Talk:Artists Rifles

History as 21 Special Air Service Regiment (Artists) (Reserve)
,,, I propose to add at the bottom of the section the following, 'The two reserve regiments, 21 SAS and 23 SAS, are under the operational command of the Director Special Forces, as an integrated part of United Kingdom Special Forces. . I also propose to delete the para above that which starts 'During the Cold War...'. Both changes are in line with the agreed changes to the Special Air Service articleJulian Brazier (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC) ,, Julian Brazier is correct. The information here must reflect that in the Special Air Service article - Dasher555 (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that was the sort of wording we rejected because we could not source it. Rather than repeat the whole debate, we should keep to the wording previously agreed viz."On 1 September 2014, 21 and 23 SAS left United Kingdom Special Forces and were placed under the command of 1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade. The units then left that brigade before the end of 2019. Dormskirk (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * with respect, that is exactly the wording we all agreed regarding the main Special Air Service regimental articleJulian Brazier (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but we added the bit I have set out above: don't you think we should be consistent? Dormskirk (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Point taken - the current wording in this article is actually a more detailed version of the two sentences you suggest (which appear in the main article). If you want to go for the shorter form, I don't object - my concern is just to add in the sentence on current status in line with the main websiteJulian Brazier (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for that. My preference would be to lift exactly the same wording as we agreed earlier. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are OK with that, please feel free to go ahead (for 23 SAS as well). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks will do Julian Brazier (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've commented here - wolf  16:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't notified about this discussion with "melbguy" used. I never agreed to removing sourced content from Special Air Service. It was agreed it would be moved to a new Special Air Service (Reserve) section. I am drafting the wording retaining the references. The wording change copied into this article was written for subsection Reserve of section Operational command on the proviso of a new section Special Air Service (Reserve). Sourced paragraph starting 'During the Cold War...' should not have been removed nor sourced paragraph starting "On 1 September 2014" that included their role. The paragraph "In approximately 2019", in line with Special Air Service wording, can be replaced by "The units then left that brigade before the end of 2019" and added to "On 1 September 2014". The addition of "The two reserve regiments" is not in chronological order. To be in order it should be the last paragraph and start with "Today, the two reserve regiments...".--Melbguy05 (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

et.al... as this comment is specifically about the content on the SAS page, it should've been posted there, not here, ("melbguy", please consider relocating your comment to the appropriate page, thanks). Instead of spreading discussion across three different talk pages, it should be kept to one, with the obvious choice being the SAS page. There will likely be some common language used on all three pages which should also be discussed there. Any content specific only to 21 SAS should otherwise be held here, with the same for 23 SAS on that page. This has already proved to be problematic, no reason to add any more complications Thanks - wolf  05:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The comment is not specifically about the content on the SAS page. The paragraph removed here "During the Cold War..." was never on Special Air Service. Artists Rifles and 23 Special Air Service Regiment (Reserve) can have more in depth information on 21 SAS and 23 SAS than on Special Air Service. 22 SAS can more information on Special Air Service as they do not have their own article. I do see the benefit in having a discussion on only one either 21 or 23 SAS if it is only relevant to Reserves with a notification on the other talk page of a discussion.--Melbguy05 (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * u|Melbguy05,u|:Thewolfchild My understanding was that we dealt with this correctly in the main Special Air Service Article, when u|:Thewolfchild ruled 18:21, 8 January 2021. Having a separate discussion here seems a waste of time.Julian Brazier (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Cold War paragraph
I am removing the sentence which says 'When the main line of defence moved from the Rhine eastwards from the late 1950s, NORTHAG identified the obvious shortcomings of employing two reserve units for these tasks as mobilization would have been too time-consuming.' The source quoted is an article in a peer-reviewed journal but that article's own sources say nothing about that claim. The claim is referenced to page 359 of Michael Asher's 'The real story of the SAS' which instead strongly praises the two regiments in that role, including a series of quotes from Peter de la Biliere's autobiography. The other supporting source is just an order of battle from a generation later which does show the cavalry unit the author refers to - but as it is only a solitary squadron - it can hardly have been devised as a replacement for ten SAS reserve squadrons spread across the whole front.Julian Brazier (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The shortcomings of long deployment times as the reason for the standing up of the SRS to fill the gap have been discussed in other articles as well: by Aldrich http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/932/1/WRAP_Aldrich_0672848-240609-aldrich.intelligence_northag.jss.31.oct.07.finaldraft.pdf What I do agree with is that in no way were 21 and 23 SAS to be 'replaced' in that role - just augmented. Para medic TaSi (talk) 12:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Point taken. Not sure that there is really something solid enough here to put into an article about Artists/21. It was a pretty meagre augmentation, assuming that was the purpose.Julian Brazier (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Summary Para
,,u|Melbguy05, Para medic TaSi Can we address the summary paragraph of this article? The first sentence is factually untrue - the Artists Rifles were a volunteer regiment, then a TF Regiment, then a TA one but were never an Army Reserve one, under that name. It is also a bit confusing in links from other SAS pages. As their most important service was with the TF, and the current name is "21 Special Air Service Regiment (Artists) (Reserve)" I suggest the opening para should say:

The Artists Rifles[nb 1], now known as 21 Special Air Service Regiment (Artists) (Reserve), was a regiment of the Territorial Force. Raised in London in 1859 as a volunteer light infantry unit, the regiment saw active service during the Second Boer War and the First World War, earning a number of battle honours. It did not serve outside Britain during the Second World War, as it was used as an officer training unit at that time. The regiment was disbanded in 1945, but in 1947 it was re-established to resurrect the Special Air Service Regiment.[2] Today, the full title of the regiment is 21 Special Air Service Regiment (Artists) (Reserve). This is abbreviated to (21 SAS(R)). With 23 Special Air Service Regiment (Reserve) (23 SAS(R)), it forms the Special Air Service (Reserve) (SAS(R)) part of the United Kingdom Special Forces (UKSF).[3]

Any thoughts? Julian Brazier (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * OK with me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would possibly suggest rephrasing the last sentence to read: Together with 23 Special Air Service Regiment (Reserve) (23 SAS(R)), it forms the Special Air Service (Reserve) (SAS(R)) part of the United Kingdom Special Forces (UKSF) directorate.[3] Para medic TaSi (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Para medic TaSi Dormskirk Agreed - I have done that plus tidied up the rather wordy sentence on the Second World War Julian Brazier (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Captions to pictures
Could anyone help me on how to edit the captions for pictures? The caption for the famous painting 'Over the Top' has a factual mistake in it - the stats refer to B Company, not the whole battalion. John Nash served with that company and took part in the attack (the source is the official description issued with the last reprint of the painting). Julian Brazier (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed the detail from the caption. It would be unusual to have that much detail in a caption (especially without a citation). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Dormskirk Thanks - I might have a go at the passage on the First World War - it is good on the 'OCTU' side but thin on the standalone battalion. I would need to do some revision. Best wishes Julian Brazier (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

History Chapter
,,, I am deleting the new para which has popped up inserting material on a review twelve years ago. , I am happy to debate this here but grateful if you could first read the extensive debate on this on the main Special Air Service article's archive a couple of years ago. Reviews do not normally feature in the history section of military articles.Julian Brazier (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Special Air Service/Archive 2 for previous discussion. please make the case for inclusion here. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Review draft paragraph

 * I drafted a paragraph for the review as discussed in Talk: Special Air Service/Archive 2 in January 2021 which I am yet to include in the 21 and 23 SAS articles. In April 2022, I discussed in Talk:Special Air Service/Archive 2 that it has yet to be added to the articles. Melbguy05 (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Melbguy05 ,u|Blackshod,, Thank you for including me again in the discussion. The reason I objected then to the inclusion of your para in the SAS article is the same as the reason now, when applied to the 21 (Artists Rifles) and 23 articles. First, The study your proposed paragraph refers to was dated 2009. It cannot have been the basis for a move in 2014, five years later, which your proposed para claims caused the move out of DSF to the ISR Brigade - that was anyway reversed four years later when both regiments moved back into Group.  I have no idea why the, much later, accident inquiry chose to dig up this old report eight years later (in fact less than two years before the move back to SF Group) but the main point is that none of the many inquiries and papers about the future of different elements of Special forces are discussed in any of these articles or most military articles about regiments. They focus on what the regiments were and what they did. Regards Julian Brazier (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ,,,, Following the earlier insertion by, I removed the passage and asked for him to read the 2021 debate about this on the Special Air Service page - kindly provided a link. Instead of producing new grounds for including this passage about a review,  has simply inserted it again. This seems to me to be grounds for removing it. If any new grounds for including this passage, describing a review which went nowhere, can be produced let's debate them here before changing the article again. Julian Brazier (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)