Jump to content

User talk:Torinir/SOF UK Mediation

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

This page is for the mediation of the disputed content of Special Operations Forces of the United Kingdom

Please keep comments on topic, keep your cool, and stay civil towards one another.

I notice a lot of content was surreptitiously removed from this article by one person. I must argue that such removals should not occur without concensus. I'm here to make sure that edits to the article are done in a logical fashion and are agreed on before being made. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

surreptitiously removed calls into question your neutrality in this debate, as the deletions were highlighted in the talk page of the article, here. Might I suggest you fully investigate the situation before you make these changes in future.
User: Tashtastic has been invited a number of times to suggest units to be included, along with documentary evidence to support the suggestion, and has failed to do so. Given the absence of any real contribution as invited I'd suggest that illustrates the limited value of the article.
Notwithstanding that, my position on this is clear from the discussion page. The UK Armed Forces do not have 'Special Operations Forces' and most of the units listed are either discussed in other articles (eg the Parachute Regiment or 3 Commando Brigade.ALR 18:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The various issues as I see them:
  • There is no clear indication of what is meant by Special Operations. The Joint Doctrine of the UK Armed Forces as developed by the Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre does not include this, the division being Special Forces and Regular forces.
  • The UKSF Reserve logo is inappropriate, since the UKSF are dealt with in that article.
  • The first main section covers SF, which are dealt with in the UKSF article and should accordingly be removed.
  • Brigade Patrol Troop is dealt with elsewhere, as is FPGRM. It should be clear from the FPGRM that their role is protection of the Nuclear estate, this is not an SF role. BPT patrol beyond the Forward Edge of Battle Area, this is a conventional activity in the strategic and tactical doctrine of the UK.
  • Mountain & Arctic Warfare Cadre no longer exists and in any case was a training organisation. Mountain and Arctic warfare is not an SF role, but rather one of the prime roles of 3 Commando Brigade.
  • Pathfinder Platoon is a Parachute Regiment unit, part of 16 Air Assault Brigade, a regular army formation.
  • 8 Flight AAC is an element of the Special Forces Air Wing and therefore dealt with under the SF article.
  • 148 Battery is an element of 29 Regt Royal Artillery, a Commando trained element of 3 Commando Brigade
  • The section on Reserve Special Operations units refers to only one unit that is not handled under the SF article eg the HAC. 21 Regt and 23 Regt SAS, 63(V) Sqn R.Sigs a component of 18(SF) Sigs Regt and the SBS Reserve are all discussed in the SF article. HAC is an ISTAR asset which operates in beyond the Forward Edge of Battle Area, That is a regular army role and is fulfilled by other 'Green Army' Artillery units as well.
  • The elite units section does not justify why these units should be considered in a Special Operations context, accepting that at this time SOF remains undefined.
Comment - True, a good definition of what exactly is defined by SOF, especially in regards to the UK military, is a needed point.
If it's being considered that SOF == SF (which some may make such an assumption), we may just slap a merge tag on the article and stick in any non-duplicate info into UKSF, then redirect. We'll need to hear from the others involved. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • With reference to support units. 18 Sigs Regt is an element of UKSF and discussed in that article. The remaining units are elements of 3 Commando Brigade and discussed in that article.
  • The section Former Special Forces could be discussed under the SF article, not in a specious article. Notwithstanding that, Commachio Group was a precursor to FPGRM, its role was protection of the Nuclear estate. British Commandos were a Commando force and discussed under that article. Whether 95th Foot, as an early proponent of the skirmishing approach to infantry tactics could be considered as Special Forces or not is an interesting debate, I would tend to disagree but this is not the place for that discussion. 14 Int Coy could be considered as an SF unit, not a SOF unit.
Comment - Smells like semantics, but who am I to judge. :-p Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external link is spam and should be removed in accordance with WP:EL
Comment - Point taken. I've not been able to verify the link previously as most of my editing is done at work, and the proxy server there does block a number of sites. I'll check the site out. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note: I have removed the external link. It was not immediately relevant to the article and is solely advertising of a service. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a request with Tashtastic to have him comment here. Diff Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 16:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll n ote from the article talk page that Tashtastic has been invited to provide some form of substantive contribution a number of times and has trhus far failed to do so, which in itself makes this request for mediation somewhat disingenuous, IMO.ALR 23:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has until Aug 5, 2006 to reply to this Mediation. I don't like one-sided conversations, and without Tash around to bring his side of the issue forward, I cannot reasonably mediate this. If there is no response from Tashtastic by then, I'll close the MedCab case as neglected by requestor and submit the article to AfD. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, good to see a result. I didn't reply so far because I've been working. It's good to see the article brought back from almost nothing. As I see it, ALR's problem seems to be as you put it, semantics. If so, then the obvious thing to do is work on the article or title. Deleting the entire article is a very extreme and over-the-top reaction. Tashtastic 12:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much appreciate some effort from you to address the various issues outlined above, until such time as you do I would suggest that the article is ripe for deletion. It would be a demonstration of good faith to contribute something substantive rather than persist in making, what I perceive as, vacuous comments.ALR 13:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the content is substantially similar to the SFUK article, it may be sufficient to merge/redirect. However, ALR does have concerns that should be addressed. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assisted Tashtastic with the creation of this article for the very reason that the content does not belong in the UKSF article. UKSF is a one-star formation under the command of DSF and does not include PF, BTP, HAC, etc. Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is some history behind this. the article ws created to get rid of material from the UKSF article which was inappropriate. I'm not convinced that it was the right approach, each item of fanboy cruft could have been dealt with, but I understand the frustrations of the editors which led to this. The point is that most of the units can't reasonably be included as UKSF, they are regular units which have a level of mystique about them. There are one or two exceptions which have historically been SF units, and could be considered in that article, it is asserted that they are precursors to existing units, but that's it.ALR 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be the first to admit, with hindsight, that creating Special Operations units of the United Kingdom was not the best solution.

Suggestion: It's become clear that there is no real way of defining these regular units which have a level of mystique about them (other than the former SF units) but that we all know which units we are talking about. Might I suggest a workable compromise would be a simple link to the article for each unit in United Kingdom Special Forces#See also (even if they are red links), but without any kind of opening paragraph suggesting they are "Special Operations Forces" or "Elite" or anything else for that matter. This would simply be an acknowedgement that readers of the UKSF article may also be interested in these units, without suggesting anything that cannot be backed up. Would this be acceptable to Tashtastic? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better than nothing, but not good. It would be worth doing as a minimum.
As already stated, the UKSF article has a very limited definition and is therefore not the place for the content.
As you admit, ALR, the content does not belong in the UKSF article. It needs some other article to go on, so creating one just for it is the obvious and most efficient thing to do. If it is deleted, what do you propose to replace it with?

I already made clear before that I understand your point about the UK not having a separate, official category of 'Special Operations Forces'. In that case, the obvious thing to do would be to write that in the article, so it is clear from the beginning. A simple solution. Surely, there isn't a problem with that as well? Tashtastic 11:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't actually responded to the detailed points above which deal with this; addressing all but one of the listed formations.ALR 12:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've included all the "fanboy cruft" from the disputed article in United Kingdom Special Forces#See also so that anyone who would have expected to find them under UKSF can link to them one click away. Along with List of special forces units and Category:Special forces of the United Kingdom this should suffice without any need for an article like the one being mediated. Does everyone agree? Yorkshire Phoenix (talk • contribs) 12:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be reasonably content, although the links should be slimmed down. Would suggest 16AAB, 3Cdo, Para, RM and historical SF. It's failry easy to filter out the rest using the arguments detailed above. If needed copy that to the article talk page to justify deleting them in future when they get added.ALR 13:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, I see you did what you suggested and put links to some of the other units in the UKSF article. It's worth it as a minimum, but as I said, not good. That's only scattered links to the units over different articles. As you already said, the UKSF article is not the place to put the other content. It's much clearer, simpler and easier to list all of the other units in one place, with a clear explanation that they are not a part of UKSF. Keeping the listing in a separate article is much simpler than your proposal. Tashtastic 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not content that Tashtastic is actually participating in this debate, the various points above have been in place for three days and s/he has chosen not to address them, but rather continues to come up with vacuous comments clearly indicating an unwillingness to actually develop the article or deal with the various concerns. Accordingly I have raised a deletion request [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Special_Operations_units_of_the_United_Kingdom here], to get this finished with. Given the current level of participation I would suggest that the cruft added to UKSF in an attempt to reach a compromise also be deleted, with the reasons given above copied to the talk page of that article as justification.ALR 17:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, although the content was added to UKSF in good faith regarding this mediation, it's safe to leave those additions there for the time being and deal with it separately from this article. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 04:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not ALR, this is a debate for all relevant parties and I will still participate. I already addressed your points several times; if you don't like my replies, it doesn't mean I haven't. The reason this article was created was because the other content doesn't belong in the UKSF article. If this article is deleted, some other article will need to replace it. What's the point of removing the content added to the UKSF article? If this article is removed as well, there will be nothing. This case just gets more and more bizarre. Tashtastic 13:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Torinir/SOF_UK_Mediation&oldid=1143880820"