Jump to content

Talk:Royal Green Jackets

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

Rifles

[edit]

I'm under the impression of Rifles = Light Infantry these days. The term 'Rifles' went out with the musket I think. Red7 13:28, 17 May 2006.

Oddly enough, the regiment is merging with a number of other regiments to become known as "The Rifles".
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.215.144 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 1 December 2006

VCs

[edit]

Can someone find a citation about the VC's? I know that the RGJ have been awarded 55 out of 1355 VC's but was under the impression that the Army Medical Corps have been awarded more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.215.144 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 1 December 2006

Linkage to RGJ VCs:
http://www.army.mod.uk/royalgreenjackets/reg_heritage/vc_history/vcs_list.html
I count 56.
Linkage to RAMC VCs:
http://www.army.mod.uk/212fdhosp/the_victoria_cross.htm
31.
Bert Preast 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs of war

[edit]

I read this unit was in fact dishonourably dissolved and its flag officially burned as a sign of shame after three of its soldiers went on a series of rape-murders, killing some local and one Scandinavian young women in Cyprus? 82.131.210.162 (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The three soldiers in question were discharged from the army with no communication to the regiment. They were sentenced by a court in Cyprus and sent to prison there. The regiment was amalgamated with the Light Infantry who themselves were previously amalgamated with other regiments. I served in the same battalion and I am certainly NOT a rapist or murderer!
Andy.
62.173.110.164 (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooncat (Ex 3RGJ): Unit had an honourably history, dotted with a few incidents...show me a regiment that has a completely clean sheet?. As the RGJ carried no colours (flag) this wasn't burnt, changes made were just due to a re-organisation of the Army in 2007. Three Soldiers of the regiment did disgrace themselves in Cyprus in 1994, attacked and killed a Danish Tour Guide...this is fully covered on it's own page and shouldn't take space up on a basic page about a mainly decent regiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.97.134 (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International controversy section

[edit]

Twice the International controversy section has been deleted, the second time with the comment, "actions of 3 individuals whilst off duty should not be on recorded here". I'm of the opinion that the information is accurate and relevant to the article. I'm seeking other views here to see if there's a consensus one way or the other. Please comment below. -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three times now. Can we discuss this? -- Pemilligan (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this section is allowed to be retained, then this should be consistent across all articles that discuss military units. Each article should have a section that details any crimes that any unit members have been involved - off duty or not. ...or is this section just in place because it is sensational?216.107.194.166 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with IP above. This is not at all relevant to a regimental history, and smacks of sensationalism/memorialism. Retained as a See also link should anybody - although it seems unlikely - visit this article looking for information about the crime. JenniferGovernment 18:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Customary Rifles drill

[edit]

In the text of the article one finds "[The] RGJ marches at 140 paces per minute (at a 15" pace) whereas other regiments march at just 120 (with an 18" stride)." Now, I was a bit of a drill pig once, but not of the British flavour, so I find it odd that the pace is described as 18 inches for the standard 120/minute. I remember a standard pace as a 30 inches when marching at the quick, 33 inches if ordered to "Step OUT," 21 inches if ordered to "Step SHORT" and the standard check pass for executing drill movements on the march as 15 inches. In double time, the natural tendency is to lengthen the stride--a 15" pace at 140/minute would be very uncomfortable; I seem to recall it as 40 inches.

Thoughts?Ab.chaplin (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are correct

Kernel Saunters (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand the reference to a 15" or 18" pace: seems much too short. Also as 140*15<120*18 it would mean that RGJ were SLOWER, not FASTER than other infantry. I have changed the pace for RGJ to 30" as this is supported by the citations. I deleted the 18" pace for non-RGJ as I feel it is wrong but I do not know the right answer. I felt that no information was better than wrong information. Perhaps someone can supply the correct figure. Exbrum (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname origin

[edit]

In the side box, the nickname is given as relating to senior officers. I had heard a different origin story.

I thought the nickname was given unfavourably during the Northern Ireland Troubles, when RGJ played a substantial role in the British Army's involvement. My understanding was that the nickname was intended as an accusation that the regiment was more heavy handed on patrol than it should have been.

Has anyone else heard a similar explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.209.123 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Green Jackets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An editor has twice added the unsourced comment "The Royal Green Jackets have lost the copyright to the graphic design of the cap badge worn by the men who served, it is now owned by MEMORIAL AT PENINSULA LTD." Quite apart from the fact that it is extraordinary that the regiment has "lost the copyright" (because copyright of regimental insignia is owned by the Crown) the claim is unsourced and the editor says "this can be checked out in letters and copyright numbers all are listed with a solicitor". Per WP:CITE and WP:RS, the onus is on the editor to apply a citation, not on readers to have to contact a solicitor. Dormskirk (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Green_Jackets&oldid=1203391966"