Talk:Pathfinder Platoon

message: 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)
thread_title: POV and unreferenced tags in the history section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Current issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Selection and training 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pegasus Archive 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question wrt personnel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  List of <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags 

message: All parts of the article have been deleted. All those that remove bits and bobs should look at themselves and see weather they are mearly enforcing their POV as opposed to constuctive editing. Maybe they should get a grip and have more input rather then being selective. As per Wiki rules, if it aint got a ref, it aint going in (Archangel1 (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't give you the right to go sawing through wikipedia deleting content without trying to find sources or discussing it.  Toddst1 (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You cant have it both ways! Cherry picking info to delete without refs is unacceptable. If some points are to be left in at the behest of a small number of people controvenes the ethos of Wikipedia  (Archangel1 (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: I've found an incomplete deletion nomination for this article created by User:Jim Sweeney on 29 March, but can find no evidence of an AfD tag on the article itself. I've tried to repair the nomination page, but leave it to the regular editors to decide how this goes ahead. -- saberwyn 04:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been removed and a Notability Tag added to this article. I find it hard to believe it meets the guidelines as its only a 30 man platoon of 16 AA Bde. Other much larger units in the brigade do not have their own articles and what is here is speculation and only one of the refs even mentions the platoon and that is attributed to a unnamed military source. Its not mentioned at all on the British Army's Parachute Regiment page  and on 16 AA Bde's page its called the Pathfinder Group   --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion nom? 

message: This article went through AFD, the verdict was redirect/merge into the parent article.  If you disagree with that conclusion, you are free to take it to DRV.  Discuss it with the closing admin. But at this point, simply reverting the article back to the pre-afd close article is not acceptable. The time to put in your two cents was during the AFD.  In order to recreate this page, we would need something signifciantly different/expanded and/or a separate discussion reaching the conclusion that separate articles are required.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: then you should have raised that concern at the AfD or start another discussion and try to gain consensus now.  The AfD ran for a week and the position calling for a merge was pretty lop-sided, unmerging this at this point is tantamount to recreating a deleted article... it'll rightfully be undone and like a person who repeatedly recreates a deleted article could lead to being blocked.  Review the AFD and get the independent sources that people felt were lacking showing that this individual unit was noteworthy outside of the parent unit and go from there.  Oh yeah, taking this to DRV won't result it the decision being overturned, I've looked over the AFD again and it was very one sided in favor of the merge.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you need to consider is: has the platoon ever conducted an independent operation ? and if 16 AA Brigade was disbanded what would happen to the platoon would it also be disbanded or remain as an independent platoon ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Independent operations dont mean anything. Many units work in tandem with other units so I don't understand your point. This is not a normal 30 man unit and were it an US military outfit, it would be deemed as Special Forces. I think it is wrong to clear away the good work others have done on a whim or what is a personal POV. The unit has been involved in many key operations and have their own tale to tell and there are numerous good ref's out there, or there was when I last edited on Wiki. A very poor decision and one that smacks of enthusiastic editing or maybe something deeper Archangel1 (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you need to be able to show/prove that and in a manner that isn't essentially recreating the same article that was merged.  AND/OR you need to get consensus to recreate the article.  Again, the AfD was open for a week.  There was one keep one "keep or merge" and every other person who participated said delete or merge/redirect.  Personally, I wish there were another avenue to take (I have an article that I believe should exist, but was deleted per an AFD before I even wanted to write it) but the consensus of the AFD was pretty clear.  Was it right?  I honestly don't know, I'm not familiar enough with the Pathfinders/16; but that is the draw back of consensusolog, which is what WP is.  But without substantive changes or some sort of discussion saying "create an article" recreating it will be frowned upon (and like I said be viewed in the same light as somebody who constantly recreates an article that was deleted via AFD.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not been here for some time and missed 'the window'. You have the same problem as most of the people that edit on here in that by your own admission - you not familiar with the topic. If that is the case, should you and people like you edit the page. Please dont take that as a personal attack, it is mearly a statement of my view. The unfortunate thing with Wikipedia is that there are too many 'editors' on here who act like Little Hitler's and claim to be the font of all knowledge. Cherry picking what they feel suits and what doesn't, in bewtween sessions down at the pointball or games of Call of Duty. Archangel1 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the first to admit that I am not familiar with either, and I suspect half the people involved with the AFD aren't active with military articles---which is a failing of WP.  The article I want, but can't create for similar reasons, is one where people unfamiliar with my area of interest (Poker) deleted the article without notifying the project or anybody involved with it.  Unfortunately, it happens, but that's the system we have here, but the people not familiar with the Pathfinders reviewed the article and didn't see it as distinct enough from the 16 to warrant its own article.  Again, there are some options available to you, none of them ideal 1) come up with more facts/sources and rewrite an article that isn't the same as the one that was merged (if it is substantively different from the one that was merged, then the AFD won't apply or 2) get people involved on the talk page of the 16 to agree that a break out article is necessary---perhaps get WP:milhist involved.  If you can get a discussion to say, "split" then you can point to that as a more recent discussion than the AFD... that may or may not work, but it is an avenue to try.  Trust me, I feel for you, but there are those (some here) who obviously disagree with you and that's the way the AfD Crumbles.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Roger that Balloonman, fairplay for the info. Its due to some of the tin-pot editors on here that led me to take a step back from it. My issue is that you have these people on here that come from units that probably lack the kudos of Pathfinders or other respected units and vent their spleen by taking good WP pages down as some petty act of retribution. So, if the hat fits. Archangel1 (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD