Talk:Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom)

Untitled
This article includes the following passage:

Why the old cap badge?
The pic of the cap badge is of the old one no longer in use since 1952. It has the King's Crown. Does nobody have a pic of the current badge? I have a badge, but no idea how to upload a pic here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.213.243 (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

13th Batallion paratroopers Sergeant Major Victor Harold Vincent Culshaw RIP at 91 years of age 17/2/12 Australia
My father (Dick Culshaw) departed this earth on `17th February 2012 and was the Sergeant Major in the 13th batallion Paras, and I have his pin - wings with balloon centre. Could anyone inform me whether they have photos or give more information of action in the War.

paulydestiny@yahoo.com.au  He has left 6 children, 3 pommies, 3 aussies and 7 grandchildren and 7 great grandchildren and I am the youngest of the 6 and want to compile an album to be made as a heirloom to pass down to my grandchildren.

Can anyone help with information. Thankyou.

RIP Dad

175.38.179.90 (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See 13th (Lancashire) Parachute Battalion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling bloody sunday an "event"
Why shouldn't we refer to it within the article as a massacre? The Bloody sunday (1972) article is in Category:Massacres committed by the United Kingdom and Category:Massacres in Northern Ireland. Majority scholarly opinion is that it was a massacre. NPOV is " representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". It doesn't mean avoiding calling things what they are. We don't call the holocaust an "event", we call it a genocide. Because that is what it is, and what the scholarly consensus refers to it as. Likewise, we shouldn't call bloody sunday an event, we should call it a massacre. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:NPOV and Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Killing NPOV in particular in the latter "However when used to describe an incident, even one commonly labeled as a massacre, it is pejorative and biased. More neutral terms such as "incident", "events", or "killings" should be used." Blackshod (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you be amenable to the use of the word "killings" so? It's definitely more descriptive than "event". Either way, a talk page is not policy. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to 'killings'. Blackshod (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand your objection to "massacre". It's what bloody sunday has been generally described as. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is 'generally' termed a 'massacre' is irrelevant. My reasons are compliance with WP:NPOV well summed up in the quote above "However when used to describe an incident, even one commonly labeled as a massacre, it is pejorative and biased. More neutral terms such as "incident", "events", or "killings" should be used."Blackshod (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.". That it was a massacre is the majority scholarly opinion, and so we should describe it as such. Calling it an event is a euphemism. What you are quoting isn't from NPOV, it's from talk:NPOV. talk:NPOV is not policy. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That it was a massacre is the majority opinion scholarly or otherwise is disputable and is any case even if it were that would not make in NPOV, just the POV of the majority, let's settle for killing as you suggested Blackshod (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Representing significant views is NPOV. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've re-edited the Bloody Sunday section. I've added extra details as to what the 'civil rights' march was exactly about as it is key to understanding the events of the day. I've also added the fact that soldiers of the Royal Artillery and Anglian Regiment took part in the firefight, it's important to understand that is was not just the Parachute Regiment who took part in the gunbattle. I've qualified the remark on the Widgery inquiry being regarded as a 'whitewash' it wasn't universally reagrded as such and indeed the differences between it and Saville are wafer thin and largely based on the marcher's boycott of his inquiry and flawed forensic evidence he was presented. Lastly I've changed the misrepresentation of Lord Saville's findings, he certainly does NOT conclude that the soldiers definitively shot first, indeed his findings lean the other way. He also accepts the testimony of numerous terrorists that they fired on the army and this fact is irrefutable. He dismisses any idea that nail bombs were planted on one of the dead (an admitted IRA member)so I've altered the sentences concerning that as well. I've published all the direct links to his report so you can see for yourself and check my sources, I've tried at all times to maintain a neutral point of view but these changes are essential for a balanced account of the events.Shamrockawakening (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This adds undue weight to this article - the above is more suited to the Bloody Sunday article.Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate what you say and perhaps you're right it may be more suitable to the main Bloody Sunday article but this still needs to be changed, it's far from a neutral viewpoint and in remarks such as Lord Saville concluding the soldiers shot first and that Widgery was a 'whitewash' is factually incorrect. I'll try again. Shamrockawakening (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

How many actions
I might be misunderstanding something, but the lead says "The regiment took part in five major parachute assault operations in North Africa, Italy, Greece, France, the Netherlands and Germany, often landing ahead of all other troops" - isn't that six operations? 81.132.108.246 (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Have been Bold and changed it to six. 81.132.108.246 (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition of Bloody Sunday to lede
A user named Mabuska keeps removing the information about Bloody Sunday from the lead section claiming it is already detailed in the article. But the introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article, and and Bloody Sunday is the single most controversial event the Parachute Regiment has taken part in. It caused the British Embassy in Ireland to be burnt down, and senior politicians and army figures have condemned it ("unjustifiable", "like Nazi stormtroopers") in a way they have condemned no other action of the British Armed Forces. It absolutely should be in the lead section and I am inserting it again.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify as it sounds quite misleading. I reverted your controversial addition to the lede section. I am not removing something that is already established in the article lede. Thus you are the one in the wrong by persistently forcing it back in.
 * Why? Because I disagree with your politically motivated edits and reasoning. Just by opening a debate doesn't mean you by right can put it back in regardless. I see no consensus so far or even anyone respond to you so far except for me, so how can you say per your last edit summary "re added per talk"?? As I have said many times to you before with your other controversial and politically motivated edits: abide by WP:BRD. Finally you now have decided to do the "D" part of that. I don't see why special prominence should be given to one action over others by the Parachute Regiment. I don't see why we should add in heavily WP:UNDUE statements like "Nazi stormstroopers" which only portray one side and are heavily biased. You are adding blatant bias and non-neutral additions to a B rated article. Mabuska (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also for a controversal edit that is clearly biased and skewed against the Parachute Regiment, I'd expect far better and more reliable sources than British tabloids/newspapers. Mabuska (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bloody Sunday is (1) the most famous action by the Parachute Regiment since the end of WW2 and (2) universally condemned. This isn't a minority viewpoint, this is a unanimous consensus between sources, you will not find one arguing it was somehow justified or not worthy of note. To not give it a prominent place in the introduction is to give undue weight to the idea that it was justified or unimportant, which is supported by precisely zero reliable sources. It's not often on Wikipedia that every available reliable source agrees on something, but funnily enough, this is one of them. There are many sides, and every single one of them has responded to and condemned Bloody Sunday, even the Paratroopers who lied about it initially. What "other side" are we looking for? Newspapers are also perfectly good sources.--79.97.222.210 (talk)--79.97.222.210 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Newspapers are not perfectly good sources, they don't exactly meet the requirement of academic and are not always reliable, being quite prone to sensationalism and misquoting. Whether it is as you say their most infamous event since WWII or not is in itself a questionable point. If anything they are infamous for it in Ireland and maybe in some parts of the UK where people might know about it but I'm sure British people would think that their role in the Falklands War is more notable. So is it something that they are "infamous" for across the world outside of Irish-diaspora or Irish-nationalist/republican circles? If so show me the proof. Obviously you as an Irish person feel that it is the most infamous act they have done but you can't speak for the world. But their actions in other places across the world to be honest have had further reaching and lasting effects.
 * Next, as you yourself said, the lede is to summarise the article. How does your addition surmount to summarising the article? It adds in new stuff, goes into detail that isn't given to other notable operations/events in the lede and includes a highly biased and selective comment attributed to one person. A selective comment that was picked and added in simply due to vilify. The content already in the article deals with the issue in a far more even and unbiased manner. Maybe if you suggested something more appropriate as a summary in the lede I could agree to it, but to me, you have your work cut out as it depends if it is their most notable deed since WWII. You haven't convinced me yet, will depend if others who may contribute to this discussion agree or disagree or have their own views on the matter. Mabuska (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The British Army review of operation Banner I used as a source says "The consequences ran around the world and could still be felt more than 30 years after the event. It is probably the only event in the Troubles to be the subject of two Judicial Enquiries". Murder and torture by the British Army in Northern Ireland and UK colonies is the UK's version of the Jim Crow laws nad Auschwitz, and the idea that only Irish people should care about a crime against humanity indicative of problems in the UK government (all of the people killed were British and it happened in Britain and had nothing to do with Ireland) is condescending, belittling, insulting revisionism.
 * I don't know how it's a "selective comment". The commander of the British Army in Afghanistan is an authority on this subject, and more to the point, everyone agrees with him. Would you care to point out some quotes from notable people who have a view that is different from Richard Kemp? And if a view is unanimously held, then our neutral point of view policies demand it be mentioned.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Convolution of source
79.97.222.210, the following edit you have made is a convolution of the source and should be amended to better reflect the source. I would recommend replacing the "After an exhaustive inquiry lasting over a decade he concluded that paratroopers had fired unjustifiably on unarmed civil rights protestors who did not constitute a threat to the soldiers, and shot and killed one man who was already wounded." with an accurate and neutral statement such as: "After an exhaustive inquiry lasting over a decade he concluded that the actions of the paratroopers was unjustifiable, lacked discipline, and that they had not fired in response to a threat.". The section already mentions victims and links to the actual article that details it better. I see no mention in the source of killing one man who was already wounded unless I missed it? Mabuska (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we mention they shot unarmed civil rights protestors?--79.97.222.210 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article already mentions that. Edward321 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No-one is denying they shot innocent unarmed civilians, but the source does not back up your selective wording. Mabuska (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Reserve parachute
"British Paras did not use a reserve parachute, as the War Office considered the £60 cost a waste of money.[36]"

The reason that a reserve was considered a "waste of money" was that unlike most other nations who had almost all decided upon 'canopy last' parachute designs, the British had extensively tested the various designs and had chosen a 'canopy first' parachute design that had an almost 100% reliability record. The others for whatever reason had chosen 'canopy last' designs, and so for them a reserve was a wise precaution.

In a 'canopy first' design pulling the rip cord releases the canopy from the pack first which as it inflates then pulls out the rigging lines from the pack. On a 'canopy last' design the rigging lines are released first, which then fall away until the canopy leaves the pack and inflates. The advantage of a 'canopy last' design is that there is a less-violent jerk on the wearer as the canopy inflates. The disadvantage is that there is more chance of the lines tangling, and causing a 'Roman candle'.

In addition, until the arrival of nylon, silk for making the parachutes was in limited supply in the UK, most silk had to come from India, so adding a reserve would have doubled the silk requirements for parachute manufacture.

Since 1945 I suspect almost all other parachute forces have gone over to using 'canopy first' designs. And now even the Paras carry a reserve. Nylon isn't in short supply.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110120072339/http://www.mod.uk:80/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/16AirAssaultBrigadeToReplace4thMechanizedBrigadeInHelmand.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/16AirAssaultBrigadeToReplace4thMechanizedBrigadeInHelmand.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom). 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/20060424185305/http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/SpecialForcesSupportGroupFormsInWales.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/SpecialForcesSupportGroupFormsInWales.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221084801/http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/3471.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/3471.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110405104500/http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/5904.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/5904.aspx
 * Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121026065214/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65F3D7AC-4340-4119-93A2-20825848E50E/0/sdr1998_complete.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/65F3D7AC-4340-4119-93A2-20825848E50E/0/sdr1998_complete.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225161158/http://report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/ to http://report.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514044116/http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/goose1.html to http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/goose1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday
An editor is trying to introduce qualifications into Saville's conclusions that he did not make. Saville does not mention "nail bomb", "nail bomber" or "acid bomb" in his summary as cited in the article. If new material is to be introduced, then it needs to be properly cited rather than attributing something to Saville he did not conclude. Dormskirk (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Was there ever a plan to make it "the Royal Parachute Regiment"?
As their accomplishments were second to none, and their badge features a crown, was there ever a movement to grant "Royal" to the Regiment's title?Foofbun (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)