Talk:2nd Commando Regiment (Australia)

	2nd Commando Regiment (Australia) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 3, 2015 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: South Pacific This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force Australia: Military history Mid‑importance 2nd Commando Regiment (Australia) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

The information is incorrect regarding 2 CDO being awarded the UCG. It was actually awarded to the 4 RAR (CDO). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.90.70.31 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK 2 CDO assumed 4 RAR (CDO)'s heritage following its renaming, while 4 RAR remains on the ORBAT as a line infantry unit should it be reestablished at a later date. As such 2 CDO inherited the UCG from 4 RAR (CDO). Is this not correct? Anotherclown (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm pretty sure that I've read that the honours 4 RAR earned during its period as a commando battalion moved across to the 2nd Commando Regiment (with the pre-commando era honours remaining with 4 RAR). I can't find the reference now, but it was probably in the Army newspaper. Nick-D (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds familiar (and typically complicated)! Anotherclown (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@

G'day, I agree with AC's post here, SOCOM should definitely be mentioned in the body. Indeed, I see it has been added back in which is a move in the right direction. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD states "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text." Special Air Service, Delta Force, Special Boat Service and United States Navy SEALs have no verbatim of the lead. If the command structure is mentioned in the body it is for a context. --Melbguy05 (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Please read AC's post again. He was taking issue with your removal of "Special Operations Command" from the body', not the other way around. It has since been restored to the body, so it is no longer an issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Yes I took it out of the body. I question the benefit of a verbatim in the body. The first section (body) has "Part of Special Operations Command (SOCOMD), the 2nd Commando Regiment is one of three combat-capable units within SOCOMD". However, the lead already has "and is one of three combat-capable units within Special Operations Command". It is verbatim with the exception of the acronym. No new context.

WP:LEAD states "although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text". The new context could be "operates in conjunction with other SOCOMD units, services and interagency organisations in joint and combined operations" - but what military unit does not work in conjunction? no unit works in isolation - needs Navy, Air Force, other Army units logistics support, supply, on and up DoD, Minister for Defence, Prime Minister, etc.. Is that necessary? It is in the "role" section. The link for the reference is wrong. It links to "Commando Operations".^[1] The actual Commando Role webpage does not have the above information.^[2] Regards, --Melbguy05 (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This is now a fairly broad discussion so I'll try to respond to the main points:

1. Is it necessary to include the command structure in both the lead and the body? To me yes. It is significant information and therefore should be included in both the lead (which is meant to summarise the key points of the article), and in the body with a reference to support it per AR's comment above. I have now reworded the lead a little to remove the "one of three combat-capable units within..." part as it does seem to be a tangent which is more relevant in the body than the lead. This reduces the use of verbatim wording somewhat, but if it is still thought to be a problem I have no issue with discussing how to reword it further. My edit to the lead is here [2].
2. Incorrect link to "Roles of the 2nd Commando Regiment". Thanks, I've fixed this now with this edit - [3].
3. You said "The actual Commando Role webpage does not have the above information." Could you pls be more specific? I had a look at the roles page again and it seems to support the "joint and combined operations" part fairly closely to me. Am I missing something?
4. Is it necessary to include "operates in conjunction with other SOCOMD units, services and interagency organisations" etc. I'm not wedded to this but it seems relevant to me. Sure it is standard for Army units to work in conjunction with others in any sort of operation (usually other Army units, but sometimes from the other services) but the main take away for me from this part of the text is the span of this co-operation, and specifically the interagency role (but also its involvement in joint and combined operations). I assume the interagency function would be a key aspect of the unit's operations, particularly when engaged in aid to the civil power etc and or when planning/training for this, but also in its other roles as well. In comparison most other Army units do this only occasionally when involved in DACC or HADR taskings (or training for them), or some other whole-of-government operation, and same for joint and combined operations etc (although less so). Whereas I'd say 2 Cdo would do all of this on a regular basis. Anotherclown (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the last point, as I understand it virtually no Australian Army units ever operate independently - the norm is to deploy and operate in groups drawn from different units, with the Plan Beersheba reforms reinforcing/better enabling this concept. This unit typically seems to be combined with other SOCOMD units to form a special operations task group (eg, Afghanistan and Iraq), or with "conventional" units to provide specialised capabilities (eg, when a company from the regiment provided the initial entry force during the Operation Astute intervention in Timor Leste). Given the public perception of special forces soldiers as some kind of independent super-soldiers, this operating practice seems well worth noting so readers can understand what role the regiment actually fills. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Melbguy05: - IRT you removing "elite" from the lead [4] I agree with you on that score. Just be aware though that there is a history to this and the reason it was there (just as it was with the SASR article previously) was that this actually has been an issue raised by other editors in the past. Hence why it was there with a reference etc. I'm happy for it to be removed but if it is challenged by someone it may need to be discussed. Anotherclown (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be appropriate to use elite if a country has several special forces / special operations forces to distinguish for example that a specific unit has higher selection standards, longer or more complex training, more complex equipment, risker training, their mission profiles are a higher risk, etc... The same could be said for conventional forces if there are specific units who have higher standards of training, maintenance of high proficiency of skills, better equipped, etc... After reading your comment, I've edited Special forces a little as their was no definition of "special operations" and put several definitions on List of military special forces units. --Melbguy05 (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, yes that reasoning makes sense to me. Anotherclown (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Insigne 2nd Commando Regiment (Australie).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Australian Commando green beret.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would just like to point out one small mistake that I saw with the following:

- Last paragraph on Formation "Regardless, the name 4 RAR remains on the Army's order of battle and its history, colours..."

The name 4 RAR does not appear on the Australian Army's order of battle. The unit is referred to as "2nd Commando Regiment" or "2 Commando."

Cheers, Chrithopopdnb (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: A former commando in a 2015 article named several foreign special forces units that either force elements or individual commandos had served with.^[1] The author didn’t distinguish between the units; whether it was a force element or individual commandos or a combination of both. The wording I used was "The regiment or individual commandos have conducted operations"[5]. I reverted a change to the wording by an unregistered user that replaced "or" with "and" [6] and it now has been changed back to "and" [7]. My wording was hair-splitting. I would appreciate your, and other editors, views on the most appropriate wording. regards--Melbguy05 (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]