Talk:Special Reconnaissance Regiment

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Special Reconnaissance Regiment article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Military history: British / European B‑class

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

E Squadron here?[edit]

I think, based on the source, E squadron is distinct from the SRR although SRR members may join the unit. BlueD954 (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Insigne Special Reconnaissance Regiment (SRR).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation section[edit]

The organisation section was removed because of issues with its source, despite no reasoning within WP:POL being given in this regard. @Dormskirk then removed this section because its material became unsourced as a result. After I restored the section (with its source), @Thewolfchild removed it all again. I think Thewolfchild did this because they thought I only reverted Domskirk's edit re unsourced material (i.e. restoring the material in the section but not the source) rather than also restoring the source this information came from (i.e. restoring both the material and its source), when in fact I did the latter. To prevent an edit war, I'd like to ask if everyone is happy to restore this section along with its source. 13tez (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - WP:RS says that articles should be based on "reliable, independent, published sources". The staff officers handbook is not a published document: it appears that someone has uploaded a copy to https://pdfcoffee.com/ which is a merely document sharing website. Dormskirk (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take that point; its details with respect to the SRR's structure cannot be verified elsewhere. Maybe that makes it unsuitable for use here, at least by itself. It did contain information I never found elsewhere in regard to UKSF units, however, which make me believe it is authentic. For example, it contained information on the Special Forces Parachute Support Squadron, which couldn't previously be found when searching generally for information on the structure of UKSF, could only be corroborated by an archived RAF webpage, and is now on the SAS article. The MMS and SMG of the SBS are similar examples. 13tez (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it may well be authentic but it is not published. Please can I suggest therefore that we remove the relevant material from the Special Air Service article and the Special Boat Service article and, importantly, remove the link to a document sharing website? Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your reasons and I think they make sense. 13tez (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Instead of posting assumptions like "I think the thewolfchild did this or that", why not just ask? (And you know what they say about assuming things, right?) I attempted to verify the source but found the site to completely unnavigable. Also, Dormskirk makes a good point, but further to that, this source, if it was published, would be considered a primary source. Do you have any secondary sourcing? - wolf 00:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]