Talk:Long Range Desert Group

Armament

From the paragraph Formation and equipment: The troops carried Thompson submachine guns and other standard British infantry weapons. First of all, the Thompson is american, not british. Second, why would soldiers from New Zealand, under british command, carry american weapons? Are there any references backing this claim?

Lstor (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Insert "issued" between British and infantry and you might understandBlackshod (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is copious evidence supporting the use of Thompson sub-machine guns. Brendan O'Carroll's books for one, this site: http://blindkat.hegewisch.net/lrdg/lrdgweapons.html for another. British and Commonwealth troops were supplied with several different types of American weapons during the Desert Campaign and later.Minorhistorian (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The british often used american made weapons during WW2 and the americans sometimes used british made weapons. Since shipments of weapons were often distrubtied to british and american troops because when they got shipments of weapons and ammo they were distrupted to american and british troops. Nhog 5/2/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhog (talk • contribs) 17:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Also men in both sides used wepones made by the enemy most often because they ran out of ammo there gun was jammed or it just was a better gun for that situation. Also wepones on both sides were given out to their allies. Besides the Thompson was one of the most commenly used guns it was more or less what the AK47 is today. Nhog (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Thompson SMG was bought from the US by the British in the early war period - as were numerous Colt .38 revolvers, etc., but the Thompson was extremely expensive to buy - around £90 per-gun IIRC, and because it was also only available in limited numbers, the British developed the much cheaper Sten. The first Stens were issued to UK-based home units initially and the Thompsons, having been in service longer, were more likely to be available to the forces overseas in the Western Desert. Generally the availability or otherwise of equipment was governed by the difficulty of getting convoys through via Gibraltar in the west. These convoys had to be arranged for certain times when the merchant ships were available and the forces necessary to protect them able to be gathered together for the purpose. So ground and air forces in the theatre (and others) often had to make do with older equipment until convoys could get through with newer supplies. First line units closer to GHQ tended to get first choice from new supplies, and 'funny' units like the LRDG may well have had to take what was left. The Thompson was however very popular and so many users such as the LRDG may have preferred it to the Sten.

Reformed?

Some one added "being later reformed as the Territorial Army 63 (SAS) Signals Squadron" to the paragraph saying the LRDG was disbanded after the war. Does anyone have a refernece on this as it is the first I've heard of it and I can't find any other mentions online? Cjrother 17:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed that now. Cjrother 16:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Assessment

A very nice start, and a good length overall. But each individual section is quite short; I wonder if there's anything to be done about this? LordAmeth 10:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Could do with a bit more attention to the actual and verified facts. The patrol organisation section confuses two different types and there are very many other bits which grate. I'm not sure if this is because of the sources cited or because the drafters just don't understand their topic. 81.19.57.130 17:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I invite you to be bold and help out in improving it. Plus you might find it handy to first of all register a new account to use. Mathmo ^Talk 13:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have made some edits... Mazel Tov. Mathmo ^Talk 13:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

New Book on LRDG in Work

According to his official web site (www.stevenpressfield.com), Steven Pressfield's next work will be on a unit of the LRDG. Steven Pressfield is well known for his fictionalized military histories, the most popular of which is "Gates of Fire" which describes the Spartan defense at the Battle of Thermopylae as the Persian army invaded ancient Greek territory. As a fan of both Rat Patrol and Pressfield's works, I look forward to his account of some aspect of the LRDG. 72.83.150.246 03:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Brendan O' Carroll

I've added a bibliography section; one of the most important authors of recent times specialising in the LRDG is New Zealander Brendan O'Carroll http://mcwarr.orcon.net.nz/genealogy/leslie/kiwi.html http://www.ngaiopress.com/br_home.htm http://mcwarr.orcon.net.nz/genealogy/leslie/brigands.html Minorhistorian (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Operation Hyacinth; The attack on Barce

This section just peters out--we get the attackers as far as a grove of trees and issuing assignments, and then the article lurches into a new topic without ever resolving what happened during the attack, how the attackers returned to base, or what were the attack's consequences. As one who was simply reading the article to learn about a subject that was new to me, I am utterly unqualified to address this issue, but someone who knows something about the LRDG should probably do so. Drhoehl (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Cough* My fault...part way through I ran out of time with other, more important, committments (work, life etc) and left the LRDG patrols hanging around the grove planning the attack. A couple of months later, when I finally had some spare time again, other articles intervened and I plain forgot to finish this one. I can only offer 'umble apologies and will endevour to complete the task in the next day or so. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm--based on the stirrings of a completion so far, maybe they would have been happier to continue their arboreal sojourn. Anyhow, thanks, and I'll be looking forward to the complete story. This is an uncommonly interesting article. Drhoehl (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Since when does one remove entire sections without discussion?

Jim Sweeny has removed entire sections of this article, which ARE REFERENCED, without consultation: not appreciated mate! Minorhistorian (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The sections were nothing to do with the LRDG. I think the article is improved without them. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of value in some serious decrufting. To be perfectly honest a lot of the narrative is quite turgid, the structure needs work and more use can be made of other articles.

ALR (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is this? Jim Sweeney comes in here, not having done any work whatsoever on the article prior to 14 May 2010, and decides he can chop the entire article to peices without any discussion whatsoever? He has removed citations that I placed in the text just a few hours ago. He has also ignored and deleted my attempt to open discussion on his talk page [here] before any further major changes are made. This is hardly concensus building on Jim Sweeney's part. I'm asking that an administrator take a look at this "style" of editing before it goes any further. Minorhistorian (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all you do not own the article so it does not matter if I did no work on it prior to 14 May 2010, all editors can contribute.

Chopping the article to pieces, removal of un cited sections and replacing with cited material in an attempt to improve the article is surely what we are all here for. I could likewise point out that Minorhistorian has not edited the article since 2009 but that's immaterial as above all are welcome to edit.

Your credibility is not improved by the removal of ref improve tags with out the said improvements. So you can see what I mean I have added in line citation required tags. Theses I will agree are over the top but it gives you an idea of what required to improve the article above start class.

There was no need to reply on my talk page as I responded here where all editors who may be working on the article can see. So I have not ignored and deleted my attempt to open discussion on his talk page .

Is there any Wikipedia consensus for the article to remain as it was before? At least one editor above has agreed that it needed decrufting

Finally can I ask what your intentions are for the article? It has remained in a very poor condition without any attempt by any editor to make any major improvements. My intention was to improve it and submit it for a WPMILHIST:peer review but to get to that stage it has to be at least B Class which sadly its no where near. If you think your version is better then can I suggest you can likewise submit it for a peer review.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Your credibility is not improved by the removal of ref improve tags with out the said improvements" Really? Note revisions made [11.15 18 May] Citations were added to Patrol Markings section, and to revised "Weapons" section, only to be removed by Jim Sweeney 11.53 18 May; When I try to help out it ain't good enough for Jim S - 'nuff said about credibility.

Also note There was never any such formation as "H" Patrol from "Scottish Highlands"; R Patrol and T Patrol were New Zealand manned and had nothing to do with the "Rifle regiment" or "Home Counties Regiments" whatsoever, nor were the New Zeanders from W Patrol returned to their Division; according to Brendan O' Carroll who has reasearched the LRDG in depth for years, whoever wrote this stuff is writing total nonsense. Jim Sweeney clearly does not know enough about the LRDG if he insists on using Molinari as a source.Minorhistorian (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the important part to the above is the missing previous line each patrol was expected in theory, if not in practice, to belong to the same regimental group and that's a good link to show how I improved the article and referencing thanks.

It seems you have no intention of trying to improving the article. The deletion of tags without adding the citation could be classed as vandalism, if you have added the text then only you will know if the ref an inch further down the text covers the point. That's what in line citations are for. By just removing the tag adds nothing to the credibility of the article. If you have a source that can confirm the New Zealanders in W Patrol were not returned to their division than add it. We can always state sources differ .

Here is another source co written by O'Carroll that confirms New Zealanders returned to their division page 130 [1] Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"I think the important part to the above is the missing previous line 'each patrol was expected in theory, if not in practice, to belong to the same regimental group' and that's a good link to show how I improved the article and referencing thanks." Nonsense - the missing sentence has no meaning in the context of the LRDG and simply adds confusion; I repeat There was NO "H Patrol" from the Scottish Highlands (Jenner et al mentions an H which existed briefly from 9-6-41 to 25-8-41, but no mention of it being a "Highlands" unit p. 12, nor do other scources mention an H Patrol); R Patrol and T Patrol were manned by New Zealanders (with the exception of some W/T operators) right through from 1940 to May 1943. Can Jim Sweeney explain why it was that the symbol for R Patrol was a Maori Tiki with the truck name a Maori word starting with R, while the T Patrol symbol was a New Zealand Kiwi with the truck name a Maori word starting with "Te"? Where are the links to a "Rifle Regiment" or "Home Counties Regiment"?

Secondly has Jim Sweeny actually bothered to read Incident at Jebel Sherif properly? The quote to which he refers is from Trooper Peter Garland who belonged to T Patrol. Quote: "When the patrol eventually reached Cairo my LRDG days were over. I and a few others were ordered back to our original unit..." unquote. This had nothing to do with W Patrol and there were only a few LRDG men ordered back to the NZ Cavalry Division at the time of the Greek emergency; it certainly doesn't describe the mass transfer of an entire Patrol unit. In fact W Patrol had been disbanded in December 1940, prior to the raid described in the book, and its personnel and equipment were redistributed through the LRDG (Jenner et al p 12.). Scources differ? What scources did Molinari use to come to his completely erroneous conclusions? O'Carroll, Jenner et al, Valenti LRDG Preservation Society, LRDG site, W B Kennedy Shaw etc know what they are talking about.

Jim Sweeney hasn't yet explained why he removed my citations completely THEN added a missing citations notice complete with the comment that each paragraph must be cited. Quote "Theses I will agree are over the top" which is why they were removed. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to stop over reacting, the cn tags are where we need citations if you have them great add them to the article.

You are right them was no H patrol from Highland regiments as stated in the article in theory they were supposed to be from regimental groupings but in practice it never happened. If you are unhappy with this statement if we can get a consensus it can be changed or if there is another source that says otherwise, but remember it was the theory not what happened.

The mass transfer of New Zealanders back to the division, remember a patrol was 30 men at the start reduced 15 to 18 men later this is not a mass amount and as above some were returned. What it does not give is a number just a few. Is 15 to 18 or 30 a few ?

I presume you are happy with the other changes in operations etc --Jim Sweeney (talk) 05

29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

LRDG

This article is about the LRDG and not the chevy truck or list of standard British Army weapons. LInks should be used for those articles and this article should concentrate only on the LRDG. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bibliography et al

The Chicago style of formatting for the bibliography is well recognised, it provides good, accurate information to pinpoint publications and there was no good reason to completely overturn it; as it is I reluctantly spent a great deal of time adding/correcting information on publishers etc to ensure the accuracy of the information. Also note: the book originally used for reference 38 was from the Public Record Office; the information on the publisher, ISBN etc was taken directly from the title page of the book and NOT from a website (now in "external links") so, unless there is a really good reason to alter it, please don't. Also note Lulu.com has been blacklisted as a Spam address by Wikipedia, so using that link, instead of the publisher itself is unwise. Unless JS or anyone else has a very good reason why the format HAS to be the less succinct "cite book" template kindly leave well enough alone or take it up with an admin. BTW the ISBN number has to be the ISBN-10 not the ISBN-13 if it is to function as a link. Minorhistorian (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Every peer, A class, GA review I have seen has required the cite book template to be used, as previously stated the intention is to progress this article above start class. I fail to comprehend your reluctance to achieve this. Why would we have a cite book template at all if it was not desired. This talk of take it to an admin is not needed just put the article in for a peer-review as stated above. Can I suggest if you can not work to improve the article you leave it and I will do that when its ready. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? I wonder, then how Rolls-Royce Merlin achieved FA and Supermarine Spitfire achieved GA without this demand? BTW This sort of statement from you "It seems you have no intention of trying to improving the article" "Can I suggest if you can not work to improve the article you leave it" is completely out of order; I suggest you drop the superior attitude you have taken and learn to co-operate yourself. Minorhistorian (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think you are right put the article in for a peer or GA review. For someone who had not contributed to the article for some months and was happy to see it stay in its previous state, I find your reluctance to progress it strange. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You appear now to be involved in an edit war and have broken the three revert rule. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you insist on not using the cite book template can you remove the {} and () you have left in the article. If no response I will revert to the previous condition. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

having watched you at work Mr Sweeney on several pages that you have butchered, I suggest you take a good look at WP:OWNTangoSixZero (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, where do you stand on the improvements to the article ? or lack of any since here [2] I would like a second opinion if you were happy for it to have remained as before or would you like to see it improved. If you would like to discuss these butchered pages on my talk I would be happy to respond. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So far Jim Sweeney hasn't answered my question about why it is that two articles I helped bring up to FA and GA status respectively didn't need the cite book template; nor has he yet apologised for comments I regard as inflammatory and OT. The only one threatening an edit war "If no response I will revert to the previous condition" is Jim Sweeney. Minorhistorian (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Having combed through the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) I can find no reason for this insistence on a template; neither of these articles refers to a template; in the latter MOS the section Bibliographies - Books in English states, in part: "For works created and first published in English, vital information is the title and year of first publication. Provide the subtitle too, unless it is painfully longwinded....These should be supplemented with publication details where helpful. (The standard form is "Place: Publisher, Year.")" ie: Chicago Style, which is exactly what I have done, so if there is an insistence on using a template, the assessors are wrong. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That is all well and good but I still keep coming back to do you want the article to progress up the scale to even B class never mind FA? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but where, pray tell, did this need for a cite book template crop up here British Army During WW I Peer review? Same here UK During WW 1 A Class review So, lemme get this straight, Jim Sweeney says that a peer review or A class review or a Ga class review insists that a cite book template MUST be used but there's no sign of that in the Peer or A Class reviews for articles he worked on. Then he tries to bully another editor into complying with this? And he has the gall to question my integrity? Minorhistorian (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This pointless bickering does not improve the article, both the above use the cite book template. There is no attempt to BULLY anyone which is clear by the edit history. If anything it shows your displeasure at any attempt to change. My question still stands what was you intention for the article after months of allowing it to remain in the sorry state it was? Of course that does not presume ownership. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

I have submitted the article for a peer review, here is the link Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Long Range Desert Group any editors welcome to contribute. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Equipment

If the majority used the Lee Enfield No. I Mk III rifles, it clear that some used other types. So its better just to claim they used Lee-Enfield rifles. Unless we can prove they only exclusively used the No.1 Mk III. The British Army at the time were issued the Rifle, No. 4 Mk I. The Colonial armies tended to keep the older version.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous photos available on the net and in books which show nothing but No.I Mk III*, nor do author's like O'Carroll mention the No. 4 except to say it was very rarely used. To simply state "Lee Enfield rifle" could mean anything to the uninitiated; the article is meant to be read by a wide range of people, not just military enthusiasts who know something about equipment and weaponary - being specific reduces confusion for everyone. Minorhistorian (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

W/T equipment

One: The Royal Signals site does not discuss the equipment used by the LRDG, and does not discuss its use by the LRDG - it is a summary of the factory specifications as used by tanks using whip aerials,(tell me how many times have you seen a photo of a British tank, using a No. 11 W/T with a rod aerial?). The LRDG, with the assistance of dry desert atmosphere and expert signalsmen, were able to far outreach the official specs with either of the 1 m or 2m rod aerials.

Two: O'Carroll has researched the LRDG for many years, has interveiwed many veterans and knows far more about their equipment, methods and personnel than Jim Sweeney, Molinari or the Royal Signals website - the material is properly sourced and researched by an expert (O'Carroll) so please leave as is and please don't denigrate without actually reading the book cited.

Three: I thought this article was under peer review, so are the continuing stream of modifications absolutely needed? Why not wait for more comment? Minorhistorian (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If we examine the picture of the vehicle its antenna looks to be closer to nine than six foot. Using the Boys anti-tank gun as a guide which was five foot long. Rod antennas (whip antennas is what the Americans use) even today only have a range of about 50 miles, the range is extended with a dipole antenna which bounces radio waves off the ionosphere. Its not new and was used prior to the LRDG by the Royal Signals and the Royal Navy to transmit signals around the world. The Royal Signals has be be a more accurate source for the range and capabilities of their equipment than O'Carroll. Molinari was being used as a source for the LRDG using Morse code. I have changed the metric measurement back to imperial to avoid confusion as imperial measurements are used in the rest of the article. Personal attacks like has interveiwed many veterans and knows far more about their equipment, methods and personnel than Jim Sweeney are not required. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you kindly stop removing properly sourced material. And since when has has interveiwed many veterans and knows far more about their equipment, methods and personnel than Jim Sweeney' been personal attack? Have you done the years of in depth research on the LRDG that you've been so keen to denigrate with remarks like change back to 6 and 9 ft ref the Royal Signals web page will be more reliable than ocarroll in an edit summary? Minorhistorian (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the details of the expected range of the No. 11 set so how can I be accused of removing my own edit and of course the Royal Signals will be more accurate on radio equipment than an author. Did you examine the photographic evidence as above ? There is nothing wrong with changes to properly researched and sourced material to add or improve the article.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding a dubious tag is completely OT; I ask again Has Jim Sweeney put the years of reasearch into the LRDG that Brendan O'Carroll has? He has interviewed ex-LRDG personnel, examined Patrol reports and generally gone to primary sources to confirm everything he has written. Has Jim Sweeney actually properly read any of O'Carrol's research? If Jim Sweeney has done similar research which contradicts the information O'Carroll has gleaned, a dubious tag may be warranted; if not it is as I say way OT! In the meantime leave as is. Minorhistorian (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Is O'Carroll now an expert of radio communication as well ? Is no one else allowed to write or comment on the LRDG ? did you examine the photograph with the antenna its clearly greater than 6 ft in length. see the below section for comments on the dubious tag. To delete the tag without any change or discussion is vandalism--Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to caveat the claims by O'Carroll. I share the concern about what is being claimed on the basis of his research, based on known performance of the equipment. Is there a form of words that highlights the issue? Does he talk about consistently achieving excessive range or were these the odd exception that took advantage of surface ducting and other environmental effects?

I would be hesitant to accept claims of these ranges on a consistent basis, given the inherent limitations of a folded monopole, the difficulty in keeping equipment in good condition in desert conditions (Been there, done that), and having adequate meteorological information to frequency plan whilst tactical.

ALR (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

== Wireless ranges ==

Using High frequency rod antennas have a limited range and its now where near the hundreds its to do with the signals being absorbed into the earth by attenuation. Greater distances are used by dipole antennas that bounce radio waves off the ionosphere which can travel around the world. To claim that the LRDG managed to transmit hundreds of miles with a rod antenna is not possible. Even today's modern radio equipment only has the range to transmit in HF with a rod antenna of 50 to 60 miles. This is extended by putting the antenna on top of a mast modern British Army ones are 10 and 20 meters tall but this still limits the range due to attenuation. Ita also effected by the curvature of the Earth. Not being a Radio expert I have set up and used HF radios in the Middle East and communicated back to the UK so I do have some knowledge of the limitations of rod and dipole antennas. The operators of this equipment were from the Royal Signals it would also seem that if in 1940 they had managed to transmit radio signals over hundreds of miles, they would still be doing so today. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggested change to text:

The LRDG used Morse code with the No. 11 set and were able to transmit over distances of hundreds of miles with a Wyndom dipole antenna system slung between two wooden 17 feet (5.2 m) tall poles.

or

The LRDG used Morse code with the No. 11 and with a Wyndom dipole antenna system slung between two wooden 17 feet (5.2 m) tall poles were able to transmit and receive radio messages over great distance's.

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a web site the discusses HF Propagation [3] if you read 2. HF communications claims -

High Frequency (3 to 30 MHz) radio signals can propagate to a distant receiver figure 2.1, via the: Ground wave: near the ground for short distances, about 100 km over land and 300 km over sea.

with the use of the convert template 100 kilometres (62 mi) this is well short of the hundreds of miles that O'Carroll claims were being used in the 1940's It does go on to say -

The hop length is the ground distance covered by a radio signal after it has been refracted once from the ionosphere and returned to Earth, figure 2.3. The upper limit of the hop length is set by the height of the ionosphere and the curvature of the Earth. For E and F region heights of 100 km and 300 km, the maximum hop lengths with an elevation angle of 4 degrees, are 1800 km and 3200 km, respectively. Distances greater than these will require more than one hop. For example, a distance of 6100 km would require a minimum of 4 hops by the E region and 2 hops via the F region with such an elevation angle. More hops may be required with larger antenna elevation angles.

What I believe has happened is that O'Carroll not being a signals expert and the men he has interviewed possibly not being experts in the field or their memories have lapsed with time have confused the use of a normal antenna with a dipole antenna. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14

44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it was a misreading on my part; the matter was clarified in The Barce Raid, 2005 p. 33 "The disadvantage of the No. 11 radio lay in its frequency range. After dark it would not cover a frequency range low enough for satisfactory communications over distances of less than about 320 kilometers..." It is Jenner and List which makes the statement about ranges on p.17. so I'm quite happy to admit error.

However another concern still remains; the reason I stopped editing this article was because I was overloaded; I was spending hours having to defend myself on other articles in Wikipedia and, what was supposed to be a relaxing hobby, became a major, frustrating chore. I was, and still am studying at University and I decided I didn't have enough time for both; my future involvement in Wikipedia was drastically limited to time I could afford. Besides which, with house renovations most of my bookshelves were cleared, and having to constantly unpack and repack boxes just added to the "enjoyment" I did not have the time to rewrite an article I had spent hours on in the first place.

So, coming back to the article I once again found myself having to defend almost every single edit I was making, and begrudging every minute I had to waste trying to explain why it is important to stick to at least some of the information that was and is still useful to readers who are not familiar with the LRDG, or don't have acess to the cited books. It still irks me that I have wasted so much time over the last couple of weeks having to almost plead with one editor to at least make an effort to use accurate information on details such as weaponry and equipment, instead of the more generalised information he was wanting to include. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

New source on LRDG

I have just read an excellent academic treament of British Special Forces in the Desert War and believe this page could benefit from a citation/reference. It is:

Hargreaves, Andrew L., ‘The Advent, Evolution and Value of British Specialist Formations in the Desert War, 1940-43’, in Global War Studies, Vol. 7, No.2, (2010), pp.7-62

From what I understand Dr. Hargreaves wrote a PhD on WWII Special Forces, but am not sure if he has written any books.

This could be useful to other pages dealing with similar units.

Best,

David Trill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.118.20 (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Genral info

A good book is Killing Rommal if you need a genral idea of how the LRDG operated.It is historical fiction. Nhog (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sudan Defence Force and the Gideon Defence Force involvement

Elements of the Sudan Defence Force were involved in the LRDG because of their knowledge of Arabic to be able to communicate with the Arab and Berber tribesmen. Their involvement was post 1941 after Orde Wingate relieved of his duties and the Gideon Force was disbanded.Pop goes the we (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)<ref>Army War Records 1941-1944</ref>

References must be verifiable, which a brief vague mention of records does not achieve. Please wait until a specific identifiable source is available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Films

There is some controversy over the inclusion of films in this article, justified by a low opinion of a website source as "not RS", although there is no indication as to why.

• Should we include films?

I would say yes, provided that the films are realistic and focussed upon the LRDG. Some fictional overlap with Stirling or Popski would be acceptable (overlap with Stirling's parashots is authentic anyway). "Rambo in the sand" would not be. The inevitable Hollywood devices of halftracks, American actors and female roles might be, depending.

• Sea of Sand

It's a good film, it has a few big name actors, it was made contemporaneously enough to preserve an accurate spirit and it works reasonably hard to preserve the details.

Kennedy Shaw's role as an adviser to the film is significant and should be noted.

• Play Dirty

This is another good film, but it's heavily fictionalised to focus the drama on individual personalities. I think it's acceptable here, but we should note (more than is currently done) that the LRDG is one influence on it and this is not a film about the LRDG.

• Other films

I know of none that would meet my initial criteria.

• Sourcing

I'm unfamiliar with our standards for sourcing of film articles. I would note though that both of these film articles are unsourced (IMDB simply not existing in the wiki universe) and yet no-one is (yet!) trying to delete those two articles. The website used at present is obviously not a substantial source. However that, in combination with the film posters and the IMDB listing are certainly (IMHO) adequate to source the existence of these films and their basic relevance here. To say much more we might then need better sourcing, but we have enough here to not go around block deleting non-contentious material. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I take no issue with including the films, but the sourcing is a problem. The IMDB sources do not mention the LRDG at all and so there is no link to this article. The Hegewisch source appears to be self-published and therefore not a acceptable ref. What is needed to keep these entries is a reliable source that actually mentions that the films are based upon the exploits of this unit. - Ahunt (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Whilst recognising the difference between RS and SPS, I still fail to see how this article is improved by removing such an uncontentious source in favour of no sourcing at all. We should go forwards, not work so hard to find reasons to go backwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I spent a great deal of time looking for reliable sources that link these films to the LRDG, with no luck, so far. Like Ahunt, I have no objections to including the films but, without proper references, how are casual readers to know whether the listed films are related to the LRDG? The Wikipedia articles don't help. Anyone who refers to outside sources, such as (for example) Leonard Maltin's Movie guide will read: "Sea of Sand SEE: Desert Patrol": "Desert Patrol....Staunch account of British patrol attempting to blow up an Axis fuel dump..."

This is rated a Good Article; keeping an entire section which is unreferenced, with several "citation needed" tags should be a no-no, and this is spelled out under Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Criteria "An article can be failed without further review if, prior to the review, it has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid. These include cleanup, POV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, citation needed, clarifyme, or similar tags." Accordingly I have modified that section into a redirect, rather than an unreferenced commentary on the films. ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 00:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Good solution, that works. - Ahunt (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem - I'm just kicking myself that I'd completely forgotten about the doco Lost in Libya! ◆Min✪rhist✪rian◆MTalk 08:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

An LRDG patrol appears (with Peter Arne playing an LRDG officer) at Siwa Oasis in one scene in Ice Cold in Alex. IIRC, Sea of Sand is explicitly about the LRDG but as I haven't seen it for ages I may be wrong. I seem to remember the LRDG badge appearing in it somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem, brief appearances would not be notable enough to include anyway, even with a reference. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)