Talk:Joint Task Force 2

Joint Task Force 2 structure according to former operator

At 1:06:05 a discussion starts about how JTF 2 is broken down []

Is this considered reliable enough as a source? Szeklertravel (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Szeklertravel: I've already left a detailed response to your comment on your talk page, but in short, no... adding a timestamp does not suddenly make a youtube video reliable. I would suggest finding a better source. If you find a source you believe may be more reliable, you should post it here instead making another edit to again re-add that same content. Again, please read the comments on your page, and the links included in them, as they have the answers you seek and the guidelines you need to know. - wolf 00:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Book ref used multiple times, how to...

Regarding page numbers, is it okay to list pages of the chapter, when a chapter is mentionned, as for the whole chapter when the ref is used multiple times? Is there a way to cite pages for each uses of the same book ref?

I've added chaprer pages for a book ref since it was marked as missing by someone. I listed the whole chapter from the book available at archive.org to borrow.

https://archive.org/details/canadianspiesspi0000boer/page/124

Old💩404 (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The white unit insignia often readded to the article after removal is fictional

It is the one featuring a knife separating a maple leaf and globe down the middle on a white background. This is a fictional emblem, and was created for the JTF2 characters featured in Rainbow Six Siege. No evidence exists that the real-life unit uses something remotely similar, and there is no record of it on the Government of Canada website. Even so, I notice it keeps being added to the infobox of this article every time it gets removed. For a bit more clarity, you can find the emblem I am referring to in this Fandom article.

https://rainbowsix.fandom.com/wiki/JTF2 UAmtoj (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

removal of convictions of task force members.

two temporary accounts have repeatedly removed well sourced content from this page and i would like to create a place we can discuss if the content belongs in the article, as it is very clear a removal is currently without consensus. continual removal of information without consensus is inappropriate and i would like to discuss this instead of just bringing this to admins.

the remover's argument, as i understand it, is that the information should not be included as it is not relevant to the mission or training. additionally, the point was made that we do not mention every crime of, say, a mcdonalds employee.

my point of view is that the information, convictions of members of the task force, is relevant to the article - as the article is not limited in scope in any way to mission or training. wikipedia aims to summarize all relevant information, including criticisms and crimes. i would also argue that the comparison to mcdonalds is inappropriate as this, according to the page- started with around 100 members, and though the current number is classified- i think its safe to assume it remains within an order of magnitude- say, under 1000 people. mcdonalds, on the other hand, has (as far as i can tell) about 150k employees. one member of the mcdonalds staff is much less significant to the overall impact of mcdonalds than one member of this task force is to the overall task force. it is also worth noting that the mcdonalds page quite extensivley covers criticisms of mcdonalds, including around employee relations, nutrition, animal wellfare, and legal cases. in fact, there is an entire article on McDonald's legal cases.

anyone who would like to add arguments for or against this content removal is welcome to do so. tagging @~2026-44202-46 @~2026-44634-56 and @Gadfium, as yall have all been involved. Jackjd0 (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Pages involving a company should stay on topic. Personal life issues of personnel aren't relevant, while McDonald's legal issues are relevant to the company and company policies. JTF or attached operators not having their lives together isn't a policy problem. ~2026-44202-46 (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

i think this is on the topic of the company, as the cases were tied up closely with the defendant's status as members of the force. the source for the first instance, for example, states “The Department of Justice, citing national security concerns, asserted control over the narrative of his case. They directed that key portions of my evidence be redacted and not spoken in court,” and that there was "an 85-page document that detailed matters she could not talk about in court."

this is very clearly not a "personal issue", this is an issue intimately tied up with his military involvment Jackjd0 (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

as you can see i only removed 2 unrelated instances. the others have links to jtf 2, like using training to cover up crimes, or getting more lenient sentences due to service history. ~2026-44202-46 (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

can we agree that the other cases are relevant at least?

also- id argue that, based on the information i attempted to include in my last edit, those to cases are relevant, though it may not have been clear why before my addition. one received an early release because of their military work, and the other one had information in the case not allowed to enter the record because it had to do with his military service. Jackjd0 (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2026 (UTC)