Talk:History of the SAS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 1941-1946 history is inadequate; not least because many of the original source publications disagree amongst themselves or are of a poor standard of research and fact checking to begin with. Nevertheless it would make this labour of Sisyphus a little easier if those making edits and re-formatting presentation would actually trouble themselves to read the the source data instead of just reverting the text and sticking in unnecessary fact tags; and most especially in respect of quoted numbers and ranks held at particular times. Actual, verifiable and acurate data is in the published and public sources: It just needs a great deal of due diligence and cross-comparison to arrive at an account which meets the Wikipedia criteria. KeepSureSilence81.19.57.130 12:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Provide the detail in response to the fact tags and there won't be a problem. You claim yuou have access to these sources, so be specific and don't just add them as essentially further reading.ALR 12:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ALR Why don't you attempt to be more constructive and helpful instead of issuing diktats and deleting perfectly good and sourced data? Sources and notes for part of this History are now only on the main page because the hotshot who moved the page didn't think overmuch about what they were doing. Footnoting is given by an [N] notation in the text where I think it is necessary and appropriate to evidence the article text to achieve the common objective of this enterprise. Nobody says we have to reference and source in a particular way; just that the information should be verifiable and open to general enquiry. Others, keep putting in fact tags against items which are already sourced and evidenced which shows pretty clearly they are not reading the source material before editing. Nobody, to date has queried some items (Which I didn't write) which I know to be true but only because I've read first generation, unpublished, but readily consultable information, held in publically funded and openly accessible archives around the world. I suppose this data might be conventionally published or open to fact-checking somewhere, but I certainly have neither the time nor the resources to do this on my own: which is why this is a co-operative exercise in advancing knowledge, not a power game. KeepSureSilence 81.19.57.130 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There seems to be a POV issue

Alot of this reads as (in the Northern Ireland section at least) to be a critiscism of the SAS, for example the 'shoot-to-kill' policy has been used over and over, however it was not in accordance with the yellow card! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.253.56 (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Also the IRA members murdered in gibralter were shot because they were reaching for weapons or a detonator to the bomb that they supposedly had just left in a parked car near the target.The three people were unarmed had no detonator and the vehicle that had the bomb in it was empty.And for not being in accordance with the yellow card,they are hardly going to have it written down that they should shoot to kill on sight.Also can the SAS not be criticisedUser:ShambossBOOBS!!!!!!