![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is the list at the start of the article meant to be all-including? Than the German Infantry Battalions (Jäger and Panzergrenadiere) would have to be noted too. I should know as I've worn both. if it's not meant to be "complete" than the best way would be to just note those units that not only WEAR it but are CALLED after it. -- 87.193.20.175 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this article has lost its direction. Back in 2004 it was a specific article about a shared history between the US Special Forces and the UK commandos, which was represented by a specific piece of head gear. [1] as such it answered a legitimate question why do US special forces have a different form of hat from the rest of the American Army?
Now this article falls foul of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
At the moment the article topic makes no more sense than an article on "black boots" or any other coloured item of military clothing. Therefore I intend to delete all of the article which is not about units that share a green beret because of a connection to the British commandos. -- PBS ( talk) 04:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of other regiments that I suspect have connections to the commandos, to which I notices in the Royal Marines article are connected:
But to include them here would need some sort of evidence that if they wear Green Berets it is because of a direct connection with the British commandos. -- PBS ( talk) 05:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at the disambiguation page for Green Berets which is relevant to this page. The gist of the discussion is whether the name Green Berets refers exclusively to the US Army Special Forces, or if it is also widely identified with other special forces groups. If you have something to add, please come and join in. GyroMagician ( talk) 10:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Why green? This needs to be explained. Curb Chain ( talk) 06:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
A green beret is used by most finnish military units as standard parade headgear. In some regiments, one must take part in a "beret march" to qualify to wear a beret. Finnish air forces use a blue beret and navy a black beret.
As of special forces, finnish paratroopers are allowed to wear a red beret after their first parachute jump.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.178.220 ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 23 September 2007
This edit placed a new section "Rhodesian commandos" into the article is there any evidence that the colour of the beret was chosen because of historical links with the British Commandos? -- PBS ( talk) 01:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The part about finnish green berets was quite limited. Not just finnish marines, but in fact pretty much ALL finnish soldiers use an green beret. So any other coloured beret than green is more an exception than a rule. And of "beret march" the tradition does not exist in some regiments.
And of the text itself, its more an introduction to finnish military forces than a good explanation on green berets in finnish army. Who needs to know about finnish coastline when talking about green berets?
So here's what i'd think of what should read there: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.178.220 ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 23 September 2007
I am reverting this edit, before reimplementing it please provide a reliable source the there is a connection between the headgear of the French Foreign Legion and the British Commandos. -- PBS ( talk) 21:20, 5/10/2010 (UTC)
To date you sill have not come up with a source. Come up with a reliable source and discuss it here before making changes to the article. -- PBS ( talk) 00:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
PBS are you mocking us ? First of all as a former legionaire i can tell you that the legion has had the green beret as it's symbol for a long long time. It's their trademark...When i was there i often was told that we, the legionaires, are the only oen of the french army that get the green berets cause we are a special force group, just like other special french forces, like the marine commandos and the air commandos. The foreign legion is classified as a elite force. And thats a fact. Dont believe me, go join and find out. Second in this text "The beret is worn with the insignia on the right as in the rest of the Army (not to be confused with marine commandos to them, are left in memory of their origin in the 4 th British Commando , where were integrated in the French Free French forces (FFL) it clearly says that "are left in memory of their origin in the 4th british commando..Are you blind of something ? 3 , what do you mean wikipedia cant be used as a source ? Of course it can, thats the whole point of having wikipedia and having reliable information on it, and having people check the writing ..If it's unreliable well let's just close shop and forget about it. Also, this is an article about the green beret. Just because someoen hijacked the whoel page with theyr british commando paragraph, doesn't mean that all the green berets in the world are supposed to eb related to british commandos, just like every commando unit is supposed ot be related to the british commandos. It's not like the british invented the commandos. I find it outrageous that a page on the green beret has no single mention of the foreign legion, which is on par with any commando force on this planet. 95.76.62.29 ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.62.29 ( talk) 14:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
So that we are using similar terminology: whatever is placed on this page it is not policy. Policy in Wikipedia terms revolves around policy pages that all start "Wikipedia:" eg the three content policies: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. What we are discussing here is scope of the article. My point is that the scope of the article as defined at the moment -- that green berets are warn by some units in a number of countries because of a link to the British Commandos of World War II -- is verifiable, and it is not #Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (something you agree with).
You wrote above "the current one implies that ONLY units with connections to the British Commandos use Green beret" Did you notice the hatnote that says: "For other units that wear green berets..."?
Many units within Commonwealth armies wear different colours berets and other headgear, and there is a long tradition to this. Some armies default to certain colours, be that green or black or whatever. That "many specialized amphibious units as well as some airborne units use the Green beret to make themselves distinct from other units" may be true, but unless there is a source that says so it is original research, and we can not use that as a scope for this article. -- PBS ( talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
What are the sources that state that the US green berets have a connection to the British commandos? Because I can't find it.
The official website of the US Army Special Forces is out of service or something, but the documentary states it was formed in 1952. There's no connection named to the original British commandos. I think the writer may have been confused with the US 75th Rangers, who do have a connection to the British commandos, although they weren't part of any original commando group. They just followed the same training course in Achnacarry, and they wear a tan beret, not green.
Of the original
No. 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando troops only the French, Belgian and Dutch weren't disbanded.
Hope this helps. This article has had so many critics and changes that I don't dare to edit the main article myself. I'll leave that to "established wiki editors".
Side info:
The Belgian 2nd commando battalion (green beret) and 3rd parachute battalion (maroon beret) are not SF, but an elite force. They're somewhat in the lines of US Rangers mixed with UK Royal Marines (my own interpretation). On their homepage it says that they're tough as nails, and the Belgian Special Forces Group (maroon beret) recruits from those two units.
Sources:
History Belgian para commando,
Belgian 2 Bataljon Commando,
75th Rangers.
217.121.65.15 (
talk)
09:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
An article named "green beret" should be a generic article about the diverse use of green berets in military and civil organizations, like are the similar articles red beret, black beret, tan beret, maroon beret, etc..
At a minimum, it should at least include the several organizations that stand out by the use of green berets or have the nickname "Green Berets".
It makes no sense to limit the article to small group of units that are remotely connected in the use of green berets, excluding all the others that supposedly are not related with this small group, though also using green berets. These units have their own articles where the reference to the use of green berets can be made. As an alternative, this article can continue to be limited to reference only this small group of units, but under a diferent name like "Green beret (Commandos)" or "Green beret (Special Forces)". -- Jsobral 13:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Do a English language google book search on "green beret" and see how at least the first 100 books are dominated by organisations covered in this article. This is not "a generic and ambiguous title" it has a specific meaning. Many of them are books about American Special forces, but also see this Royal Marine advert. To the majority of English speaking readers a "green beret" has a specific meaning and all of the units that use it are derived from the Commandos of World War II. The first book (other than a novel) that I cam across which was about a unit that uses a green beret was about 120 books in under the heading " NATO Armies Today - Page 27 and it is talking about the standard green beret as used by the German army. In the British Army there are regiments which wear green berets most notably the Rifles Regiment but you will have to go and hunt that website to find out that they do (in rifle green of course), because the beret and the colour is to a certain degree incidental to their regimental traditions. As you can see from the advert for the Royal Marines and books on the American special forces it is not incidental piece of headgear to those organisations. -- PBS ( talk) 20:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
A very simple, clear and direct search is one that do not uses so far-fetched search criteria that only produces weird results like horses and banker scandals when searching for green berets. Regarding the reliability of the sources, again, its only a questionable personal judgment of a single user whose opinion and agenda is contradicted by those sources. The same questionable personal judgment probably also states that none of the first more than thirty results of the search for "green beret" that refer only to US Special Forces are reliable sources. So, following this judgment, the mention to the US Special Forces should be deleted from this article... This would be off course unreasonable. So, that's another evidence that using these searches as an argument to justify the forced and questionable limitation of the scope of this article is nonsense.-- Jsobral 00:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Green beret. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is the list at the start of the article meant to be all-including? Than the German Infantry Battalions (Jäger and Panzergrenadiere) would have to be noted too. I should know as I've worn both. if it's not meant to be "complete" than the best way would be to just note those units that not only WEAR it but are CALLED after it. -- 87.193.20.175 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this article has lost its direction. Back in 2004 it was a specific article about a shared history between the US Special Forces and the UK commandos, which was represented by a specific piece of head gear. [1] as such it answered a legitimate question why do US special forces have a different form of hat from the rest of the American Army?
Now this article falls foul of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
At the moment the article topic makes no more sense than an article on "black boots" or any other coloured item of military clothing. Therefore I intend to delete all of the article which is not about units that share a green beret because of a connection to the British commandos. -- PBS ( talk) 04:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of other regiments that I suspect have connections to the commandos, to which I notices in the Royal Marines article are connected:
But to include them here would need some sort of evidence that if they wear Green Berets it is because of a direct connection with the British commandos. -- PBS ( talk) 05:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at the disambiguation page for Green Berets which is relevant to this page. The gist of the discussion is whether the name Green Berets refers exclusively to the US Army Special Forces, or if it is also widely identified with other special forces groups. If you have something to add, please come and join in. GyroMagician ( talk) 10:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Why green? This needs to be explained. Curb Chain ( talk) 06:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
A green beret is used by most finnish military units as standard parade headgear. In some regiments, one must take part in a "beret march" to qualify to wear a beret. Finnish air forces use a blue beret and navy a black beret.
As of special forces, finnish paratroopers are allowed to wear a red beret after their first parachute jump.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.178.220 ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 23 September 2007
This edit placed a new section "Rhodesian commandos" into the article is there any evidence that the colour of the beret was chosen because of historical links with the British Commandos? -- PBS ( talk) 01:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The part about finnish green berets was quite limited. Not just finnish marines, but in fact pretty much ALL finnish soldiers use an green beret. So any other coloured beret than green is more an exception than a rule. And of "beret march" the tradition does not exist in some regiments.
And of the text itself, its more an introduction to finnish military forces than a good explanation on green berets in finnish army. Who needs to know about finnish coastline when talking about green berets?
So here's what i'd think of what should read there: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.178.220 ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 23 September 2007
I am reverting this edit, before reimplementing it please provide a reliable source the there is a connection between the headgear of the French Foreign Legion and the British Commandos. -- PBS ( talk) 21:20, 5/10/2010 (UTC)
To date you sill have not come up with a source. Come up with a reliable source and discuss it here before making changes to the article. -- PBS ( talk) 00:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
PBS are you mocking us ? First of all as a former legionaire i can tell you that the legion has had the green beret as it's symbol for a long long time. It's their trademark...When i was there i often was told that we, the legionaires, are the only oen of the french army that get the green berets cause we are a special force group, just like other special french forces, like the marine commandos and the air commandos. The foreign legion is classified as a elite force. And thats a fact. Dont believe me, go join and find out. Second in this text "The beret is worn with the insignia on the right as in the rest of the Army (not to be confused with marine commandos to them, are left in memory of their origin in the 4 th British Commando , where were integrated in the French Free French forces (FFL) it clearly says that "are left in memory of their origin in the 4th british commando..Are you blind of something ? 3 , what do you mean wikipedia cant be used as a source ? Of course it can, thats the whole point of having wikipedia and having reliable information on it, and having people check the writing ..If it's unreliable well let's just close shop and forget about it. Also, this is an article about the green beret. Just because someoen hijacked the whoel page with theyr british commando paragraph, doesn't mean that all the green berets in the world are supposed to eb related to british commandos, just like every commando unit is supposed ot be related to the british commandos. It's not like the british invented the commandos. I find it outrageous that a page on the green beret has no single mention of the foreign legion, which is on par with any commando force on this planet. 95.76.62.29 ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.62.29 ( talk) 14:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
So that we are using similar terminology: whatever is placed on this page it is not policy. Policy in Wikipedia terms revolves around policy pages that all start "Wikipedia:" eg the three content policies: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. What we are discussing here is scope of the article. My point is that the scope of the article as defined at the moment -- that green berets are warn by some units in a number of countries because of a link to the British Commandos of World War II -- is verifiable, and it is not #Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (something you agree with).
You wrote above "the current one implies that ONLY units with connections to the British Commandos use Green beret" Did you notice the hatnote that says: "For other units that wear green berets..."?
Many units within Commonwealth armies wear different colours berets and other headgear, and there is a long tradition to this. Some armies default to certain colours, be that green or black or whatever. That "many specialized amphibious units as well as some airborne units use the Green beret to make themselves distinct from other units" may be true, but unless there is a source that says so it is original research, and we can not use that as a scope for this article. -- PBS ( talk) 12:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
What are the sources that state that the US green berets have a connection to the British commandos? Because I can't find it.
The official website of the US Army Special Forces is out of service or something, but the documentary states it was formed in 1952. There's no connection named to the original British commandos. I think the writer may have been confused with the US 75th Rangers, who do have a connection to the British commandos, although they weren't part of any original commando group. They just followed the same training course in Achnacarry, and they wear a tan beret, not green.
Of the original
No. 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando troops only the French, Belgian and Dutch weren't disbanded.
Hope this helps. This article has had so many critics and changes that I don't dare to edit the main article myself. I'll leave that to "established wiki editors".
Side info:
The Belgian 2nd commando battalion (green beret) and 3rd parachute battalion (maroon beret) are not SF, but an elite force. They're somewhat in the lines of US Rangers mixed with UK Royal Marines (my own interpretation). On their homepage it says that they're tough as nails, and the Belgian Special Forces Group (maroon beret) recruits from those two units.
Sources:
History Belgian para commando,
Belgian 2 Bataljon Commando,
75th Rangers.
217.121.65.15 (
talk)
09:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
An article named "green beret" should be a generic article about the diverse use of green berets in military and civil organizations, like are the similar articles red beret, black beret, tan beret, maroon beret, etc..
At a minimum, it should at least include the several organizations that stand out by the use of green berets or have the nickname "Green Berets".
It makes no sense to limit the article to small group of units that are remotely connected in the use of green berets, excluding all the others that supposedly are not related with this small group, though also using green berets. These units have their own articles where the reference to the use of green berets can be made. As an alternative, this article can continue to be limited to reference only this small group of units, but under a diferent name like "Green beret (Commandos)" or "Green beret (Special Forces)". -- Jsobral 13:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Do a English language google book search on "green beret" and see how at least the first 100 books are dominated by organisations covered in this article. This is not "a generic and ambiguous title" it has a specific meaning. Many of them are books about American Special forces, but also see this Royal Marine advert. To the majority of English speaking readers a "green beret" has a specific meaning and all of the units that use it are derived from the Commandos of World War II. The first book (other than a novel) that I cam across which was about a unit that uses a green beret was about 120 books in under the heading " NATO Armies Today - Page 27 and it is talking about the standard green beret as used by the German army. In the British Army there are regiments which wear green berets most notably the Rifles Regiment but you will have to go and hunt that website to find out that they do (in rifle green of course), because the beret and the colour is to a certain degree incidental to their regimental traditions. As you can see from the advert for the Royal Marines and books on the American special forces it is not incidental piece of headgear to those organisations. -- PBS ( talk) 20:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
A very simple, clear and direct search is one that do not uses so far-fetched search criteria that only produces weird results like horses and banker scandals when searching for green berets. Regarding the reliability of the sources, again, its only a questionable personal judgment of a single user whose opinion and agenda is contradicted by those sources. The same questionable personal judgment probably also states that none of the first more than thirty results of the search for "green beret" that refer only to US Special Forces are reliable sources. So, following this judgment, the mention to the US Special Forces should be deleted from this article... This would be off course unreasonable. So, that's another evidence that using these searches as an argument to justify the forced and questionable limitation of the scope of this article is nonsense.-- Jsobral 00:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Green beret. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)