Talk:Green beret/Archive 1

Archive 1

December 2006

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)

The section on the Finnish Coastal troops is a little outdated, someone with more knowledge should correct this. For instance, the Kotka Coastal command no longer exists.--MoRsE 21:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

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:

• Malaysia: Special Service Group (Bond of Friendship, early formation with 40 Commando and Special Air Service)
• Netherlands: Korps Mariniers (Bond of Friendship)

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)

Green Berets (disambiguation)

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)

History

Why green? This needs to be explained.Curb Chain (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question. The answer can be found in The only official Potential Royal Marines Commando forum: The Green Beret(20-08-2010, 23:25) Now all we have to do is track down the reliable sources the forum members mention. Ah here the are:

• A Short History of the Royal Marines: The Crest, Colours, Beret, Nicknames and Prayers of the Royal Marines, Royal Marines Museum
• The Origin of the Green Beret By Captain Derek Oakley MBE, on St Nazaire Society website.

-PBS (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

jägergreen

By the way, I don't quite understand why the chapter about Finnish Marine commandos was yet again removed, they are marine special forces and use the same green beret as all the others mentioned in this article. Ape89 (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"05:18, 4 January 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (talk | contribs)‎ (10,917 bytes) (Rv to last version by EoGuy. No evidence given that they are linked in anyway to the other units in this article. Please discuss on the talk page, Why this unit should be mentioned here.)" where exactly does it say in the article "only units that have connection to the other units mentioned should will be allowed"? the name of the article is "Green beret" and most of the units listed are marine special forces, Finnish Marine Commandos ARE special forces and use the exact same beret as the other units, both of which were made quite clear in my edit. Ape89 (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

See #Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- PBS (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, though IMO it should be mentioned before the list of units that only units with roots in WWII British Commandos should be listed, otherwise someone might just think of the connection between the units as a mere coincidence. Ape89 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead says "There are certain other military organizations which also wear the green beret because they have regimental or unit histories that have a connection with the British Commandos of World War II". Is that not explicit enough? If not what would you suggest replacing it with? -- PBS (talk)

Finnish Army

File:NylBrBarett.jpg

Finnish Coastal Jaeger green beret, with golden sea eagle badge

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

As I wrote above, the green beret used by Royal Marines (among others) and the one used by Finnish Army are not the same, the one this article is about is green with a slighly bluish tone, sometimes called 'jäger green', while the one used by Finnish Army is green with brownish tone. As to what comes to the beret used by Finnish Navy, it's not black but 'navy blue'. Ape89 (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Rhodesian commandos

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)

Yes and no. It's hard to say exactly. The new berets were chosen by a new incoming commanding officer, Peter Walls, who had been instructed to reform the regiment from a light infantry unit to a commando unit. He introduced green berets to make them stand out from the peaked caps used by all of the other units and also to reinforce the fact that they were commandos, green berets being very recognisable. Walls had served in the British Army for many years so it is very probable that he was influenced by the British Commandos. However it is worth noting that the berets used by the RLI did not match the British ones and that the regimental colour had previously been tartan green in any case. It could therefore be argued that he introduced berets in the regimental colour which happened to be green. If you like I will flesh the section out a bit more? I will rename the section in any case, "Rhodesian Light Infantry". —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 01:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We need a reliable source that confirms some sort of direct connection specifically in the headdress otherwise we will end up with an article like before with inclusion of every bottle washer unit that happen to wear a green beret (see above #Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). We have such an article already in existence see Military beret which has Rhodesia section. -- PBS (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't understand that. I'll take the section off. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 03:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

One could argue that being a commando unit (or alternatively a marine special forces unit such as, for example, the Finnish Marine Commandos-) AND using a green beret with the exact or at least almost the same color is enough of a connection to the British Commandos to justify listing the unit in the article, I can understand why it's not desirable to list every single military unit that uses beret that happens to be green, but I also think that the current policy is far too strict. Ape89 (talk) 11:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Finnish coastal rangers?

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

Finnish marine commandos, or coastal jagers, use the same 'jägergreen' beret as the Royal Marines and US. Army Special forces. Ape89 (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Correction: Finnish marine commandos use "Jäger green" beret that has similar shade to the "Commando green" beret of the Royal Marines, United States Army Special Forces use "Rifle green" beret that is considerably darker than the other two I mentioned. Ape89 (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

French Foreign Legion

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)

Not sure about the connection but 2 REP of the French Foreign Legion are commando as well as airborne qualified. They wear the same cap badge as the French Paratroopers who wear the Maroon Beret but i take it the French Foreign Legion wear the Green Beret as the rest of its regiments are classed as an elite force and receive commando type training anyway. Regarding the French Paras/Elite Forces, the training and formation was somewhat founded with British aid during WW2.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.221.55 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 6 October 2010

As you say you are not sure. Until you are (find a reliable sources that makes the connection) then the connection should not be made, to do so is WP:OR. See the previous section on this talk page for why it is inappropriate just to bundle things together because they seem to be the same. -- PBS (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Im going to find out about it, back inna bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.221.55 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually it does has connection with the memory of free french forces and ww2 british commandos. Evidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.221.55 (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia can not be used as a source. You need a reliable third party source. Also the link French Wikipedia link you gave, backs up no connection for the FFL usage: "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). -- PBS (talk) 00:05, 8 October 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)

See the section above #Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A Wikipedia article can not be cited as a reliable source by another Wikipedia article. Instead the source used by the original Wikipedia article can be cited. If there is no reliable source cited by the original Wikipedia article to cover the information then the information is not reliable. Your quote is, I presume, from Military beret#France. That paragraph reinforces this article. The French Foreign Legion may or may not be an elite force (it depends on how that is defined), but their antecedence is not to the British commandos. I think what you have done is misunderstood the meaning of "left" in the quote. It means left as in the "opposite of right" rather than separated from as in "left behind" or "left over". -- PBS (talk)

Philip, I agree with this legionaire about the policy of only only allowing units with a direct connection to the British commandos in this article as being ridiculous, I can understand your earlier point about not flooding the page with entries for just any unit that happens to use the Green beret, but there are still special forces units using the beret that are currently being left out because of the strict policy. Ape89 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Special forces is a military term of art. The Royal Marines like the French Foreign Legion are not special forces. The Royal Marines are highly trained assault troops and they along with the British Paratroopers, who have similar levels of training, are frequently deployed in Afghanistan in conventional combat roles. The SBS (who recruit from the Commandos) and the SAS (who recruit from the British Army including the Paratroopers) are special forces and have been allegedly deployed in non-conventional roles in Afghanistan. -- PBS (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, of course, then by all means ignore my point and nitpick about my terminology instead, real mature and all. Ape89 (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not nitpicking, if this article is not about the historical connection back to the British Commandos of Second World War, then what is the criteria for inclusion? And that leads back to the section above #Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- PBS (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Last time I checked the title is "Green beret", not "British Commandos of Second World War and units with connection to them", and as such the focus should be in the beret and the units that use it as their symbol, Maroon beret has got the right idea. Ape89 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This article for a time was structured like that the trouble is that green matches the colour of most uniforms so it is used very widely. As such a list of all the units that use different shades of green berets is no more informative than listing all the units that use black boots, or have an "r" in their name. -- PBS (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I never once said that units that use beret with just ANY shade of green should be listed, I myself have an olive green beret, but I don't call it 'Green beret', IMO a unit that uses a Green beret of same or similar shade as the Royal Marines' ("Commando green") or US. Army Special Forces' beret ("Rifle green"), hand-picks the members and has set certain requirements for the right to wear the beret (and preferably has rules about losing the right to wear it-) should be allowed to be mentioned in the article, just as is the case with Maroon beret. One could argue that using your arguments the United States Army Special Forces don't belong in the article either, as only part of the original American 'Green Berets' had gained the right to wear the British beret ("Commando green"), and also the American 'Green beret' is based on a Canadian ("Rifle green"), not British beret and isn't even close to the shade of the British beret. Ape89 (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, US. Army Special Forces have nothing to do with the Royal Marine Commandos as Royal Marines are amphibious while US. Army Special Forces are airborne. Ape89 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

There is that there is a connection and it goes back to World War II and the training American commandos in British Commando schools. The Americans considered calling them Commandos but decided that was a name from British military history and chose to use Rangers which was from American military history.[2][3] The American Green Berets of today claim a linage from the Ranges of WWII, [4] while the current Rangers derive their linage from Merrill's Marauders.[5] Please see WP:SYN. Either we keep the article focused on specific units with a shared history to the green beret, or we throw it open to include every unit that wears a green beret whatever shade of green it is. We can not make up our own rules for what to include (eg just marines who wear some shade of green) that would involve a synthesis. BTW if you read this article's sources you will see that the shade used by the British Commandos, was a matter of what was available. Besides it is not the exact colour that matters but the symbolism that is incorporated in the the green beret, in exactly the same way that some regiments in the British army including the Gurkhas call the privates riflemen even though all soldiers are now armed with rifles (and have been for well over 100 years). -- PBS (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Earlier the shade was important but now it doesn't matter, which one is it? Also, I am fairly sure there are units using Maroon beret that just chose the color without intended connection to the airborne units it's usually associated with, or units that will give the beret to anyone serving in the unit whether or not they are jump-qualified, yet I can't find one such unit from the article about Maroon beret, instead I find a lot of units with no connection to the British paratroopers who apparently were also the first ones to use it.

The current policy is defined by starting the article with notion about British Commandos and starting second paragraph with "There are certain other military organizations which also wear the green beret because they have regimental or unit histories that have a connection with the British Commandos of World War II."

If Wikipedia rules allow defining a policy for an article by adding a paragraph that tells just part of the story and ignores the rest (the current one implies that ONLY units with connections to the British Commandos use Green beret), it would be only logical to be able to define the policy by replacing that paragraph with something like "many specialized amphibious units as well as some airborne units use the Green beret to make themselves distinct from other units", or something along those lines, my English is probably not creative enough to write a replacement that you would see suitable, but I hope you get the picture. As specialized amphibious and airborne units (or simply 'special units'-) that want to make themselves to stand out by using a special beret usually also choose same or similar color than the one used by similar units abroad, the exact color doesn't even need to be defined. Ape89 (talk) 19:53, 6 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)

You wrote " Did you notice the hatnote that says: "For other units that wear green berets..."?", The way I see it, it's placed before the article and thus is not part of it. About defaulting colors, that is true, but just because, for example, all the troops in Heer (ie. Army-) of the German Bundeswehr use "Jäger green" beret, and some other countries call every beret using any shade of green "Green beret", that all the specialized units that don't have direct connection to the British Commandos but still make the distinction between "Green beret" and "beret with some shade of green" and issue the first mentioned ONLY to personnel who have earned it, these units should not be 'banned' from this article, not just because of the first paragraph talking about British Commandos. I said it earlier, and I'll say it again, the title is "Green beret", not "British Commandos and units with a connection to them."

Green beret is globally recognized as a sign of distinction just like the Maroon beret is de facto symbol of airborne troops around the world, and as such units that use it (the Green beret-) as a sign of distinction are not 'defaulting the color', nor are the armed forces they serve in (which reminds me, almost NONE of the units in the article are Army units, they are predominantly Navy, United States Army Special Forces are an exception), many of the berets that are called 'green' in the Military beret are NOT even close to the one(s) this article is about, if you take a look at the countries that have a 'green beret' listed under them you may notice that if there is only one 'green beret' it's either specialized unit or it's given to all troops.

Again, my point is that countries that use Green beret as a sign of distinction require the wearer to have earned it, and these units should be allowed in the article, while those armed forces that don't make the distinction and just issue their 'green' beret to everyone, how ever, should not. For example, Finnish Army issues the olive green beret to every soldier except for those serving in the Armoured brigade who use black instead, the Finnish Navy issues a Navy blue beret to their land-based troops, except for the Marine Commandos that have their Green beret that they have to earn during a special excercise called "The Beret march", so the Finnish Army (in which I served-) has no place in this article, but the Marine Commandos are another thing (you want sources, after a while I managed to find one in English, this conversation would have been MUCH shorter had you just said that all you wanted was sources, you know? The source is a link to a pdf -file, page 45) [6]. Ape89 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And yes, I know I called the beret 'Jägergreen' while the booklet calls it 'dark green', that was because it's the same color as the one used by Bundeswehr, and that one is called 'Jägergreen', and until now I couldn't find 'official' name for the color in English so I went with the German name. Ape89 (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

75th Rangers instead of US ArmySF. Belgian commandos missing.

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)

Name of the article

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)

In Commonwealth traditions and regimental connections are considered to be important and noteworthy (as is regimental head gear). If a link is needed then link to the article Military beret -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The green beret is part of the traditions and is a regimental head gear of several military units other than those of Commonwealth and those supposedly historically related with the British Commandos. So, an article with the generic title "green beret" (not even the titles "Green Beret" or "Green Berets") should be generic. If the article is only about the "green beret used by military units related with the British Commandos", it should have another title that should include its specific ambit.--Jsobral 16:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts. Do you think we should have an article called black boots that list all the units in all the armies in the world that wear black boots, because green berets are similar. As green is a popular colour for army uniforms may units in many armies wear greem berets. There is a general article about this see Military beret, and as an example on early in the list: Military beret#Austria "Grass green — Infantry, all troops that do not wear another color". -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A good Wikipedia article title has, among others, the following characteristic: Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

I don't think that black boots deserve an article. But if by chance someone decided to create an generic article about black boots, it should not be only about a specific military unit that wear black boots because some user thinks that talking about black boots is only about talking about that specific military unit. So the same for the article green beret: why the criterion of just mentioning units related with British Commandos in the article is more valid that the criterion of also mentioning other units that wear green beret, for many of which it constitutes also an important tradition ?.--Jsobral 17:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If there is an article that includes any unit that wears a green beret how is that list anything more than a random collection of facts? Why would any link to such an article be of any use over and above linking to the article Military beret? -- PBS (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In the first place, the units that were deleted from this article were not simply "any unit that wears a green beret", but were units for which the green beret is an important tradition, therefore deserving to be mentioned in the article as much as the units that are mentioned now. In the second place, mentioning the history and traditions related with the wear of green beret by an unit is not a simple random collection of facts. In the third place, even if, by absurd, we follow the criterion of considering the green beret history and traditions of a military unit, other than the British Commandos and associated units, as a random collection of facts, why should that random collection of facts be in the article Military beret and not in the article Green beret ?--Jsobral 10:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It is very probable that the Bulgarian military police consider their their green beret an important tradition (particularly if several have been killed wearing it). In your proposed expanded article what differentiates the Bulgarian military police from the "Irish Army Ranger Wing" or the "Portuguese Paratroopers" or do you simply want to list ever army unit that happens to wear some form of green hat (why stop at berets)? -- PBS (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, the title of this article is not either "Black boots" neither "Green hat". The title of this article is also not "Green beret used by British Commandos and associated units". The title is only "Green beret". That is the point. An article with a generic and ambiguous title like this, can not have a specific scope, much more limited that what the title means. So, if the title of the article is simply "Green beret" and the Bulgarian military police consider their green beret an important tradition, it fulfils the condition to be mentioned in the article. Mentioning or not an unit that wears green beret in the article has to be left to the good sense of the Wikipedia users and not be limited by an obscure and arguable criterion established by a single user.--Jsobral 18:21, 11 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)

As far as I know, there is not any Wikipedia rule that states that the criteria to include a subject in an article is defined by the number of times that it appears in a Google Books search. If this rule existed, most of Wikipedia articles either would be almost empty or would not even exist.--Jsobral 11:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Not so see WP:V and WP:AT. V defines what a reliable source and states that the content must be based on reliable sources. AT recommends articles titled on usage in reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

But, if by absurd, we adopt the "Google Books search rule", why should we consider the first 100 books that appear? Why not the first 5 books or the first 300 books ? If we consider only the first 5 books, only the US Special Forces would be refered in the article. In fact, for the common English speaking reader (not expert in military units or military berets), to talk about "Green Berets" is the same as to talk only about "US Special Forces" and not about the British, French, Belgian or other green beret wearers mentioned in the article. If we consider the first 100 books, besides the US Special Forces, we will find there also the British and French commandos (but not the Belgian, Dutch or Australian included in the article) and, further, we will also find several others not mentioned in the article, like the Portuguese Paratroopers, the South Vietnamese Special Forces and the Indonesian Kostrad. If we consider the first 300 books, then a lots of other green beret wearers will appear...--Jsobral 11:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The first 100 books because I got bored of looking at that point! Wikipedia follows usage in reliable sources. It is clear from the name returned by the books that the majority of usage in the English language is for the units mentioned on this page, so the page is not misnamed. Unfortunately we can not break a book search by WP:ENGVAR, and there is already a specific US article called Green Berets, but I have already given you a link to an advert run on British television aimed at recruiting Royal Marine Commandos which explicitly mention the green beret. So that ought to indicate to you what is common usage in the UK however if you search for [green beret site:uk] the majority of reliable sources returned in the first few pages are for the subjects on this page. If you search on [green beret site:au] the first page returned is mainly for a horse called Green Beret. If you search on [green beret site:nz] there is no mention of the NZ army in the first few pages. The reliable sources returned tend to be for the US Green Berets, but like the Australians the Kiwi, but other than the horse the two searches return similar pages.

I also did a search for [Portuguese green beret site:uk] the first semi reliable source returned is a Daily Mail article (2008) Congo rebels make roadblock out of bodies amid fears the savage war will draw in Angola "A... Portuguese-speaking soldiers wearing green berets with pins in the shape of Angola appearing to guard a road ..." and this one from the BBC (2003) UN starts Liberia peace patrols "3,500 West African troops already deployed in the capital swapped their green berets for blue ones of the UN as authority was transferred to the world body." -- not sure why this one was returned as the word Portuguese no longer appears on that page (perhaps it was a side link to something else now changed. changing the search to [Portugal green beret site:uk] the first reliable source returned is a Guardian blog article (2012) Eurozone crisis live: Spanish banking bailout rally fizzles out (see image of banker in a green beret)

So if we go with your suggestion do we mention a horse, a banker scandal, Angolan soldiers and African peace keepers? If not why not as they come earlier in searches than any mention of Portuguese soldiers? If not what are the criteria for inclusion in your page? -- PBS (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know what kind of obscure searchs you are making that are returning so weird results.... that's the clear evidence that using this as an argument to justify the forced and questionable limitation of the scope of this article is nonsense. But I will repeat again the reasonable criteria that can be applied for this article: 1) Maintaining the limited scope of the article, but under a desambiguated and precise title; 2) Keeping the generic title of the article, but in that case mentioning or not an unit that wears green beret in the article has to be left to the good sense of the Wikipedia users and not be limited by an obscure and arguable criterion established by a single user. --Jsobral 18:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

They are not obscure searches, and I included the string I used in each case. You should be able to replicate them: they are simply the words inside the square brackets eg [Portuguese green beret site:uk]. -- PBS (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Doing a very simple, clear and direct search in Google for "green beret" and the first more than thirty results that appear will be only about US Special Forces (no British, French, Belgian, Australian or Dutch commandos mentioned in the article appear). Doing another clear and direct search for "Portuguese green berets" and the first immediate results that appear will be about the Portuguese Paratroopers, including the English language site The Portuguese Green Berets and the You tube video Portuguese Green Berets. Again, these were simple, clear and direct searches. But far-fetched searches to obtain the right results that justify an opinion and the agenda of a certain person can also be done. With a right search criteria, it's probably possible to do a far-fetched search about green berets whose first results will be about the Bulgarian Military Police and to try to use this as an argument that the Wikipedia article Green beret should only mention the Bulgarian Military Police and not any other green beret wearer.--Jsobral 17:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What is a "very simple, clear and direct search" mean? are you using ["Portuguese green berets"] or [Portuguese green berets] and which national version of Google are you using? The sites that you have highlighted are not reliable sources, and so should be disregarded, what is the first reliable source returned by your search? -- PBS (talk) 22:18, 13 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)

The reason for including site:uk, site:au site:nz was to allow one to see usage in different English speaking countries. There is nothing "far-fetched" in that. You seem to have totally ignored the fact that in Britain the green beret is a well known symbol for the Royal Marines (see the TV advert above). As to reliable sources see WP:SOURCE and see WP:COMMONNAME which relies on SOURCE. -- PBS (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, in Britain the green beret is a well known symbol for the Royal Marines... and in France the green beret is a well known symbol for the Foreign Legion, in Spain is a well known symbol for the Special Operations Forces, in Finland is a well known symbol for the Coastal Jägers, in Ireland is a well known symbol for the Army Ranger Wing, etc... and in most countries of the World, especially in those of English language (including Britain itself), the green beret is a well known symbol of the US Special Forces. So, the common sense says that all these units should be able to be mentioned in this article.-- Jsobral 23:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I find it odd that you are arguing about Spanish Finish and French green berets being well known in those countries if so then the obvious place to put such information is in Wikipedia articles in Spanish, French and Finish. As I said before Wikipedia articles are not a random collection of facts. So what makes mention of a Portuguese unit reason be included in this page while excluding Angolan units? -- PBS (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No Angolan, Portuguese, Spanish, Finish, French or other nationality units should be excluded from this article only because they are from no English speaking countries or because only a specific person is unaware and thinks odd that green berets are also well known as symbols of units other than the British commandos and associated units. This would be completely against Wikipedia principles. If by absurd, the criteria of units from no English speaking countries exclusion were adopted, the now mentioned Dutch, French and Belgian commandos had to be deleted from this article. This would be a nonsense, off course.-- Jsobral 10:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone has added the German Army in the article, why hasn't PBS erased it yet? Ape89 (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609234557/http://www.ams.mod.uk/content/docs/jsp336/3rd_ed/vol12/pt3/pam15/s3ab.doc to http://www.ams.mod.uk/content/docs/jsp336/3rd_ed/vol12/pt3/pam15/s3ab.doc
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20111011074923/http%3A//www.stnazairesociety.org/Archives/greenberet.html to http://www.stnazairesociety.org/Archives/greenberet.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324144220/http://www.royalmarinesmuseum.co.uk/item/researching-family-and-royal-marine-history/the-crest-colours-beret-nicknames-and-prayers-of-the-royal-marines to http://www.royalmarinesmuseum.co.uk/item/researching-family-and-royal-marine-history/the-crest-colours-beret-nicknames-and-prayers-of-the-royal-marines

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)