Talk:Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom)

message: The pic of the cap badge is of the old one no longer in use since 1952. It has the King's Crown. Does nobody have a pic of the current badge? I have a badge, but no idea how to upload a pic here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.213.243 (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the old cap badge? 

message: My father (Dick Culshaw) departed this earth on `17th February 2012 and was the Sergeant Major in the 13th batallion Paras, and I have his pin - wings with balloon centre. Could anyone inform me whether they have photos or give more information of action in the War.
paulydestiny@yahoo.com.au   He has left 6 children, 3 pommies, 3 aussies and 7 grandchildren and 7 great grandchildren and I am the youngest of the 6 and want to compile an album to be made as a heirloom to pass down to my grandchildren. 
Can anyone help with information. Thankyou.
RIP Dad
175.38.179.90 (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See 13th (Lancashire) Parachute Battalion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  13th Batallion paratroopers Sergeant Major Victor Harold Vincent Culshaw RIP at 91 years of age 17/2/12 Australia 

message: Why shouldn't we refer to it within the article as a massacre? The Bloody sunday (1972) article is in Category:Massacres committed by the United Kingdom and Category:Massacres in Northern Ireland. Majority scholarly opinion is that it was a massacre. NPOV is " representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". It doesn't mean avoiding calling things what they are. We don't call the holocaust an "event", we call it a genocide. Because that is what it is, and what the scholarly consensus refers to it as. Likewise, we shouldn't call bloody sunday an event, we should call it a massacre. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be amenable to the use of the word "killings" so? It's definitely more descriptive than "event". Either way, a talk page is not policy. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no objection to 'killings'. Blackshod (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I still don't understand your objection to "massacre". It's what bloody sunday has been generally described as. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it is 'generally' termed a 'massacre' is irrelevant.  My reasons are compliance with WP:NPOV well summed up in the quote above "However when used to describe an incident, even one commonly labeled as a massacre, it is pejorative and biased. More neutral terms such as "incident", "events", or "killings" should be used."Blackshod (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.". That it was a massacre is the majority scholarly opinion, and so we should describe it as such. Calling it an event is a euphemism.  What you are quoting isn't from NPOV, it's from talk:NPOV. talk:NPOV is not policy. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  That it was a massacre is the majority opinion scholarly or otherwise is disputable and is any case even if it were that would not make in NPOV, just the POV of the majority, let's settle for killing as you suggested Blackshod (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Representing significant views is NPOV. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

text: This adds undue weight to this article - the above is more suited to the Bloody Sunday article.Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling bloody sunday an "event" 

message: I might be misunderstanding something, but the lead says "The regiment took part in five major parachute assault operations in North Africa, Italy, Greece, France, the Netherlands and Germany, often landing ahead of all other troops" - isn't that six operations? 81.132.108.246 (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many actions 

message: 79.97.222.210, the following edit you have made is a convolution of the source and should be amended to better reflect the source. I would recommend replacing the "After an exhaustive inquiry lasting over a decade he concluded that paratroopers had fired unjustifiably on unarmed civil rights protestors who did not constitute a threat to the soldiers, and shot and killed one man who was already wounded." with an accurate and neutral statement such as: "After an exhaustive inquiry lasting over a decade he concluded that the actions of the paratroopers was unjustifiable, lacked discipline, and that they had not fired in response to a threat.". The section already mentions victims and links to the actual article that details it better. I see no mention in the source of killing one man who was already wounded unless I missed it? Mabuska (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't we mention they shot unarmed civil rights protestors?--79.97.222.210 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already mentions that. Edward321 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one is denying they shot innocent unarmed civilians, but the source does not back up your selective wording. Mabuska (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convolution of source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110120072339/http://www.mod.uk:80/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/16AirAssaultBrigadeToReplace4thMechanizedBrigadeInHelmand.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/16AirAssaultBrigadeToReplace4thMechanizedBrigadeInHelmand.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060424185305/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/SpecialForcesSupportGroupFormsInWales.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/SpecialForcesSupportGroupFormsInWales.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221084801/http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/3471.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/3471.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110405104500/http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/5904.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/5904.aspx
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65F3D7AC-4340-4119-93A2-20825848E50E/0/sdr1998_complete.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65F3D7AC-4340-4119-93A2-20825848E50E/0/sdr1998_complete.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225161158/http://report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/ to http://report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514044116/http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/goose1.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/goose1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor is trying to introduce qualifications into Saville's conclusions that he did not make. Saville does not mention "nail bomb", "nail bomber" or "acid bomb" in his summary as cited in the article. If new material is to be introduced, then it needs to be properly cited rather than attributing something to Saville he did not conclude. Dormskirk (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloody Sunday 

message: As their accomplishments were second to none, and their badge features a crown, was there ever a movement to grant "Royal" to the Regiment's title?Foofbun (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Was there ever a plan to make it "the Royal Parachute Regiment"?