to follow up with you and see if you're still intending to write an updated history of the 21 SAS & 23 SAS that can be used on this page (22 SAS) as well. Thanks - wolf 07:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources for 21 and 23 SAS operations in Afghanistan: Theo Farrell wrote in Unwinnable: Britain's War in Afghanistan, 2001–2014 published in 2017, that in July 2003 a Provincial Reconstruction Team was established in Mazar-i-Sharif by the Royal Anglian Regiment "supported by a number of SAS reservists".[4] Farrell quotes the commander of the PRT that "we didn't do any reconstruction". The Daily Telegraph reported that 21 and 23 SAS reservists first deployed to Afghanistan in 2003.[5][6] The Daily Telegraph reported that when first deployed "they helped to establish a communications network across Afghanistan and also acted as liaison teams between the various political groups, NATO and the .. Afghan government".[5] The SAS 1983–2014 written by Leigh Neville and published in 2016 doesn't mention the PRT and gives another account.[7] Neville writes that they were "instrumental in early efforts to unite various warlord factions" working with the SIS and that they also provided close protection for SIS officers. In late 2005, The Sunday Times reported that for the first time since the Malayan Emergency a whole squadron had been deployed from one the regiments to Afghanistan following lobbying by the CO of 23 SAS.[8] The squadron was to conduct reconnaissance of Helmand province in preparation for the establishment of a Task Force based around 16 Air Assault Brigade.[8] The Daily Telegraph reported that following the insurgency in Helmand in 2006 the role was withdrawn (not sure what role they are referring to or if they mean the reservists were withdrawn).[5] Their next role seems to be mentoring Afghan police which was first reported in 2008.[9] The CO of 23 SAS said that the reason they were mentoring police was because of "wider resourcing issues across the Armed Forces" in reply to a question why a specialist unit was mentoring police.[10] In 2010, the Daily Telegraph reported that their role changed to guarding Foreign Office civil servants in Kabul.[5]
Operations with 22 SAS: depending upon the publication 22 SAS reinforcements/battle casualty replacements from the Territorial/Reserve maybe identified as R Squadron or 21 and 23 SAS. There are sources for the Gulf War that have 15 soldiers from R Squadron or 15 from 21 and 23 SAS. Michael Asher who wrote The Real Bravo Two Zero had 15 from R Squadron (I expect this to be correct as he had served in 23 SAS).[11] Leigh Neville wrote in The SAS 1983–2014 in 2016, and earlier in Special Forces in the War on Terror in 2015, that 22 SAS deployed in late 2001 to Afghanistan with reinforcements from 21 and 23 SAS.[12] While, Nigel Cawthorne wrote in Special Forces in 2009 (later edition Heroes on the Front Line) that R Squadron were used to augment teams with no mention of 21 and 23 SAS.[13] In 2013, the The Daily Telegraph reported that 21 and 23 SAS never supported 22 SAS on covert operations in Afghanistan.[14] Cawthorne wrote that soldiers from 21 and 23 SAS were involved in the 2003 invasion of Iraq along with R Squadron but also wrote that three 22 SAS squadrons deployed while Mark Urban wrote in Task Force Black that only B and D Squadrons were involved.[15]
Balkans: The Daily Telegraph also reported that reservists served in the Balkans in the mid-1990s freeing 22 SAS for other tasks.[5] Neville doesn't mention 21 and 23 SAS serving in the Balkans in The SAS 1983–2014 only that elements from A and D Squadrons deployed in the mid-1990s.--Melbguy05 (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/6th-united-kingdom-division/1st-intelligence-surveillance-and-reconnaissance-brigade/
  2. ^ Farmer, Ben (22 April 2017). "SAS reservists at risk of death, says inquiry into triple tragedy". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 25 January 2021.
  3. ^ "Part-timers in SAS face battle snub". The Mirror. 12 April 2010. Retrieved 25 January 2021 – via The Free Library.
  4. ^ Farrell, Theo (2017). Unwinnable: Britain's War in Afghanistan, 2001–2014. Bodley Head. ISBN 978-1847923462.
  5. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference Daily Telegraph was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Rayment, Sean (28 December 2003). "Overstretched SAS calls up part-time troops for Afghanistan". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 23 March 2010.
  7. ^ Neville, Leigh (2016). The SAS 1983–2014. Elite 211. Illustrated by Peter Dennis. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1472814036.
  8. ^ a b Smith, Michael (20 November 2005). "Part-time SAS sent to tackle Taliban". Sunday Times.
  9. ^ Smith, Michael; Starkey, Jerome (22 June 2008). "Bryant was on secret mission in Afghanistan". The Sunday Times.
  10. ^ Harding, Thomas (9 March 2010). "SAS plea fell on deaf ears, inquest told". The Daily Telegraph.
  11. ^ Asher, Michael (2002). The Real Bravo Two Zero - The Truth Behind Bravo Two Zero. Cassell. ISBN 0-75284-247-1.
  12. ^ Neville, Leigh (2015). Special Forces in the War on Terror. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1472807908.
  13. ^ Cawthorne, Nigel (2011). Heroes on the Frontline - True Stories of the Deadliest Missions Behind the Enemy Lines in Afghanistan and Iraq. London: John Blake. ISBN 9781843582908.
  14. ^ Rayment, Sean (3 March 2013). "Revealed: nearly half of Special Forces could go in deepest cuts in 50 years". The Daily Telegraph.
  15. ^ Urban, Mark (2012). Task Force Black: The Explosive True Story of the Secret Special Forces War in Iraq. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 978-1250006967.
@Julian Brazier and Dasher555: I put together sources above for various theatres after the Cold War. There are discrepancies between sources. Whether they deployed in 2001 to Afghanistan with 22 SAS: it was R Squadron that deployed; they first deployed in 2003; never supported 22 SAS on covert operations. Sources maybe discussing the same role in Afghanistan but using different terms: PRT Mazar-i-Sharif; establish a communications network and act as liaison teams; unite various warlord factions with SIS and close protection for SIS officers. Afghanistan timeline seems to be: 2003 deployed, 2005 full squadron from a regiment deployed, 2006 a role change/withdrawn, by 2008 mentoring Afghan police and circa 2010 guarding Foreign Office civil servants. One source has deployed to Iraq but the reported other deployed squadrons conflicts with another source. One source has the Balkans for a whole squadron but another source only has elements of 22 SAS not even a whole 22 SAS squadron deployed. Are there other sources? One might be the 2004 book Midnight In Some Burning Town: British Special Forces Operations From Belgrade To Baghdad by Christian Jennings. --Melbguy05 (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Melbguy05 and Dasher555: Thanks, you have done a lot of work. Only two points at this stage: First Farrel gives some detail on the 21 police mission in Marjah making it clear that this was an exposed position - and indeed the Afghan Police all deserted (p247). Second, I don't think that Neville's lack of mention of reservists in the Balkans in any way counters the comparatively detailed account by Sean Rayment you cite, which even gives the temporary name of the composite sub-unit.Julian Brazier (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Melbguy05, Dormskirk, Dasher555, and Thewolfchild:: We never finished this, despite Melbguy05 (talk · contribs) doing most of the work. I would add just two points to Melbguy05 (talk · contribs)'s rigourous research: first, on expertise, as well as being a former member of 23, Michael Asher is an expert on special forces and has written a great deal about them. Also Leigh Neville has written a whole library of books on special forces. In contrast Nigel Cawthorne writes across a range of subjects, most of them non-military so, on any point of detail, I would back Asher or Neville against Cawthorne. Second, the background to all this is two sets of operations by the regular component many years apart according to multiple sources: Operation Determine during the 2001 coalition invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime and destroy and dismantle al-Qaeda in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks - and, secondly, the much longer series of operations towards the end of the decade (and continuing on for years later). Crucially there was an interval of several years in which the regular component were heavily engaged in Iraq.
Adding in these points suggests the following:
1) There is no reliable evidence of 21/23 involvement in Iraq. The sole mention by Cawthorne is contradicted by a better source.
2) Neville suggests in two of these books that 21/23 reinforcements augmented 22 in Operation Determine in 2001. Cawthorne omits this but is less reliable. The context of the comment in the Daily Telegraph ‘Although the TA units have not supported their regular colleagues on covert operations in Afghanistan, they play a vital role in intelligence gathering and mentoring Afghan police. Three members of 21 SAS were awarded Military Crosses in 2009.’[1] suggests the informant is talking about operations in recent years when the 21/23 were carrying out work with Police etc– rather than a single, wholly separate operation 12 years before the article.
3) There was an operation with a 23 framework squadron also involving members of 21, from 2003-5 and finally
4) There was the operations from 2007- 8 or 9, involving the Police and working with intelligence officers (it is difficult to unravel in what order the tasks took place – the Telegraph suggests Police and Army mentoring first then working with SIS but the 3 members of 23 killed early on in the mission were widely reported to have been escorting an intelligence officer, Sarah Bryant (albeit uniformed rather than SIS).
So I suggest the following new section inserted between ‘22 SAS Regiment’ and ‘Influence on other Special Forces’.
21 and 23 SAS

For much of the Cold War, 21 and SAS's role was to provide stay-behind parties in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion of western Europe, forming together I Corps' Corps Patrol Unit.. In the case of an invasion, this Special Air Service Group would have let themselves be bypassed and remained behind in order to collect intelligence behind Warsaw Pact lines, conduct target acquisition, and thus try to slow the enemy's advance. [2][3].

During mid-October 2001, members of 21 SAS and 23 SAS were deployed to Afghanistan as reinforcements of two squadrons of 22 SAS, for Operation Determine, during the 2001 coalition invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime and destroy and dismantle al-Qaeda in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. [4][5]. In late 2003 a composite squadron of 23 SAS, including some members of 21 SAS, was deployed to Helmand for roles including working with intelligence services and provincial reconstruction teams for approximately two years[6][7]. In 2007-8 a squadron-sized sub-unit was deployed first from 23 and then from 21 SAS to Helmand for roles including training the Afghan Army and Police and working with the intelligence services.[8].[9].Julian Brazier (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources

  1. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9904772/Revealed-nearly-half-of-Special-Forces-could-go-in-deepest-cuts-in-50-years.html
  2. ^ Asher, Michael (2008). The Regiment: The True Story of the SAS. London: Penguin UK. ISBN 0141026529, P 359-60
  3. ^ Geraghty, Tony. Who Dares Wins: the story of the SAS 1950-1982, P 15
  4. ^ Neville, Leigh, Special Forces in the War on Terror (General Military), Osprey Publishing, 2015 ISBN 978-1-4728-0790-8,p.75
  5. ^ Neville, Leigh, Special Forces in the War on Terror (General Military), Osprey Publishing, 2015 ISBN 978-1472807908
  6. ^ Rayment, Sean (28 December 2003). "Overstretched SAS calls up part-time troops for Afghanistan". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 23 March 2010
  7. ^ Smith, Michael (20 November 2005). "Part-time SAS sent to tackle Taliban". Sunday Times.
  8. ^ Smith, Michael; Starkey, Jerome (22 June 2008). "Bryant was on secret mission in Afghanistan". The Sunday Times.
  9. ^ Farrell, Theo (2017). Unwinnable: Britain's War in Afghanistan, 2001–2014. Bodley Head. ISBN 978-1847923462., P246-7
Looks good to me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Yep, looks ok. - wolf 15:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Melbguy05, Dormskirk, Dasher555, and Thewolfchild: Thanks, guys, on reflection, I shall put this into this article, minus the sentence on the first Afghan operation, as the limited amount of citation suggests that the 21/23 input on that operation was small (but leave that sentence where it already is, in the 21 and 23 main articles). I will also add a little more detail from our sources to the 21 and 23 main articles.
On a separate point, in its recent update, the Army now gives the full selection and training pathway for 21 and 23 on its website, I suggest I put a short para in at the end of the chapter headed'Recruitment and training' with a link to the relevant page. Is that okay? Julian Brazier (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
As long as it has a reference in the usual way that's fine with me. Dormskirk (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Go for it. - wolf 13:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

What's the criteria for this section? Only asking as I put in an entry for "SAS Red Notice", only for it to be reverted a short time later because the film "isn't about the SAS". Clearly the person who reverted this has not watched the film as there are numerous scenes featuring SAS throughout the film. So what's the guidance on entries here. How much screen time the SAS have? Do they have to be on screen all the while? Does it have to be based on real events? "Feather Men" is listed though there's not much about the SAS in it, most is about private contractors. Yet "Who Dares Wins" which is what most people think of as a film "about the SAS" isn't? "6 Days" is listed but only part of the film is about the SAS, the rest is about police and journalists? Has it got to be based on real events? (which would explain why "Who Dares Wins" or "The Zero Option" aren't listed because they're fiction). But if that's the case why list reality TV gameshows or the completely fictional "Ultimate Force"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.59.149 (talk) 17:51, 07 August 2021 (UTC)

Information from different venues

@150.101.89.147; re: this edit, the original text was:

"...the unit is not commented on by either the British government or the Ministry of Defence due to the secrecy..."

however you removed the MoD, with the summary; "Ministry of defence is the British government". While that is basically correct, I believe the idea is that information can come from different areas of the gov't, including intentionally or in error. Information should come through official MoD channels, after it's vetted and released by a spokesperson or media contact. However, information could also be released by various offices in the gov't, or by numerous politicians, right up to 10 Downing, or on the floor of legislature, (upper or lower), or during a media scrum, etc. The point is the line highlighted the potential sources as being the gov't and/or the MoD and I believe that's why it was there to begin with. Also, as this page is GA, any changes should have solid reasoning behind them. (imho) - wolf 08:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I did not think of it that way. Perhaps you can revert this edit.150.101.89.147 (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

21 and 23 SAS

Dormskirk,Melbguy05,Thewolfchild, Dasher555, 82.23.124.195. The following has been posted in the last few weeks under the above heading, replacing a single sentence: 

'During June 2008, three soldiers from 23 SAS were killed by the explosion of a landmine their vehicle had triggered, while they were within Helmand province. The reservists were involved in the training the Afghan National Police (OMLT), during the War in Afghanistan, there were also elements of the Regiment performing operational duties in Iraq during this period. Post Afghanistan, a report found that the SAS(R) lacked a clearly defined role.'

All three sentences are problematic. The first one relates to casualties, something only mentioned once in all the campaigns described in the chapters above - the incident is described in the main 23 SAS article but surely does not belong here? (We could, for example, list all the decorations SAS reservists gained in Afghanistan or the tribute from American commanders to whom they were attached, but these also belong in the main articles for the individual units not here in a summary article). The subsequent explanatory sentence is inaccurate anyway because - although there were SAS reservists working with the police - that particular patrol was working with an intelligence officer, Sarah Bryant, according to multiple sources (see citations in the 23 SAS main article).

The assertion about reservists in Iraq was discussed on this page before. Only one, tenuous, source suggests that these reservists were from 21 and/or 23 - without repeating all the arguments, unless a new source can be found, it seems more likely they were from 22's integral R Squadron. (In fact the author half concedes this by the odd choice of words 'elements of the Regiment...'

Also, the reference to a report was extensively discussed above on this page. This article on the SAS does not mention any other reports - and that particular report had no impact anyway so it is irrelevant to this history article.

For all these reasons I suggest we go back to the earlier agreed wording (and citations). See below: 

'In 2007-8 a squadron-sized sub-unit was deployed first from 23 and then from 21 SAS to Helmand for roles including training the Afghan Police and working with the intelligence services.[1][2]

Finally, I see that for some reason my links to Dasher555 and our unnamed new friend are not working. If any of you more experienced guys can shed light on that it would be helpful. Julian Brazier (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Smith, Michael; Starkey, Jerome (22 June 2008). "Bryant was on secret mission in Afghanistan". The Sunday Times
  2. ^ Farrell, p. 246-247
OK with me. I suggest in your edit summary you refer to this discussion so other editors can see why you are amending properly sourced information and, if necessary, the point can be debated again. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Dormskirk Will wait for a day or two for others Julian Brazier (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Same here, was gonna say that if you think something needs to be fixed, go for it. Not sure what you mean by "links to Dasher555 and (I presume the IP user) aren't working"...? If you mean because they're red, that's because they haven't created a user page yet, but click on either of their talk pages and they're there. (btw, I don't think you can notify IP users of tp posts with a ping). - wolf 20:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Thewolfchild - still getting used to the complexities of wiki editing Julian Brazier (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Cardinal vs Ordinal

@Canterbury Tail: The point was that unlike the single example of "22" used in the primary source supplied by the ip-user, there are plenty of examples of the use "22nd" in various secondary sources, such as the BBC. As for eliteukforces.info, if by "fansite" you mean it's not acceptable as RS, then there is an issue, because at quick glance, I found it being cited in over a dozen articles. I believe that when using the short-form unit names the military uses, we use "22 SAS", but when written out in full, we should use "22nd Special Air Service". - wolf 02:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thewolfchild 02:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed Julian Brazier (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Ultimately agree unless sources say otherwise. I really slapped myself for getting involved in it in the first place :) We go by sources. As for Eliteukforces.info I think we've determined in the past it's just a fansite and not reliable, I'll see if I can find the decisions. Canterbury Tail talk 11:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Operational Command

Dormskirk,Melbguy05,Thewolfchild Material has been reinserted in this section based on a solitary Telegraph article [1], material from which we debated extensively on this page before (10th April shows whole string, I believe). Without repeating all the arguments, I am reversing the edit for the following reasons: first, a report has no place in a historical article where it had no effect - the report was in 'late 2009' according to the article, but the move took place 5 years later in September 2014. The claim in the article that the SAS reservists were stripped of their role mentoring the police and that it was handed over to a regular infantry battalion (and the source goes on the reservists moved to working with 'members of the foreign office' ie intelligence services) goes against multiple other sources: several including [2] talk about their extreme exposed position, and both another Telegraph article and a parliamentary question, and a ministerial answer all confirm the decorations they won in the Police role [3][4]. Meanwhile, the much publicised tragedy with Sarah Bryant was an earlier intelligence mission. At different times, they were doing both. There is no corroboration of the claim in that one article that at any point a role was handed over to 'a regular infantry battalion.' The parliamentary exchange also states, however, that one of their reservists in Afghanistan went on to get a further major gallantry award later. Julian Brazier (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sean Rayment. HOME»NEWS»WORLD NEWS»ASIA»AFGHANISTAN. published by the Telegraph Media Group Limited 11 Apr 2010. Retrieved 3 August 2015.
  2. ^ Farrell. p246-7
  3. ^ "Question By Philip Hollobone MP and answer by James Heappey, MO Min AF". Hansard. Retrieved 21 April 2021.
  4. ^ "Revealed: nearly half of Special Forces could go in deepest cuts in 50 years". www.telegraph.co.uk.

COI

Open notice to editors watching this page; a concern regarding a conflict of interest with respect to edits made to this article was recently posted. If anyone shares this concern, feel free to post your thoughts here. If there's a problem, we can deal with it, otherwise we can all just move on with our editing. Cheers - wolf 20:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Well if the editor Julian Brazier is indeed the Julian Brazier I think that he is (I've not seen this confirmed), then there is justification for a COI. Canterbury Tail talk 20:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
There is a User:Julian Brazier that edits this page (and 21/23). A COI notice has been placed on his user talk page. If he continues to to edit these pages, and you or the ip-user still have concerns, then I suppose one of you can file at COIN. For my part, I haven't noticed any issues that were a concern for me. - wolf 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for drawing this to my attention. I believe in transparency (and, unusually, edit under my own name). It is a matter of public record in multiple places that I was a member of 21 SAS from 1977-82, but as I left nearly forty years ago it hardly amounts to a conflict of interest. If anyone with concerns looks back over this talk page (including archived material), they will find, I believe, that my contributions are based on firm citations and adherence to wikipedia principles Julian Brazier (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no COI concerns actually regarding this, I don't see it as any different to someone editing about a town they grew up in. Just don't push edits if someone objects, take it to the talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 13:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Operational Command (Reserve)

I am removing two short sections. The first alleges that the move under the ISR Brigade was because the reserve units 'lacked the ability to operate alongside regular UKSF' - no references provided for this. It was extensively debated last year on this page (although I see all the earlier debates have since been wiped). Second is a random reference to the HAC who were indeed in the ISR brigade at the time but so were all the regular and reserve elements of the Intelligence Corps. No obvious reason to highlight the HAC.Julian Brazier (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

(@Julian Brazier: Nothing is ever "wiped" from the talk page (at least not without good reason)... perhaps check the archives. - wolf 17:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC))
@Julian Brazier: I drafted a paragraph last year based on reliable sources that was OK'd by Dormskirk and Wolfchild for inclusion in the article in January 2021 in a new Reserve section. A new section was inserted in April 2021 titled "21 and 23 SAS" but this paragraph wasn't inserted:
"In 2017, the Ministry of Defence released the Service Inquiry into the deaths of 3 soldiers in the Brecon Beacons Wales.[1] The Director General (DG) of the Defence Safety Authority as part of the inquiry reported on the post-Cold War role of the Reserves, including their role after moving to Force Troops Command. The inquiry found that during the Cold War the Reserves "had a clearly defined and understood role", that their role "had not been clearly defined since the end of the Cold War"[2], that HQ UKSF "had struggled to articulate a meaningful role"[3] and there was "uncertainty about the operational requirement for these units".[4] Examination of the history of the post-Cold War role found that there had been "A number of reviews" of the Reserves that "had been conducted over the years" which "included the prospect of a merger or disbandment".[2] The review proposals were "met with significant resistance from both serving Reserves and ex-members in positions of influence".[2] The investigation panel found that following their move to 1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade their role "appears.. to be still not well defined".[2] The Times reported on the review quoting the DG, Air Marshall Richard Garwood, and stated that the future of the Reserves remain in question with a review into their role and command to be completed in the summer.[5] The Times did not challenge the report and did not contain any comments from Reserves sources. Earlier in 2010, the The Daily Telegraph had reported that a review of the Reserves had been completed in 2009 that had found the Reserves "lacked a clearly-defined role" and that they "lacked the military capability and skillset to serve alongside the regular special forces".[6] The Daily Telegraph did not challenge the report, it did not contain any comments from Reserves sources but reported that the Reserves "were said to be furious", and a senior military source was quoted giving a praising comment that "they are a fantastic talent and a role should be found for them".[6]
It appears that there has been two talk discussions since in "21 and 23 SAS" and "Operational Command" both in Sept 2021 on content that is in the above paragraph after it had been added to the article.--Melbguy05 (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Melbguy05, Dormskirk, Wolfchild. Thank you for your explanation. At the risk of repeating material from last time, (thanks Wolfchild for archive reference), the study you refer to was dated 2009. It cannot have been the basis for a move in 2014, five years later. I have no idea why the, much later, accident inquiry chose to dig up this old report eight years later (in fact less than two years before the move back to SF Group) but none of the many inquiries and papers about the future of different elements of Special forces are discussed in this article. (It also does not contain details of decorations, casualties etc.) Instead it, rightly, focuses on facts about their history of campaigns, command structure, etc. Inserting a 2009 study as an explanation of a 2014 move seems to me both misleading and redundant.Julian Brazier (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ This article contains OGL licensed text This article incorporates text published under the British Open Government Licence v3.0: Defence Safety Authority (2017). Releasable Extracts of Service Inquiry into the deaths of 3 soldiers in the Brecon Beacons Wales, in July 2013 (PDF) (Report). Ministry of Defence. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  2. ^ a b c d Defence Safety Authority 2017, p. 1.6-3. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFDefence_Safety_Authority2017 (help)
  3. ^ Defence Safety Authority 2017, p. 1.2B-3. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFDefence_Safety_Authority2017 (help)
  4. ^ Defence Safety Authority 2017, p. 1.6-1. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFDefence_Safety_Authority2017 (help)
  5. ^ Brown, David (22 April 2017). "Plans to abolish SAS reserves 'blocked by political influences'". The Times. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  6. ^ a b Rayment, Sean (11 April 2010). "SAS reservists withdrawn from Afghan front line". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 13 April 2010.

Afghan War

@Canterbury Tail and Eastfarthingan: So, this sentence: "SAS were heavily involved throughout the Soviet–Afghan War;" - with or without "heavily involved" linked to United Kingdom in the Soviet-Afghan War... you guys wanna talk it out? - wolf 20:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a valid link - don't see what the fuss is about, SAS are mentioned in lede as well as article many times over. Perhaps I should add an extra part where it is more valid? Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Should probably wait to see what CT has to say (if they do). You shouldn't edit disputed content that's gone to the talk page, and you're at 3RR as it is now anyway. (JMHO) - wolf 22:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
It's a perfect example of an WP:EASTEREGG link, it fully meets the style that the MOS states to avoid. If you want a link then the sentence needs to be reworded heavily to incorporate the link better. Additionally the target article isn't even about the SAS, it's not that heavily mentioned which just makes it worse the way it is, linking the term "heavily involved" to an article where the SAS are of secondary mention is really not appropriate. Please read the Easter Egg MOS linked and it will give you the guidance. So I don't object to linking to that article, but it needs to follow the MOS and currently it's a pretty textbook example of an Easter Egg link. And you're a long time editor, you should know how WP:BRD and edit warring work, if you make an edit and it's reverted for a valid reason, you should discuss and not edit war to keep your edit. The onus is on the editor adding the material to get consensus, not the person removing it to establish it. Canterbury Tail talk 08:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Understood, I've done just that and removed the word heavily too. Hope that helps. Thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Cap badge insignia

There seems to be some confusion, if not dispute, regarding the cap badge insignia.

The current text, under "Uniform distinctions" reads:

Normal barracks headdress is the sand-coloured beret, its cap badge is a downward pointing Excalibur, wreathed in flames (often incorrectly referred to as a winged dagger) worked into the cloth of a Crusader shield with the motto Who Dares Wins.[1][nb 1]

(This was just changed today, from "Exclaibur" to "Sword of Damocles", then immediately changed back.)

The cited passage above includes the hidden text: " <!-- PLEASE DO not CHANGE THIS WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE TALK PAGE -->", though it doesn't mention any particular talk page discussion.

After a look through this talk page and it's archives, it seems this has been brought up before, here, here, here, here, here and here... all without any apparent consensus.

While some additonal sourcing might be helpful, I'm not sure how definitive it will be; take these two refs for example, both from the Imperial War Museum:

  1. "Embroidered cap badge to the SAS (Special Air Service), a dark (Cambridge) blue shield on which a white sword (Excalibur), point down, with a pair of light (Oxford) blue wings. An Oxford blue scroll over the lower part of the sword bears the motto WHO DARES WINS in black. Sword, wings and scroll all outlined in red."[3], and
  2. The cloth cap badge of the SAS. In an effort to consolidate the identity of his new unit, Colonel Stirling privately arranged for this insignia to be made up by a Cairo tailor. The cap badge was originally designed as a flaming 'sword of Damocles' but ended up as a winged dagger. The motto 'Who Dares Wins' summed up Stirling's original SAS concept."[4]

At dispute, is whether it's a sword or dagger, and if it's a sword, which sword; Excalibur or the Sword of Damocles, and wether it's surrounded by flames or wings. So, I figured I would try starting a discussion now, to see if we can introduce more sourcing, and conclude the issue with a consensus. Cheers - wolf 19:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi - Agreed that it will be difficult to be definitive, but we can use the the Imperial War Museum for wording along the lines of:

Its cap badge is a downward pointing blade sometimes referred to as the legendary sword of King Arthur, "Excalibur", and sometimes described as a flaming "Sword of Damocles". It is set on a background usually referred to as "flames" but also described in some sources as "a pair of light Oxford Blue wings".

Amendments to the above welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I like the idea of a one-sentence-covers-all type entry. That should keep everyone happy. If I were to suggest a change, it would be along the lines of:

Its cap badge is a downward pointing blade that at times is described as either King Arthur's legendary sword "Excalibur", or a "flaming Sword of Damocles", or simply a dagger, but all are set on a background referred to as either "a pair of light Oxford Blue wings" or "flames".

But like I said, it's just suggestion, I'm not married to it. I would be interested to see what input others may have. Cheers - wolf 11:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Dormskirk (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
There's no real dispute here. It's a sword wreathed in flames. I linked a reference to it some time ago - it was designed by SAS Original Bob Tait who clearly stated this. Read "SAS The Originals". He says he laughed when some started calling it a winged dagger. If the man who designed it is not an authoritative enough source I don't know what is. 195.166.217.88 (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Designed by Bob Tait in 1941, it is a flaming sword, although it is often known as a winged dagger.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Profile: The SAS". BBC News. 2 November 2001. Retrieved 9 January 2011.
  2. ^ Stevens, p.57
  3. ^ "Uniforms And Insignia". iwm.org.uk. 2022. Retrieved 5 November 2022.
  4. ^ "Photographs". iwm.org.uk. 2022. Retrieved 5 November 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Special_Air_Service/Archive_2&oldid=1241657082"