Talk:Pathfinder Platoon

POV and unreferenced tags in the history section

Can reason be given for these claims?

Text has been extracted from eye witnesses and news report via The Times of London publication.

I'd suggest reviewing the guidance on verifiability at WP:V, and if you're using the Times as a source then cite it when you do. You should be able to get links from the Times website, although reportage does carry its own health warning in terms of balance and verifiability. Should you use the newspaper as a source this needs to be made clear in the text so that the reader can come to their own conclusion. I'd also suggest that you review WP:COI, from the photos that you're uploading you are appear to be closely associated with the platoon, or at least have been in the past, therefore you are subject to a conflict of interest over the representation in the article.

Additionally I think you're going in to far more detail than is useful in an encyclopedic article on the platoon.ALR 18:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Current issues

The article is unreferenced, therefore inherently non-verifiable and liable to deletion of huge chunks.

The current tone is too detailed and self aggrandizing, it lacks balance. This leads onto the POV issue.ALR 21:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is full of good infomation. Someone has gone way over the top with the "citation needed".

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent removal of fact tags

I have gone through and reinserted a range of fact tags in the article, please see the policy on verifiability at WP:V with regard to assuring the accuracy of the article. {{fact}} tags should not be removed without justification and given the issues around deep patrol units it is particularly useful to have some firm information around the organisation, within the constraints of operational sensitivity. Items where verification has been requested, and not supplied, are liable to deletion.

I have also tightened up some of the language, put words in the right order etc, and removed some non core material. I'd recommend applying the principles of service writing learned on your command courses; brevity, accuracy, clarity as a useful headmark.ALR 07:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I've found references to some of this on the Army intranet, but they're RES so not usable as far as I'm concered because they're not verifiable if you don't have access to the Intranet.ALR 13:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Armed Forces Pay Review Body report 2005, dated Feb 2005 and issued by HMSO provides some references that you can use for High altitude parachuting, high rate of transfer to SF and the time outside the UK. although as with any Pay review it carries caveats about verbal reporting.ALR 15:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been through the article and removed a lot of the {{fact}} tags that were unnessary. Things like if you fail the course you are RTU'd is not going to be found in a referencable document, it just is that way. It would be saying if you turned up late for the train you would miss it, and then demand a reference for that. The article is very full, and it does need a lot more referencing to make it encyclopedic. I would suggest that the primary authors work through the remain fact tags and find relevant sources. "Snorkel | Talk" 21:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Of those that you've removed I'm going to add three back in, around the structure of the course and the suggestion that it's based on SF selection. Most Command Courses include time spent in the Brecons, ISTR a quite unpleasant four weeks up there myself but wouldn't describe the experience as having been based on SF. The other one I'll put back in is the status of the OC, with the majority of staff in an HQ being at the SO2 level most have direct access to the 1*. OTOH the access that allows one to go in and wake him up is worth mentioning but needs substantiated.ALR 21:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

ALR, having had a look at your reverts, they seem correct, and I agree with you on those points. How can we work together with the aim of removing the {{unreferenced}}, {{POV}} & {{originalresearch}} tags? "Snorkel | Talk" 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll note from this talk page that I've come up with some suggestions for sourcing however there appears to be a distinct lack of engagement. Personally I'd be content if there could be some sourcing for the my dad is bigger than your dad type stuff.

I think the snag with the OR issue is that the majority has been written by an ex PF soldier, and without corroboration it has to remain, unref is similar. POV can be dealt with once there is some substance.

ALR 22:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Selection and training

I've had a good look through the vaious DCIs and DINs that are used to recruit to organisations such as Pathfinder Platoon today and I've been unable to corroborate it being open to RAF and RN. I have found a reference to it being a multi-cap badge organisation but that's it. Do you have any reference which can be used to corroborate it? TIAALR 15:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Pegasus Archive

The link to the pegasus archive is useful, but there are clear verifiability issues with it. The site is essentially privately published so is inherently unreliable, there is no peer review or validation of the content. Are there any books which could be used as a source, academic histories would be best since they're subject to a level of peer review.ALR 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Question wrt personnel

The table of personnel covers a multitude of origins, is that intended to imply everyone who has gone through Cadre or everyone who operates with the Platoon. I'm conscious that the Recce force includes a lot more than just the pathfinder element, so this division should be made clear. I also have some difficulty with the concept that someone having gone through SF selection would revert back to pathfinder employment? I can think of two scenarios; a former 22 Officer having completed his tour then serves a subsequent tour with PF (and is therefore not 22 but with his parent cap badge) or someone serving as an instructor. Can that be clarified as it clearly jars with the later claim that many go on from PF to SF Selection.ALR 18:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

List of {{fact}} tags

List the Fact tags below, and then either find a reference, or provide suitable debate on why they should be removed from the article. The purpose of this exercise is to remove the POV dispute tag. "Snorkel | Talk" 21:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Command issue - for Archangel

Please provide a citation for C2 of the platoon being removed from 16AAB and raised to Div level, at present the Army website, as referenced, identifies the platoon as a Brigade asset.ALR 20:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This infomation has been provided by a senior, serving member of the Platoon. The Army website is a very poor source of infomation and cannot be relied upon for accurate and up to date infomation. Much of the data on this site is out dated. I trust you will refrain from adjusting futher changes and you will return the piece to it unaltered state.

Archangel1

My bezzy oppo said is not an acceptable reference I'm afraid, I've previously referred you to WP:V and I'd advise you to refer to it again. Whilst the Army website may be woefully out of date, it is currently available and meets the requirements.

ALR 20:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

moved from user talk page to centralise discussion

If you are going to make unaccurate changes at least discuss the matter before hand. Most of the changes you have made to the Pathfinder Platoon piece are false and there also a large number of grammatical errors. As has been high lighted in the Talk page, most of the sources you have used are both inaccurate or out dated. My sources are affiliated to the unit and the 16 A.A.B. Archangel1

Frankly I don't really care who your sources are, if it's not documentary it doesn't meet the verifiability requirements of Wikipedia.

I'd be grateful if you'd identify the grammatical errors you think I've made, and indeed the factual errors. Once you outline them, then we can try to find a way forward with resolving the issues.

ALR 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if that's all a bit blunt. There is potential to turn this into a good article, I don't think nit'll get to Featured because of the nature of the subject and the lack of reliable sources.

Lots of areas of Wikipedia fail to reflect reality, because of the reliance on documentary sources. tbh the use of a TV programme isn't really acceptable but I don't have any real issue with the point you're using it to support.

Your current knowledge can help this article a lot, but I'm far more familiar with writing of this type, and how to integrate the article in the wider corpus of material.

ALR 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Security etc section

I've deleted some un-referenced stuff that seems to confuse some elements of SF practice with PF who are very much a 'Green Army' unit albeit an undoubtable elite within an elite. The statments made certainly don't hold around Colchester etc. If you can cite a reliable referece otherwise I'd be happy to see it re-instated.Smidsy999 (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As already point out, The PF are NOT Special Forces. They are an specialsit advance force. They are NOT are a strategic asset, they are a tactical asset. The reason why that they are under a veil of secrecy is because they 'Prone To Capture' soldiers. The people who you asked in Colchester were either misinformed (as people are about the PF including Parachute Regiment soldiers) or are suffering from professional jealousy (something which is all to common on Wikipedia). Nobody is 'bigging up' the unit, mearly giving an insight into its make up (Archangel1 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)).

I've tried to tone it down a bit and removed the supposition around reasons. It does need a citation, as does so much of the rest of the article, but hopefully a more neutral wording will suffice.

ALR (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Refs

All parts of the article have been deleted. All those that remove bits and bobs should look at themselves and see weather they are mearly enforcing their POV as opposed to constuctive editing. Maybe they should get a grip and have more input rather then being selective. As per Wiki rules, if it aint got a ref, it aint going in (Archangel1 (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)).

That doesn't give you the right to go sawing through wikipedia deleting content without trying to find sources or discussing it. Toddst1 (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You cant have it both ways! Cherry picking info to delete without refs is unacceptable. If some points are to be left in at the behest of a small number of people controvenes the ethos of Wikipedia (Archangel1 (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)).

Deletion nom?

I've found an incomplete deletion nomination for this article created by User:Jim Sweeney on 29 March, but can find no evidence of an AfD tag on the article itself. I've tried to repair the nomination page, but leave it to the regular editors to decide how this goes ahead. -- saberwyn 04:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been removed and a Notability Tag added to this article. I find it hard to believe it meets the guidelines as its only a 30 man platoon of 16 AA Bde. Other much larger units in the brigade do not have their own articles and what is here is speculation and only one of the refs even mentions the platoon and that is attributed to a unnamed military source. Its not mentioned at all on the British Army's Parachute Regiment page [1] and on 16 AA Bde's page its called the Pathfinder Group [2] --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• 16 Air Assault Brigade Headquarters and Signals Squadron (216 Parachute Signal Squadron)
• 1st Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment (27th (Inniskilling), 83rd, 87th & Ulster Defence Regiment)
• 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment
• 3rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment
• Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 5th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland
• 7th (Parachute) Regiment Royal Horse Artillery
• 21 Air Assault Battery 47th Regiment Royal Artillery
• 3rd Regiment Army Air Corps
• 4th Regiment Army Air Corps
• 9th Regiment Army Air Corps
• 23 Regiment (Air Assault), Royal Engineers
• 7th Air Assault Battalion, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers
• 13 Air Assault Support Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps
• 16 Medical Regiment, Royal Army Medical Corps
• 156 Provost Company, Royal Military Police
• Pathfinder Platoon

• hello, you aught to watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uKwpPGgfEQ - this semingly proves their exisistence, it also highlights osme other things of interest, includiong the fact they are equipped with what seem to be C8 Carbines. I might just add to that page them as a list of users with that above referebce/citation.--Tom of north wales (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

References

AFD

This article went through AFD, the verdict was redirect/merge into the parent article. If you disagree with that conclusion, you are free to take it to DRV. Discuss it with the closing admin. But at this point, simply reverting the article back to the pre-afd close article is not acceptable. The time to put in your two cents was during the AFD. In order to recreate this page, we would need something signifciantly different/expanded and/or a separate discussion reaching the conclusion that separate articles are required.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I can not seen any just reason to merge the Platoon with the Brigade. I makes no sense. The unit has enough history and kudos to warrant its own page. Archangel1 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

then you should have raised that concern at the AfD or start another discussion and try to gain consensus now. The AfD ran for a week and the position calling for a merge was pretty lop-sided, unmerging this at this point is tantamount to recreating a deleted article... it'll rightfully be undone and like a person who repeatedly recreates a deleted article could lead to being blocked. Review the AFD and get the independent sources that people felt were lacking showing that this individual unit was noteworthy outside of the parent unit and go from there. Oh yeah, taking this to DRV won't result it the decision being overturned, I've looked over the AFD again and it was very one sided in favor of the merge.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think what you need to consider is: has the platoon ever conducted an independent operation ? and if 16 AA Brigade was disbanded what would happen to the platoon would it also be disbanded or remain as an independent platoon ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Independent operations dont mean anything. Many units work in tandem with other units so I don't understand your point. This is not a normal 30 man unit and were it an US military outfit, it would be deemed as Special Forces. I think it is wrong to clear away the good work others have done on a whim or what is a personal POV. The unit has been involved in many key operations and have their own tale to tell and there are numerous good ref's out there, or there was when I last edited on Wiki. A very poor decision and one that smacks of enthusiastic editing or maybe something deeper Archangel1 (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to be able to show/prove that and in a manner that isn't essentially recreating the same article that was merged. AND/OR you need to get consensus to recreate the article. Again, the AfD was open for a week. There was one keep one "keep or merge" and every other person who participated said delete or merge/redirect. Personally, I wish there were another avenue to take (I have an article that I believe should exist, but was deleted per an AFD before I even wanted to write it) but the consensus of the AFD was pretty clear. Was it right? I honestly don't know, I'm not familiar enough with the Pathfinders/16; but that is the draw back of consensusolog, which is what WP is. But without substantive changes or some sort of discussion saying "create an article" recreating it will be frowned upon (and like I said be viewed in the same light as somebody who constantly recreates an article that was deleted via AFD.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not been here for some time and missed 'the window'. You have the same problem as most of the people that edit on here in that by your own admission - you not familiar with the topic. If that is the case, should you and people like you edit the page. Please dont take that as a personal attack, it is mearly a statement of my view. The unfortunate thing with Wikipedia is that there are too many 'editors' on here who act like Little Hitler's and claim to be the font of all knowledge. Cherry picking what they feel suits and what doesn't, in bewtween sessions down at the pointball or games of Call of Duty. Archangel1 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the first to admit that I am not familiar with either, and I suspect half the people involved with the AFD aren't active with military articles---which is a failing of WP. The article I want, but can't create for similar reasons, is one where people unfamiliar with my area of interest (Poker) deleted the article without notifying the project or anybody involved with it. Unfortunately, it happens, but that's the system we have here, but the people not familiar with the Pathfinders reviewed the article and didn't see it as distinct enough from the 16 to warrant its own article. Again, there are some options available to you, none of them ideal 1) come up with more facts/sources and rewrite an article that isn't the same as the one that was merged (if it is substantively different from the one that was merged, then the AFD won't apply or 2) get people involved on the talk page of the 16 to agree that a break out article is necessary---perhaps get WP:milhist involved. If you can get a discussion to say, "split" then you can point to that as a more recent discussion than the AFD... that may or may not work, but it is an avenue to try. Trust me, I feel for you, but there are those (some here) who obviously disagree with you and that's the way the AfD Crumbles.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Roger that Balloonman, fairplay for the info. Its due to some of the tin-pot editors on here that led me to take a step back from it. My issue is that you have these people on here that come from units that probably lack the kudos of Pathfinders or other respected units and vent their spleen by taking good WP pages down as some petty act of retribution. So, if the hat fits. Archangel1 (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)