Talk:The Increment

	This redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This redirect was accepted on 18 May 2009 by reviewer MacMed (talk · contribs).

Military history: Intelligence / British / European

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Alleged

What on earth does it mean to say "The Increment is an alleged British Paramilitary unit, which exists..."? Presumably we are to take "alleged" in the common journalistic sense "stated without proof", rather than in the legal meaning of the word. If so, does it mean "the Increment is a Paramilitary unit, which exists and is alleged to be British"? Or "the Increment is a unit, which exists and is alleged to be British and Paramilitary"? Or what? Is it nothing more than a roundabout way of trying to say "The Increment is rumoured to exist, and to be a British Paramilitary unit"? If so, then, apart from the fact that clearer wording would be preferable, how can it be said that it "exists"? Really, someone needs to make it clear what this does mean.JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The above comment referred to a passage in the article which has now been reworded to deal with the criticism. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing concerns

I am concerned that none of the sources used to support the expansion of the article meet the provisions of the verifiability policy. None of the sites used are trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand and the majority seem to end up referring back to the Tomlinson letter. The sources also do not directly support the information as it is presented in an article, instead a critical reading of them highlights a degree of speculation and conjecture.

I have raised a review request on the RS Noticeboard.

ALR (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - websites like that aren't reliable sources. I'd suggest that this article be nominated for deletion. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The review mentioned above is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Elite Forces UK. It expresses considerable doubt about the sourcing of this article: if anyone can find reliable sources it will be very helpful if they can cite them. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that all roads lead to Tomlinson I seriously doubt that there is anything reliable on the topic. AfD seems fair when I have the time to formulate the argument.

Anyway, it's now been confirmed that one of the sources doesn't meet the needs of Verifiability; AFI Research.

ALR (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been WP:BOLD and redirected this page to Richard Tomlinson. I suggest editors here use what sources there are in this article to create a sub-section in that article on this particular rumor. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]