Talk:United Kingdom Special Forces

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Kingdom Special Forces 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

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not 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

Merge proposal ...?

There is a merge proposal tag on this page that proposes merging this article into the Director Special Forces page. See Talk:Director Special Forces#Merge discussion for more info. - wolf 10:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closed the merger discussion as no discussion has occurred since March over 3 months for rationale to merge and any consensus. Articles will remain separate.--Melbguy05 (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English law

The article states "In English law..." Since it is about ′′United Kingdom′′ Special Forces would it not be beotter to write "In British law..."? Or is there a particular reason not to? Thanks!--Jetam2 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FCF

See the discussion on the Royal Marines talk page Commandos are not the whole of the Royal Marines. FCF relates to some sub-units of 3 Bde, not the whole Corps. Blackshod (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the most recent IP edit that ludicrously suggested that members of the Band service are not Royal Marines. Blackshod (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - Is the website "www.eliteukforces.info" a reliable source?

Is the website www.eliteukforces.info a reliable source? I believe it is WP:USERGENERATED and is therefore not a reliable source. Melbguy05 (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Yes It is not user generated and I find it to be very reliable. PAWPERSO (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Disagree that it is a “questionable source” according to Wikipedia - doesn’t have a poor reputation for checking facts (most of its pages/news articles have lots of sources), they’re not expressing extremist views, it isn’t promotional, nor are they relying on rumours or personal opinions. And it’s not user generated like a forum or social media.

You can still use a questionable source for edits that aren’t “citing contentious claims about third parties” anyway so you still won’t be able to revert my edit about the UKSF Medical Support Unit. PAWPERSO (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Melbguy05 (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No whilst it doesn't appear to be user-generated as per the description at WP:USERGENERATED, it would appear to be a personal website which is an example of WP:SELFPUB. The content guideline says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I can't see any indication as to who is producing the content on this site or what their expertise may be, so there is no way of knowing if it reliable or just made up. Whilst certain pages on the site reference reliable sources such as the BBC, this is not the case for most of the content. Many pages appear to be out of date and with no publication date for most of the content, its not possible to determine how up-to-date anything is. Thx811 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No - At best, it is a questionable source with no editorial oversight. And most likely it is WP:USERGENERATED. 09:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckfasdf (talk • contribs)

Doubtful. No "About" page. Lots of adverts. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC) (editor is a volunteer at Wikipedia:FRS)[reply]

Possibly Not There are a few issues with www.eliteukforces.info:

* Latest news article is 2020 The UKSF News page shows the latest article at 26.10.2020

* No dates or authors for most articles This reason alone should make you wary of it. Please note the manner in which you must add references to this source as in this recent edit. We should not be so confident in references that either don't identify the person who was so bold as to compile the information or provide any indication of when they did so. You could be referring to outdated info even if the site was visited recently.

* Odd self-referencing The Forward Air Controllers article is so bold as to list pages on the same website in the references section at the bottom. That is not scholarship you should feel confident in.

* Has a content farm feeling The site references https://www.americanspecialops.com/ as an external site. Note how very similar they look. It would not be surprising if both were maintained by the same entity.

The site appears to have a lot of great content that was likely written by actual people, so why do they not attribute themselves to their work?

Compared to this edit, I am far more confident in Leicester Mercury. And at least Navy Lookout has dates for articles and enough social media presence to convince me that they want to be held accountable as a news and analyst entity. Ender and Peter 05:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highly doubt it; like the others have said this seems to be a case of a user-generated self-published source. No can do, buckaroo. Kline • talk • contribs 22:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]