Talk:History of the Special Air Service

1941-1946 history is inadequate

The 1941-1946 history is inadequate; not least because many of the original source publications disagree amongst themselves or are of a poor standard of research and fact checking to begin with. Nevertheless it would make this labour of Sisyphus a little easier if those making edits and re-formatting presentation would actually trouble themselves to read the the source data instead of just reverting the text and sticking in unnecessary fact tags; and most especially in respect of quoted numbers and ranks held at particular times. Actual, verifiable and acurate data is in the published and public sources: It just needs a great deal of due diligence and cross-comparison to arrive at an account which meets the Wikipedia criteria. KeepSureSilence81.19.57.130 12:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Provide the detail in response to the fact tags and there won't be a problem. You claim yuou have access to these sources, so be specific and don't just add them as essentially further reading.ALR 12:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

ALR Why don't you attempt to be more constructive and helpful instead of issuing diktats and deleting perfectly good and sourced data? Sources and notes for part of this History are now only on the main page because the hotshot who moved the page didn't think overmuch about what they were doing. Footnoting is given by an [N] notation in the text where I think it is necessary and appropriate to evidence the article text to achieve the common objective of this enterprise. Nobody says we have to reference and source in a particular way; just that the information should be verifiable and open to general enquiry. Others, keep putting in fact tags against items which are already sourced and evidenced which shows pretty clearly they are not reading the source material before editing. Nobody, to date has queried some items (Which I didn't write) which I know to be true but only because I've read first generation, unpublished, but readily consultable information, held in publically funded and openly accessible archives around the world. I suppose this data might be conventionally published or open to fact-checking somewhere, but I certainly have neither the time nor the resources to do this on my own: which is why this is a co-operative exercise in advancing knowledge, not a power game. KeepSureSilence 81.19.57.130 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a POV issue

Alot of this reads as (in the Northern Ireland section at least) to be a critiscism of the SAS, for example the 'shoot-to-kill' policy has been used over and over, however it was not in accordance with the yellow card! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.253.56 (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Also the IRA members murdered in gibralter were shot because they were reaching for weapons or a detonator to the bomb that they supposedly had just left in a parked car near the target.The three people were unarmed had no detonator and the vehicle that had the bomb in it was empty.And for not being in accordance with the yellow card,they are hardly going to have it written down that they should shoot to kill on sight.Also can the SAS not be criticisedUser:ShambossBOOBS!!!!!!

Image copyright problem with Image:Mayne.jpg

The image Image:Mayne.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Internal links removed

In accordance with Wikipedia policy and common sense I have severely cut down the number of internal links in this article. I did so since I found this article tagged with the overlinked template. We try to provide all relevant internal and external links in articles. In almost all cases linking to another article one time should be enough. We should avoid repeating one and the same link. But we should link only if the link is likely to add information relevant to the article we are writing. I recommend you to have another look at the Wikipedia policy I linked to above, and I’ll be happy to see your future contributions to Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter Cleary

The article stated Cleary was killed on 15 April 1975 when he was killed on 15 April 1976. I have since corrected the error. The sentence describing his death is not only poorly-structured but needs clarification.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Operation Bulbasket (1944)

If anyone has access to the book by Paul McCue "SAS Operation Bulbasket: behind the lines in occupied France, 1944", there's information on page 104 (of the edition partially available on Google books here) which I would like to see in full. The paragraph ends "... napalm bomb. If so, then the attack on Bonneuil-Matours constituted the first operational use of the weapon." Any help would be welcome. Thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The passage about napalm is in a footnote on p. 104. In the body of the text, it mentions phosphorous bombs, with a footnote. "...post-war it was claimed that this new bomb was effectively the first napalm bomb." Since napalm is gasoline-based, I don't think people who worked with the bombs would have confused the difference between the two weapons. I think that the important word is "effectively", meaning "with the same effect as" napalm, but not actually napalm. Pete unseth (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Small operation in Ethiopia, 1991

Does anybody have any documentation about the SAS in Ethiopia in 1991. As the rebel forces closed in on Addis Ababa, it was said that the British embassy received a group of SAS to reinforce their security. As the government melted away and the rebels were still establishing control, the story is that thugs broke into the office of a Swiss aid organization that worked with vision problems for the poor. This office was near the British embassy (which was on Asmera Rd.) and in response to their plea for help (via the Swiss embassy), the SAS contingent quickly arrived and subdued the thugs. Does anybody have any documentation of this? Pete unseth (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

David Sterling: "Jock Lewes could far more genuinely claim to be the founder of the SAS than I."

Someone needs to update both this Wiki article and the main SAS Wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Air_Service#Second_World_War).

The REAL father of the SAS who made his own bombs to take on the Nazis: Champagne-drinking lieutenant also taught soldiers to parachute behind enemy lines and shoot at each other to prepare for war

   * Lieutenant Jock Lewes armed his men with bombs that he had made himself
   * He taught them how to parachute despite having never properly learned himself
   * 27-year-old guided his soldiers through a minefield laced with Nazi explosives
   * He even made them shoot towards each other to prepare them for sounds of war
   * Jock's nephew John Lewes reveals today his uncle's little-told story of the birth of the unit whose exploits became the stuff of legend 

More at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5211871/The-real-father-SAS-bombs-Nazis.html

Sounds like there may be more details in John Lewes' new book, A Spy After All. Phantom in ca (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)