Talk:Special Air Service

Afghan War
So, this sentence: "SAS were heavily involved throughout the Soviet–Afghan War;" - with or without "heavily involved" linked to United Kingdom in the Soviet-Afghan War... you guys wanna talk it out? - w o lf  20:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a valid link - don't see what the fuss is about, SAS are mentioned in lede as well as article many times over. Perhaps I should add an extra part where it is more valid?  Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Should probably wait to see what CT has to say (if they do). You shouldn't edit disputed content that's gone to the talk page, and you're at 3RR as it is now anyway. (JMHO) - w o lf  22:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a perfect example of an WP:EASTEREGG link, it fully meets the style that the MOS states to avoid. If you want a link then the sentence needs to be reworded heavily to incorporate the link better. Additionally the target article isn't even about the SAS, it's not that heavily mentioned which just makes it worse the way it is, linking the term "heavily involved" to an article where the SAS are of secondary mention is really not appropriate. Please read the Easter Egg MOS linked and it will give you the guidance. So I don't object to linking to that article, but it needs to follow the MOS and currently it's a pretty textbook example of an Easter Egg link. And you're a long time editor, you should know how WP:BRD and edit warring work, if you make an edit and it's reverted for a valid reason, you should discuss and not edit war to keep your edit. The onus is on the editor adding the material to get consensus, not the person removing it to establish it. Canterbury Tail talk 08:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood, I've done just that and removed the word heavily too. Hope that helps. Thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Cap badge insignia
There seems to be some confusion, if not dispute, regarding the cap badge insignia.

The current text, under "Uniform distinctions" reads:

(This was just changed today, from "Exclaibur" to "Sword of Damocles", then immediately changed back.)

The cited passage above includes the hidden text: " ", though it doesn't mention any particular talk page discussion.

After a look through this talk page and it's archives, it seems this has been brought up before, here, here, here, here, here and here... all without any apparent consensus.

While some additonal sourcing might be helpful, I'm not sure how definitive it will be; take these two refs for example, both from the Imperial War Museum:
 * 1) "Embroidered cap badge to the SAS (Special Air Service), a dark (Cambridge) blue shield on which a white sword (Excalibur), point down, with a pair of light (Oxford) blue wings. An Oxford blue scroll over the lower part of the sword bears the motto WHO DARES WINS in black. Sword, wings and scroll all outlined in red.", and
 * 2) The cloth cap badge of the SAS. In an effort to consolidate the identity of his new unit, Colonel Stirling privately arranged for this insignia to be made up by a Cairo tailor. The cap badge was originally designed as a flaming 'sword of Damocles' but ended up as a winged dagger. The motto 'Who Dares Wins' summed up Stirling's original SAS concept."

At dispute, is whether it's a sword or dagger, and if it's a sword, which sword; Excalibur or the Sword of Damocles, and wether it's surrounded by flames or wings. So, I figured I would try starting a discussion now, to see if we can introduce more sourcing, and conclude the issue with a consensus. Cheers - w o lf  19:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi - Agreed that it will be difficult to be definitive, but we can use the the Imperial War Museum for wording along the lines of: "Its cap badge is a downward pointing blade sometimes referred to as the legendary sword of King Arthur, 'Excalibur', and sometimes described as a flaming 'Sword of Damocles'. It is set on a background usually referred to as 'flames' but also described in some sources as 'a pair of light Oxford Blue wings'."


 * Amendments to the above welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of a one-sentence-covers-all type entry. That should keep everyone happy. If I were to suggest a change, it would be along the lines of:
 * "Its cap badge is a downward pointing blade that at times is described as either King Arthur's legendary sword 'Excalibur', or a 'flaming Sword of Damocles', or simply a dagger, but all are set on a background referred to as either 'a pair of light Oxford Blue wings' or 'flames'."
 * But like I said, it's just suggestion, I'm not married to it. I would be interested to see what input others may have. Cheers - w o lf  11:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Dormskirk (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no real dispute here. It's a sword wreathed in flames. I linked a reference to it some time ago - it was designed by SAS Original Bob Tait who clearly stated this. Read "SAS The Originals". He says he laughed when some started calling it a winged dagger. If the man who designed it is not an authoritative enough source I don't know what is. 195.166.217.88 (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)