Talk:Pathfinder Platoon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Collection of intelligence behind enemy lines as part of the ISTAR matrix.

[edit] Destruction of high priority targets behind enemy lines.

[edit] Protecting senior military dignitaries.

[edit] Training UK and UK friendly armed forces in long range patrol skills.

[edit] Conducting Hearts and Minds doctrine operations.

[edit] 1945-1990's

[edit] when they became augmented into the Special Air Service as G (Guards) Squadron.

[edit] 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)