Talk:Special Air Service Regiment

War crimes & introduction

Belevalo, Thewolfchild and Nick-D, there's probably enough to and fro in recent edit summaries to start a section here on the topic of whether war crimes investigations should be mentioned in the introduction of the article. For my part, I think a brief mention is justifiable as WP:MOSLEAD says the intro should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". I'd say the controversy is prominent enough given the extent of coverage in reliable sources during recent years. Others may want to argue any such mention in the intro would give the matter undue weight but I'm yet to be convinced. Having said that, I'm also wary of recentism given the ongoing news stories about the matter. (I found a similar debate at the talk page for the Parachute Regiment from 2012 but it's not particularly illuminating. Let's see if we can keep it more civil than they did.) Meticulo (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just restored this material, as no reasons have been given for deleting it. Per WP:MOSLEAD the lead should summarise the key issues noted in the article, of which this is clearly one: it is the subject of a dedicated sub-section, as well as the Brereton Report article. The war crimes investigations are hugely important in the history of the SASR, as they led to a damning report which has attracted huge media coverage, the establishment of a dedicated government office to prepare a prosecution case and serious consideration by the ADF about disbanding the entire unit. The lead, and the rest of the article, should provide a rounded view of the topic, so deleting the war crimes material from the lead while retaining material on relatively obscure topics such as the deployment of a small number of personnel to Somalia is to descend to the level of fanboy type coverage. Part of the problem here might be that the lead is too short - only a para isn't much for a good quality article of this length - so the solution might be to expand the lead to better reflect the topics covered in the body of the article. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the addition. Can't find another military unit that has controversies mentioned in the lead. Shouldn't be a surprise, since the work that these organizations do, the usual violence or killings would be 90% of the lead. Worse, it's an ongoing controversy. The issue isn't even resolved conclusively. Belevalo (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a scandal that almost lead to the disbandment of the regiment, similar to that which brought the end of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. - wolf 13:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The CAR was disbanded because of the controversy that's why it warrants a mention in lead. SARS wasn't and just like DEVGRU, SEALs, Alpha, 101st airborne etc, doesn't mention wartime controversies, otherwise, given the divisive nature of war, all military units would have an incentive to be rewritten by opposing factions as part of a propaganda campaign as part of the information war. Belevalo (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Belevalo: Were any of the units you mention involved in a scandal that had tptb considering disbandment? - wolf 17:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

1st Foreign Parachute Regiment also mentions the unit was disbanded in the lead. However, unlike the French and Canadian units, the SASR hasn't actually been disbanded. Perhaps a better guide might be the German-language article on the Kommando Spezialkräfte where the final paragraph of the lead translates as "Especially towards the end of the 2010s, the KSK repeatedly made headlines due to incidents of extremism, so that it was reformed in 2020" (according to Google Translate, at least). I'd also point to WP:PRIOR which lists, as an argument to avoid in edit wars, "There is a longstanding consensus about how to treat this issue". And although not policy, the essay Other stuff exists might point a way forward in saying, "...arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong – it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that the precedent should be followed elsewhere..." Meticulo (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

...and I've now posted requests for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Meticulo (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

...and also at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Meticulo (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This has been a huge multi-year scandal involving a massive inquiry and at this point I think it does warrant mention in the lead. I don't think the significance is going anywhere any time soon. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is no need for that in the introduction of the article. Undue weight pretty much. Only if the whole regiment is disbanded but only if it is clearly connected with that event which led to that, but otherwise no. Some members/employees of many (if not all) organizations, political parties, city councils, hospitals, charities, schools, banks etc did some stuff but not all goes in the introduction of the articles. 109.93.121.227 (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be Belevalo logged out would you? It's a bit odd for an IP to find a discussion like this. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No, but recovering from Covid19 can easily make a person to visit military history wikipedia project and some other wiki projects to see if some article is cool to read or what people talk about. And btw no connection with Australia or anything similar. I'm one medical worker from Europe so I'm kind of totally neutral to this without any bias. I don't have any problem to show my identity to some administrator at this place, of course via e-mail or something. I hope it was not wrong to write my opinion here in this discussion. 109.93.121.227 (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, sorry for jumping to conclusions, and best wishes for your recovery. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I will be ok, but already that recovering took a lot of time, it was heavy. But what to do. Was doing what I had and it's my job and proud about it and I got it, but everything will be ok. 109.93.121.227 (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

To add also about this topic, after some thinking I stay with my opinion even stronger, every organization, any working place, could and probably have someone, some members or people who are employed who do or did bad stuff. For example, if this unit is by the official court described as a criminal organization (all or majority of members did bad stuff), or disbanded with some scandal, of course no problem, but like this no, I am against that. 109.93.121.227 (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

109.93.121.227, have you read WP:MOSLEAD? It says in part, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies", and, "All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies" (both emphases mine). Meticulo (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. If this unit is by the official court or inquiry described as a criminal organization (all or majority of members did bad stuff), or disbanded with scandal, of course no problem, that would be prominent or significant, otherwise no. 109.93.121.227 (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that an organisation needs to be outlawed or shut down before any controversies about it can be called prominent or significant. Facebook, for example. Meticulo (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a different type of organization, I was pretty clear, undue weight, recent and this is encyclopedia. To be included in the lead requires prominent and significant controversy which lead to big changes that affected the whole unit as renaming or dissolving or to be clear that wrongdoing was policy of the whole unit from top to bottom. 109.93.121.227 (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(break)

It seems the disputed sentence is "An inquiry that was completed in 2020 found that some members of the regiment had committed war crimes in Afghanistan." This is not really helpful; the matter is complicated and needs explanations. There's a section "Alleged war crimes", easily accessible from the ToC, so interested readers can jump there. Adding that sentence to the lead now is WP:RECENTISM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree totally "the matter is complicated and needs explanations" and there is content the the body of this article about. Also, recentism (for now without huge impact on this unit as whole for the lead) and undue weight (we don't put in the lead for example about some members who are recipients of the Victoria Cross or about performance in some successful operations). This is about the whole unit and who knows, if this inquiry or maybe some other, one day lead to this unit is dissolved or for example renamed, then that would be one good helpful inclusion in the lead but otherwise nop. 109.93.121.227 (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think MOS:LEAD is very clear. There is a current controversy and it should be mentioned in the lede briefly. If the consensus is that there are allegations rather than proof/convictions at this point (and I haven't followed it carefully enough to have a strong view on this), then the lede should not overstate the situation and stick to the language along the lines of "Following allegations in YYYY that some members of the regiment committed war crimes in Afghanistan, investigations are currently being undertaken which may lead to prosecutions of individuals" and let the details be in the body of the article. I don't believe WP:UNDUE is applicable here. Mentioning the allegations is not a case of giving too much importance to "minority opinions" but are matters that have been the subject of a 4-year inquiry by a NSW Judge and the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force [1] and which the Prime Minister has said should be dealt with under the Australian justice system.[2] I think it will not only look like a whitewash but actually be one, if we don't follow our own policies. And given this conversation is public as are the article history and edit summaries, I really don't think we want the next headline to be "Australian Wikipedia editors connive to cover up SAS war crimes". Kerry (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

fear of tabloid slander isn't part of the wiki MO, especially regarding and ongoing and divisive issue. Either way it's "not covered up", the trial is mentioned in the page and shows up in the jump link list. Belevalo (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Belevalo: I and others have named and discussed the issue from a number of policy standpoints. So far you have not provided a single policy-based reason to support your preference. If you have one, please state it. Regarding recentism, WP:RECENT is about articles constructed quickly from or largely dominated by breaking news. This regiment is hardly breaking news. Even the allegations of war crimes are not breaking news. If people want to see an example of WP:RECENT, look at the Lindt Cafe siege during its first 1000 edits which occurred within the first 24 hours based on media reports from reporters who basically didn't know what was happening in the cafe any more than anyone else did. Wikipedians were arguing if it was terrorism or not, if the gunman was Islamic or not, etc. It just went crazy. Subsequently the article has been reworked to take a long-term perspective on it following the inquiries etc, but it's a good example of what WP:RECENT is warning us against. Kerry (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

this is not a terrorist attack page. this is a military unit. military units have decades if not centuries of history, therefore even big events rarely get mentioned in the lead, unless it was a last stand or destruction type of situation. Given the type of page, this even would not only give undue weight, due to the units role in society. also it's not common practice on wiki. DEVGRU, 101st airborne, special forces, spetsnaz, etc all have had controversial or heroic events in their history. furthermore, if we mention this tragedy in the lead, should we mention all the stories of 48 people killed during operations in the lead, or the 20 other who died under different circumstances. and this is not a cover up. IT'S IN THE PAGE! unless you have the attention span of a bird, you'll find the information in the page. it appears that you want a bashfull headline type of lead. Belevalo (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Kerry asked for a policy or guideline that would support your position. You still have not provided one. You have, however, violated a few; see WP:FALLACY, WP:OSE, WP:NPA & WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS. (fyi) - wolf 11:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It gives MASSIVE undue weight. especially considering it's been used as propaganda by hostile regimes against australia. Belevalo (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"...if we mention this tragedy in the lead, should we mention..." etc. I'd say yes, the hazardous nature of the unit's training could also be mentioned in the intro, referencing the Black Hawk accident. Both this and the war crimes investigations are arguably as significant in the unit's history as a deployment to Somalia, which does rate a mention in the lead. Meticulo (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

it already alludes to it with the "It has taken part in operations in ...", which broadly includes everything discussed above (as it shood) and are then expanded in the main article. including the alleged war crimes. Remember lead is a very broad summary, not a duplicate that makes main section redundant. Belevalo (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The Black Hawk crash took place during an exercise (Exercise Day Rotor 96). An exercise is not an operation. Meticulo (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

GA...?

Is this article still considered a good article? There have been substantial changes made (679 edits, 100+ users) since GA status was added back in June 2014. Thoughts? - wolf 18:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding SAS Australia: Who Dares Wins to hatnote

The SAS Australia disambiguation page still only has two articles linked in it, even though it was created over two years ago as a result of this discussion. As this is the case, should WP:ONEOTHER be invoked, with the SAS Australia: Who Dares Wins article being added to the about template in the article, replacing the SAS Australia disambiguation page link. Happily888 (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)