Talk:Special Boat Service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Special Boat Service has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article 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.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Scuba diving (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Scuba diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Scuba diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 

Black Troop[edit]

Someone deleted the text about the Black Troop in M company. Does this troop still exist? If so, we should re-insert that text. Anthony Appleyard 10:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Haven't heard anything recently that suggests M Squadron's done away with Black Troop. But then again, who outside the Shakies and similar would really know? Mmm... --UD75 18:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Motto[edit]

The article's introduction has the SBS' motto as the established "Not By Strength, By Guile". Yet, if you do some looking around on the British military's page for the SBS reserve, on the newer knife insignia that replaced the older frog and parachute one, the motto is changed to "By Strength, By Guile". Long story short, did they change the motto or was it some honest mistake? Anyone able to clear this one up for me? --UD75 22:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC).....i thought that it was "by guile,not strength"...Bullseye30 22/10/2013

I would believe that it is a mistake. I served with a similar unit and these mistakes are made often. I would stick with "Not By Strength, By Guile" (User ID witheld) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.133.239.211 (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The motto changed with the formation of DSF and name change from SB Sqn to Special Boat Service.Blackshod (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Badge[edit]

This badge is not mod property and not a free badge this badge has a Copyright. we own the copyright to this badge the information on how this was all made possible will be released very soon. We have a letter from the Queen saying thank you to us on the day the Queen in our presence gave the second badge made by ourselves to a SBS soldier. THE first badge that was issued will all come clear from the book and website under construction.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.97.94 (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are making the above up, not least since (albeit there are soldiers in the SBS) most who know them would use the term Marine (or Royal Marine) not Soldier.Blackshod (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It would seem inaccurate and, while I believe that the official term is 'Swimmer-Canoeist' as they now recruit cross-service, most are still Marines, and refering to them as 'soldiers' would be incorrect. All that aside the specific image has been given permission to be used and the likeness has a sound fair use rational. --Nate1481 10:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The specialisation is SC, in the same way that one might be Communicator, Communications Technician or Combat Intelligence specialists. The rate remains Mne, Cpl, Sgt etc although I agree the general point by Blackshod above, the term would not be soldier.
Fair use is reasonable in this case.
ALR (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahh right, just showing the gaping holes in my knowledge of military terminology. Out of interest what would say, a guardsmen, who passed selection be referred to as? All SA members start as 'troopers' is there an equivalent? 2/3rds of my knowledge on them come from this article so it might be worth including for other readers. --Nate1481 14:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
In the case of the SAS Trooper is the rank, equivalent to Private. In the case of SCs then the equivalent rank/ rate is Marine. A non-Royal candidate passing selection would be loaned from the parent regiment, rather than transferred into the RM, hence would retain their normal form of address. I'm speculating as I've never worked with non RM or RN SCs.
ALR (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm its not going to be easy to get a definitive answer on that then. Ah well, Thanks for the info. --Nate1481 16:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Black Troop/ Motto[edit]

A couple of things: What should be said about the motto is: the OFFICIAL motto of the SBS is "by strength and guile" !! kind of important. The UNOFFICIAL motto is "not by strength by guile". the men themselves like this motto better and have chosen it. there are two SBS badges: the unofficial one with two crossed muskets, a frog descending in a parachute and the words "not by strength by guile". the official badge looks a lot like the SAS badge, but in blue and black, without the wings and only saying "by strength and guile". i have photos of both badges but as I am not a member of wikipedia i have no power to upload them. if anybody, however, should be interested in uploading them, however, they could contact me by email: ecrk@online.no . there could also be quite a lot added to the part of Selection, such as having to pass SAS selection first, then going across to the SBS; carrying klepper canoes to the top of Pen Y Fan during selection, etc etc etc. Also: it is not confirmed and has at no time been confirmed that the number of "Swimmer Canoeists" within the SBS is "approx 100". this number is kept secret for reasons of national security and the assumption of 100 could be either right or wrong; it is no more than an assumption. i advise to remove that number from the article as there is no way of knowing if it is right. If anybody needs other info about the SBS feel free to contact me via the previously stated email address.

I contacted the above poster and have added the official SBS badge to the main article. The only version of the unofficial (but better known) "parachuting frog" badge that I can upload to wikipedia is the following drawing, which I've posted here so every knows what we are talking about. Yorkshire Phoenix (talkcontribs) 12:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Para wings worn in SBS[edit]

Do Swimmer-Canoeists wear special forces "Egyptian" para wings (on left) or standard British para wings (on right), as the recent edit suggests? Yorkshire Phoenix (talkcontribs) 13:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In my experience they wear SF wings, on the left.ALR 13:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

On a similar note: do they wear green or thorn (sand coloured/"beige") berets, and is it "Swimmer-Canoeist" or "SBS Marine"? Yorkshire Phoenix (talkcontribs) 13:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The specialisation is Swimmer Canoeist so they're known as SCs. They're Marines so they wear the Green lid. Some choose to remain with 22 after completing SF selection, rather than going on to SB selection, and are badged as such for the duration of their secondment before going back to the Corps. Qualified SCs or SC qualified officers may be seconded to 22 but I'm not sure what they'd do then.ALR 13:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I ask is because in recent television news coverage of a funeral (where the deceased was reported to have been a member of an SBS patrol by the media, but whose mod.uk obituary said Para Reg, elsewhere in my research the terms "special reconnaisance unit" and "the Special Forces Regiment" have popped-up) a sand coloured beret could clearly be seen on top of the coffin. Given that the SBS now recruits from the other services I guessed he was Para Reg on secondment to SBS, and that as they are part of UKSF they wear the sand coloured beret of the SAS (as I presumed also did the SRR and SFSG, given that SAS signals can wear it without even attempting SF selection). Yorkshire Phoenix (talkcontribs) 14:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's complicated :) MOD do not comment on SF matters and deaths in service are attributed to the original unit, given the medias propensity for calling anything and everything an SF Op then it's difficult to tell. Potentially SFSC supporting SB, possibly a combined patrol, possibly secondee.
Personnel attached to 22 wear the sand beret, I don't know about SFSC and SRR personnel apparently continue to wear the headgear (uniform?) of their parent unit. The Press photos of the SRR formation showed a whole range of different uniforms on parade.
If the soldier was not a Royal Marine at any time, he had not completed the Commando Course, he would not have earned green headdress, therefore IF he was serving with the SBS he would wear either the sand colored beret that he earned during selection, or the maroon lid he earned at Depot. However as far as which beret was placed atop his casket, that would have been a decision made by him previously and communicated to his peers.Cockbeard 03:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
SF Communicators have their own selection, I can't remember the detail but it's about 4 months long and involves a slightly less intense physical phase of 4 weeks then some of the more generic SF training.ALR 14:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I was wrong. SF wings, on the right shoulder.ALR 10:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


i think we need more on training, such as expected times etc for ceratin tasks. similar to the US navy seal article. i would imagine that much of the criteria r probably secret but i know there are many books written by ex-SBS so im sure information could be found and this this could be far improved upon.

Pratj 22:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


According to the Royal navy site, both Brigade Patrol Troop and SBS are parachute-trained at RAF Brize norton. Both the navy and MoD websites show photo's of Marines wearing the standard parachute wings badge. Look for yourself. Tashtastic 15:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your useful insight. All parachute training is carried out at Brize, including that for the UKSF. And do you really think that given the sensitivity about the SBS that the RN would be posting pictures of members of the Service on its web site. By far the majority of RM that I've worked with wear standard wings, since a great many go through the jump training, Commando Course is an equivalent of Pre-Para completed by the Parachute regiment. OTOH some former SBS choose to revert to the regular jump badge, since it doesn't draw attention to their heritage as operators, thereby creating a PERSEC risk.ALR 15:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not clear if they are BPT or SBS in the photo's. Check for yourself. If not, what do you mean by Special Forces wings? The same type as listed in the SAS article? Tashtastic 17:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The Brigade Patrol Troop wear conventional parachute wings, since they're not SF, they do the standard jump course. SF wings are upward sweeping so that the top of the badge is horizontal with a dome where the canopy is, and the lower edge has a small discontinuity right at the bottom where the lines of the parachute come together.ALR 17:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


If it was originally called the Special Boat Section, then later the Special Boat Squadron, why is it listed in Wikipedia as Special Boat Service? -- Daran 23:09, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

  • It was renamed again in 1987 - I've added a bit to the History section. Franey 10:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • What's the relationship with the Special Operation Executive, Special Operations Executive, SOE? Guttlekraw 15:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I seem to remember the SBS were the first British (or allied?) ground forces into action in both the Falklands and Gulf Wars. Can someone confirm this, and add to the article if accurate? 81.131.235.13 15:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is true, they were active in the Falklands a whole month before the SAS User:86.139.246.191 20:34, 24 October 2005

Refs[edit]

This article needs work on the refs otherwise more deletions will be carried out (Archangel1 (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)).

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). That being said, I don't recommend wholesale deletion as you have embarked upon. Toddst1 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Archangel1, rather than threatening to delete things, you could help find sources yourself. --Nate1481 09:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I dont have to. The people who added the text should source the ref's themselves rather doing halfhearted edits. Lazy editors are the bane of Wikipedia and only contribute to the burden of other editors hence the wholehearted deletion of text. There has been enough prompts in the past. (Archangel1 (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)).
Well maybe they are not here any more as the article was largely written over 2 years ago with only organisational and cosmetic changes since. Fact tagging prominent things is fine, but what you did was simply petty and not aimed at being productive. Tag a fewe of things that are important (like people having been in the SBS) but over tagging is not going to improve the article. --Nate1481 12:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S. i can't edit much as I'm @ work making source search particularly hard, and by simple application of clicking on a couple of links I found two good sources. Now if there were statements saying that the SBS were at the heart of the British space program, then removing it rather than tagging it would be the way forward as that is quiet dubious, but saying that the work in naval counter terrorism is more than plausabel so a cite request is apropreate if 5 minuets on google dosen't kick up something usable. --Nate1481 13:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
A few minuets on google turns up this [1] a potential source or place to start with, I don't have time to play 'match the info to the source' right now so maybe you could help? --Nate1481 13:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Well done. This and many other military articles could do with the same attention and as I said, its not upto me to go sourcing ref's for articles as I have been doing so for a long time and feel thatit should be down to those people that add the original text onto the article. Most of these military articles are writen by airsofters, service people on a tea and toast break and wannabes. There are very few people on here that have an actual source knowledge. It makes difference what the text says and your point about the space program is pointless. Ref's are required otherwise the whole system breaks down on here. Refs are not only a source of verification but also used by a reader to look-up source martial for study or interest (Archangel1 (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)).

<-Did you read the bit about the bulk of the text & info bein over two years old? --Nate1481 14:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and the people who made the edits are still on Wikipedia. Listen, I'm not intrested in getting into a debate about this. The articles 2 years old and it ref's. Thats it. People only get themselves into gear once deletions are made. They are quite happy to sit back with fact tags everywhere despite the fact that those very same tags flag up to a reader that this article cannot stand up on its own two feet. I've had the same problem on articles before and the whole reason behind is that it shakes people up into doing something about it. I'm not aimming anything at you, its editors as whole on these Mil pages that are lazy and dont add refs. DONT TAKE IT PERSONALLY!!!!! (Archangel1 (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC))
Why don't you look for some of the refa? This is a collaborative project not a battle ground (irony unintended but it works) A less abrasive attitude such as finding some sources & a note on the talk page saying 'I deleted these bits as I was unable to find sources, can you help' will produce better resluts, in the long term. --Nate1481 14:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Archangel1 on this, some of the Military pages on here, especially those of 'elite' units seem to have peen put together by 15 year old boys after reading 'Andy McNab' and a few dodgy websites. A lot (most in fact) of what is on this page is correct but if it can't be referenced it shouldn't be on here WP:V is pretty clearBlackshod (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
So fix it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Have you actually looked at the recent edits? It has been, at least partially, in that [citation needed] tags are now there and if references are not forthcoming the relevant bits will be deleted - it's only fair to give time to come up with them if they exist.Blackshod (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
So add them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Do stop making trite little comments - either try looking at the recent edits and the discussion and coming up with a sensible contribution or step away from the keyboard. If you had made an effort you would have noted that I and others have added references where we can and that a lot of the stuff in these articles, even some of the correct bits, is unverifyable. Blackshod (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
One of the snags with an article like this is having enough of an article to remain credible, yet avoid the headbangers that want to come up with the superparacommandounderwaterknifefighter articles. Given the paucity of credible sources around the topic there are some challenges, we'd end up with a perpetual stub article which probably wouldn't pass notability criteria.
As Blackshod identifies, the majority of this article is fairly accurate, although some of it is now quite out of date and probably doesn't reflect the current situation. The only credible, and current source, around the selection process for example is classified, there isn't even a memoir available that talks about the current process since the creation of UKSF group. There are two books that have some credibility but one of them reflected the selection process in the late 70s, early 80s and the other is a longer period history which I think runs out in the late 70s.
As an example, the Britains small wars website is generally quite accurate, but doesn't meet the WP:RS criteria.
The risk is that by taking a particularly pure approach we reflect a pre-CORPORATE force, not the current capability which is fairly different.
I think it needs a reasoned discussion, although all this debate here was largely prompted by a persistent desire to remove the citation requests in the Pathfinder article, rather than either offer sources up or works around the difficulty presented.
ALR (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I'd say the motivation for this debate is an attempt at some form of standardisation of military articles. People can not have one rule for one article and another for a different one. I am only to aware that it can seem unlawful to delete data that you have spent time adding but at the end of the day there will always be someone coming along to rectify it. Elite or Special Forces units articles are always going to be a victim of references due to their very nature. As has been stated, most data of merit is classified or out dated so in my view the structure of these articles should reflect that. The bench mark must surely be to have smaller, fact filled pages rather then what the Sunday Sport is flagging up as an exclusive (Archangel1 (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)).

Questions re Father's discharge papers[edit]

Hello,

My name is Colleen. csabrc@hotmail.com

I've come across my Dad's service records. He's left everything to me. His beret, his dagger, his medals (which he said came out with the rations). I knew he joined the Royal Marines and became a Commando by 1944 but under swimming qualifications there is just sbs. No capitals and no signature unlike all his other deployments.

I've hit a dead end. I swear the old man left this to me for a reason. He knew I'd pick at a scab.


—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.134.218 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Notable members on articles[edit]

My question is what makes a notable member ? Just because Tommy Atkins served in a unit, does not make him notable but General T Atkins would I presume qualify. User:Blackshod has added a number of names as they had Obituaries in the Daily Telegraph. So I think what I'm asking is.. Does having an obituary bestow notability. Also added to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history# Notable members on articles for input. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Paul McGough - Battle of Qala-i-Jangi – Possibly notable if confirmed he was a CGC recipient otherwise nothing to suggest notable
  • Colonel Richard Pickup CBE – A field ranking officer who commanded the SBS. nothing to suggest he's notable.
  • Richard Van Der Horst - Former CO Special Boat Service – Co of the SBS who died in an accident - its been reported by the BBC this week that 49 Lt.Colonels have died or been killed while in command since 1946 so nothing to suggest he's notable.

Having a obituary does not 'bestow notability', but it may be an indication of notability, i.e. reading it may tell you weather or not they were notable or lead to further sources. If nothing further theses three should be removed. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Restored these as longstanding entries for which no consensus for removal has been shown. a major obiturity let alone several is prima face evidence of notability 62.103.65.154 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
See above --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite the views expressed this is now disputed, I have raised the issue again on the MilHist talk page.ALR (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

SBS Motto[edit]

The motto shown for the SBS is incorrect

it should read "Not by Strength by guile"

(Jscallop (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

jscallop

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However you may want to look closely at the cap badge illustration before deciding that you are correct. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I'm confused. What is the exact motto of the SBS? You would have thought that this was an easy question to answer - however there are different sources giving each version:

  1. "By strength and guile"
  2. "Not by strength by guile"

The cap badge illustration seems to show version one; however this cap badge shows version 2. The Sun newspaper shows a cap badge (new in 2003) with version 1. The Guardian newspaper gives version 2. The BBC gives version 2. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a prevailing opinion that the motto was changed (in 1987?) from V2 to V1 when the name was changed from Squadron to Service. I find several unreliable sources saying this, but no RS to confirm it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Organisasiont/Chanof command UKSF/RM[edit]

I was under the impression that it is an RM unit on permanent attachment to UKSF, in a similar manner to how 1 Para & F company have now been made a permanent part of the SFSG. They are list on the Royal Marines article as being part of the RM but under operational command of UKSF is that right? --Nate1481 14:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Broadly yes.
SBS are under full Command of CINCFLEET, exercised through CGRM as professional head of Royal. That means that Fleet owns them for funding, operational capability, support and personnel management. Non RM/ RN in the SBS are on loan service to RM. Operational command is exercised through DSF.
In the context of the info-box DSF doesn't have the same legal basis as RM, so they are an RM unit but their allocation comes from HQ DSF.
ALR (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Got to love military bureaucracy... So the info box is correct to say "branch=Royal Marines" --Nate1481 08:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The alternative would be DSF taking responsibility for recruiting and training their own people, a significant financial and operational burden. It makes far more sense to have someone else act as a first filter.
Military operations are almost exclusively joint nowadays, hence the media (and political) debate about funding completely missing the point much of the time.
ALR (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

I have removed the criticism section because a) criticism sections are a bad idea b) the entire section was unreferenced, and the only support for it I could find on the net was a not-provably-reliable website. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Name?[edit]

So, when was it finally named Special Boat Service? Last mentioned unit's name in article is Special Boat Squadron. Pibwl ←« 18:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Pending changes[edit]

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from , 21 October 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

i would like to add information on sbs operations that are not listed on the sbs wiki page. 82.42.52.79 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What information and is it covered by a reliable source? Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Please make a specific request, and add another {{edit semi-protected}}. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  08:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Royal Navy -> Naval Service[edit]

According to Naval Service (United Kingdom), Royal Navy and Royal Marines, the SBS is not part of the Royal Navy, but of the Naval Service (via Royal Marines). Currently, Wikipedia is inconsistent. Please change this article to reflect the others.

If you disagree with the facts, start a discussion at Talk:Naval Service (United Kingdom). --91.10.10.224 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No the naval service has other elements like the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The article makes no claim that the SBS is not part of the RN. Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
1. So? 2. Which article? --91.10.10.224 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Requests must be made with a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail to use the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please also provide a relaible source for any factual changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, aren't you ashamed?
So, "please change "Royal Navy" to "Naval Service"". There. Better now?
The source is an article in Wikipedia, which I pointed out, and which has a reliable source. You should be less obvious in your IP hate. --91.10.10.224 (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. I am requesting the same things from you that I request from any SPER user. If you will supply them, someone can help you; otherwise, meh. Also, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, since anyone can edit them. Please supply the source from the article, or not, as you please, but don't expect people to do your work for you. Celestra (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
So you don't care that two articles DIRECTLY CONTRADICT each other? It's somehow my responsibilty to provide you with enough carrots to finally fix that? Really, again, do you not care that the articles contradict each other? Sorry, reeks like a bad case of wikilawyering to me. --91.10.10.224 (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't. You have chosen to use the {{edit semi-protected}} template to edit this article by proxy. I am one of many volunteers who monitor CAT:SPER and service these requests when they show up there. All you need to do is provide the exact change you want and a reliable source supporting that change and someone will be glad to come here and do that bit of typing for you. That is how the template works; it is not a {{order people about}} template or a {{bicker incessantly}} template, so please read it and either use it correctly or find a diferent solution. Celestra (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

SBS Critiical In Repelling Kabul Attack[edit]

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16211388 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.236.245 (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

== SBS (R) Regarding Selection information. Please change the number of miles required to be completed on a CFT (Combat Fitness Test) to 8 miles; at the moment it says 3!!!This is totally incorrect. (Serving member of 18 Sigs)

Edit request on 10 January 2013[edit]

SBS (R) Selection - Please change number of miles to be completed on a CFT from 3 miles to 8 miles please. I am a serving member of 18 Sigs and have had to do the bloody thing more times than i can remember over the last 7 years. Saying that we only have to complete 3 miles carrying 60ibs in just over an hour is quite frankly, insulting lol. And just in case you were wondering, the CFT is the same throughout the armed forces and that includes unconventional troops too. The only difference is, that we are sometimes required to undertake what are known as 'advanced CFT's; these can be as long in distance as 15 miles. SF/PARA/CMNDO Troops undertake these. Many thanks!

90.213.32.35 (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. While your effort to correct the article is much appreciated and I believe you, the policy on verifiability means we cannot take your word for it. Maybe you know of a reliable source we could cite? Rivertorch (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

SBS part of the RM or the RN?[edit]

The SBS is not part of the Royal Navy, it's part of the Royal Marines. The article contains a falsehood and should be fixed. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence should read: "The Special Boat Service (SBS) is the special forces unit of the British Royal Marines, and part of the British Naval Service."

The Infobox should read: "Branch Naval Service". --193.254.155.48 (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
"Like the SAS, the tough-as-nails Royal Marines section dates back to Winston Churchill's day"
BTW, I'm coming from Royal Marines: "The Royal Marines are organised into a light infantry brigade (3 Commando Brigade) and a number of separate units including the Special Boat Service, [...]." One of the two articles is wrong. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Vacation9 12:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
How about a simple "I just removed the protection" instead of templating me? --193.254.155.48 (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please provide evidence that the SBS is part of the Royal Navy? Thanks. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely part of the Royal Marines. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
As part of the UKSF the SBS is open to entrants from the army, navy and air-force. Its not a RM only formation and while I admit they majority of its members may have come from the RM I think the question here is that is the RM part of the Royal Navy? To the IP editor who provided the link when changing the text, that does not prove the SBS are part of the RM quote "The SAS recruit from the Army, the SBS predominantly from the Royal Marine Commandos" Its may also be of some interest to not that while the Royal Navy web site hosts the regular SBS page, the SBS reserve is on the army site [2] Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I have difficulties to understand what you are trying to say, please rephrase.
As far as I can see, you did not comment on David's source. Please do so.
In any case, please provide evidence that the SBS is part of the Royal Navy before changing the article to reflect that it does. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
David's source is the Royal Navy web site, so the Royal Marines is part of the navy. Sorry but as your wanting to change the article you have to provide a source to support your change. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
There is clear evidence on www.royalnavy.mod.uk that the RM is NOT part of the RN, see Talk:British Armed Forces#Contradiction. Do you have any other source?
Do you have evidence that the SBS is part of the RN? If you don't, please do not change the article to reflect this. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The Royal Navy's own web site would seem to contradict your position. See the Royal Marines page on the navy site.

Quote

  • "The Royal Marines are famous the world over as the Royal Navy’s soldiers at sea" [3]
  • "The Royal Marines' 3 Commando Brigade is the Royal Navy's amphibious infantry on permanent readiness to deploy across the globe, and is a core component of the UK's Joint Rapid Reaction Force." [4] Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
That only describes their function, which is not disputed.
Please comment on the sources named in Talk:British Armed Forces#Contradiction (best there). --193.254.155.48 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to ask them for an org chart. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Even that discussion refutes you position. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Now your are just making shit up. Nobody even questions my sources or my interpretation of them. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Could someone using Facebook ask them for an org chart URL? --193.254.155.48 (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sweeney, stop accusing me of vandalism just because you don't agree with me, as you did here. This IS considered to be a personal attack. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You were asked not to change the accepted version of the article, while the discussion was ongoing and/or provide reliable sources. You ignored that request several times. [5] You have still failed to provide any reliable sources to support your stance. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
That almost looks as if you want to explain why your personal attack is justified.
As I said on your talk page, educate yourself before making further contributions to Wikipedia; you might be wrong in assuming that you know what vandalism is and is not. Other editors you personally attack in the future might not be as lenient as I am.
BTW, you were asked to stop including unsourced material yourself and still did; am I now free to personally attack you? --193.254.155.48 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The lede does not need references, if you read the article the position is clear. But here you are - Commandos from the elite Special Boat Service are getting their own logo — to help them become as famous as the legendary SAS. Navy top brass reckon the undercover unit are just too secret and deserve more public recognition. Now a special cap badge has been designed to replace the Royal Marines logo members wear on their green berets. The SBS is also changing its Not By Strength, By Guile motto to the snappier By Strength and Guile. The makeover is part of an attempt by Royal Navy chiefs to match the SAS’s macho Who Dares Wins image. The new SBS logo shows a dagger facing upwards, with two blue lines through it portraying ocean waves. [6] Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
"The lede does not need references" - Cheap shot, the references are not only needed to add a tiny number somewhere, but to verify whether or not an information is actually true.
"if you read the article the position is clear." - I call bullshit on that, the word "navy" does not appear in the body of the article except for the lede.
So your best source for military matters is a tabloid? I guess you will understand that I am not terribly impressed. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So, since the Armed Forced Act of 2006 clearly shows that the Royal Marines are not part of the Royal Navy (see Talk:British Armed Forces#Contradiction), the remaining question is whether or not the SBS is part of the RM. Does someone hold the position that the SBS is not part of the RM? If so, do you have evidence (other than a tabloid) that the SBS is part of the RN? --193.254.155.48 (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No there are two references nos 1 and 2 that show the SBS is RN the one above dismissed as a tabloid and the Daily Telegraph quote "In the two years he commanded the SBS, Pickup relentlessly advanced its role as the Royal Navy's major contribution to UK Special Forces" Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, it is a tabloid, is it not? Just for future reference: Do you think that tabloids should be the primary source in military matters?
So your position is that the SBS is not part of the RM, but of the RN? --193.254.155.48 (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, is there anyone defending the position that the SBS is not part of the RM? --193.254.155.48 (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes see above with reference to the Daily Telegraph quote "In the two years he commanded the SBS, Pickup relentlessly advanced its role as the Royal Navy's major contribution to UK Special Forces" Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the SBS is no longer a part of the Royal Marines. Both the SAS and SBS have been moved to UKSF and are both open to applicants from all services. I really don't see why that is so hard to comprehend.ForwardObserver85 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The UKSF is a group of units under the command of the Director of Special Forces, not a service itself. Although the SAS, SRR and SAS are part of the UKSF, they are also part of there traditional service for ceremonial purposes only. The Royal Navy is not one of the three main services. The Naval Service is commonly called the Royal Navy as the Royal Navy effectively controls the Naval Service however they are not the same thing. The SBS is no longer commanded by the Naval Service, however is part of it (for ceremonial purposes). From what I can tell, there are many conflicting sources as to which sub-service it is part of however this really doesn't matter as it is no longer commanded by either. I would advise changing it from being part of the Royal Navy to being part of the Naval Service as it would be most accurate. Regards, Rob (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Regards, Rob (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Poll[edit]