Talk:United States Army Special Forces/Archive 1

Archive 1

Photo

Would someone with a more critical eye please take a look at the photo for this article? Maybe it's just me, but the helicopter in the background looks very suspicious, and makes me wonder if the picture is legit. Gcolive 20:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I objected to the use of the words "struggle against the North." I believe "in fighting..." is more neutral. Struggle implies to me "great efforts made by an underdog." Objectively speaking, this applied to the Viet Cong. It did not apply to the South Vietnamese Army.

Unit name

I know little on the subject but I will tell you the "special force", "green berets" and "special operation forces" pages give entirely contradictory information. Someone should look at all three pages and get them to match up. But that someone isn't me because I have no specialized knowledge of this - I'm just editting for typos and clarity.

HJS

The unit's official name is the "United States Army Special Forces". Please, do not move this article to "Green Berets"; that article is supposed to be pointing to this one (as it is right now).

--Maio 05:40, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names) - "Green Berets" is the common name, so this article should be located there. --Jiang 01:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it is the common name.. among Americans and other military developed countries. But in other countries, like for example in Latin America, guerillas use green berets as their head caps, and people refer to them as "Green Berets" — from the spanish translation of "boinas verdes". That is the very reason why the Army officialy changed their names to "Special Forces", to avoid any links to revolutionary guerrillas. Anyways, Green Berets redirect to this article, and in the article summary it is explained that their are also called like that. If you still beleive that it should be moved, then do so, but I will not agree with the decision (although I will not move it back). --Maio 05:02, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it will be confusing if we move it there, as long was we keep the current bolded title in the text. A note about the name change should be added to the article. What about Night Stalkers? --Jiang 00:35, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Same POV: I don't agree with it, but if you wanna do it feel free to do so.. as long as we keep the current bolded text of the article. ;0) --Maio 09:50, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

The term "Special Forces," in capitals, refers to US Army Special Forces, whose members wear green berets. The green beret is a hat, not a person. Capitalizing the term "Green Beret" is a media convention, used because it makes for spicier news copy. It should not be used in an encyclopedia article, unless it is to point out the correct naming convention. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. The correct naming convention, which is that used by members of the Special Forces themselves, is to characterize members of the Special Forces as "Special Forces soldiers," and their headgear as green berets.

Estéban (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Headgear: Green Beret

Today I added information about Kennedy and decided to move the paragraph about the Royal Marines before the mention of the Rangers, because with the addition of the Kennedy paragraph there is far more on U.S. Army Special Forces than the Royal Marines in this section. Where it was, before I moved it, the Royal Marines paragraph, separated the first U.S. paragraph from the second and (the new) third.

But the alteration that ALoan has made has obscured the information about the Royal Marines of today. I would like to reinstate a separate paragraph about the Royal Marines. As it is much shorter than the information on the US Special Forces I would like to place in before the mention of the Rangers. The reason for doing this is clarity, but as the Royals have been wearing green berets for longer than US forces, it is also follows seniority. Does anyone object to this. If so why Philip Baird Shearer 21:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ALoan's edit > your edit. —John | Talk 21:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But to make the change of a change, without an explanation, can start an edit war and life is too short. Philip Baird Shearer 21:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining before editing, and for the pointer on my talk page. It is not something that I would go to the wall for, but I just thought that my version was clearer. The article is mainly about the US Special Forces because they are known as the 'green berets' and the Royal Marines generally are not. I just thought it looked a bit odd to refer to the Marines before explaining their link to the US Special Forces. The reference to the Marines' headgear and WWII is really an aside, and, pace your point about seniority, I don't think it needs to come first. Perhaps you disagree. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:48, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The moving of the section Headgear:the green beret to an article green beret by User:JohnCrawford (exporting information to 'green beret'), makes the talk about this section redundent. Philip Baird Shearer 08:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I was attending SFQC (enlisted) course in 1979 when CPT Wilder was attending the Officer's Course. At the time, it was rumored that CPT Wilder failed the land navigation course but, she was still allowed to graduate. As it has already been mentioned, the O-course was significantly shorter (and easier) than the enlisted course. Luckily, this changed. I might also add that SFAS did not exist during this period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.222.183.5 (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Women in the SF

This part of the article requires a little clarification. In its present reading, one might think they won't see a woman wearing the Special Forces Green Beret, but that's not true. Women can serve in SF units in a non-combat capacity (ex: clerks). They'll get airborne training, but they won't get tabbed. They'll wear the Green Beret, but it won't have the flash. They won't find themselves on an A-Team. My jaw dropped when one of the women in my Airborne class put on a Green Beret after graduating jump school and receiving her orders. On the other hand, she kicked butt during training (most women dropped out of my class, no pun intended), so more power to her. Rklawton 01:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That changed in the mid 1990s. No untabbed personnel assigned to special forces groups wear the green beret anymore as of 1995 or so. It used to be the case that all personnel assigned to group wore the beret, like you said, but that changed. Not sure of the exact date, but I remember the change coming down while I was serving as an 18C between 1991 and 1997.Ikilled007 01:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, one female did qualify for the flash. I met her (Kate Wilder) this weekend and heard some of her story, did some googling, and came up with an AP source. Added to the article with a footnote...one of these days I'll register a login for WP. -- Anonymous Coward, 15:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.253.4.21 (talk • contribs) .

Women assigned to support duties in SF groups now wear the maroon beret. When this switched, I don't know. I remember reading in Aaron Banks' book (I believe it was his) that the real SF soldiers weren't happy that support guys were wearing the beret. Apparently, the complaints were finally addressed. Incidentally, the only info I could find about Kate Wilder was that she was allowed to attend the course (probably as a test) but was caught cheating on the land nav and was kicked out [1]. How accurate the info is, I've no idea.--Nobunaga24 01:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a terribly reliable source you've got there - I'm told by my father (who knew her and her husband at Bragg) that there was a lot of pressure to wash her out and rumors to the effect of what you see in that gunboards forum. The full AP article I linked to mentions that she was told she failed land nav right before the graduation ceremony and filed a sexual discrimination complaint. The complaint was investigated by Brig. Gen. F. Cecil Adams, who found that she had been wrongly failed. BTW, the reason she was allowed to go through the course was because the regs barred enlisted women from qualifying for the training but did not mention officers - she was a captain, and snuck in on a loophole (promptly closed after her). 169.253.4.21 20:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I went through the Q-Course in 1981 after the Wilder episode. At the time, officers attended an abbreviated version of the course that consisted of mainly classroom work followed by a short field excercise; enlisted men, meanwhile, went through the full three phases of training, starting with an intensive "pre-phase" period followed by several weeks in the field at Camp McCall. Cpt. Katie Wilder, of course, attended the "gentleman's course." If she had attended the enlisted course, it would rightly be considered an accomplishment. The O-course, meanwhile, no longer exists, now they have to prove thhemselves like everyone else. BTW, the finding that she was "wrongly failed" actually determined that one of her fellow candidates in the cheating episode wasn't terminated, not that she didn't cheat on the land nav course. Incidently, quite a few candidates found out that they had failed or were being "recycled" just before the end of the course. Only KW thought of suing. Her actions spawned a saying, "I can do anything the men can do - and if I can't, I'll sue you."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.27.203.131 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 24 January 2007.

That sounds more realistic and accurate, knowing what I know about how the army works. It would explain how she could have passed selection, since she wouldn't have had to attend in the first place.--Nobunaga24 02:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A very different situation, but perhaps there could be a bit of space in the article for Martha Raye. I suspect it would be unsafe to tell anyone who knew her, or knew of her, that she wasn't part of Special Forces. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

Does anyone know the number of Special Forces casualties in the Iraq and Afghanistan War? How do they compare percentage-wise to other military units (normal infantry, rangers, ect.) in the US army? And how do they compare to green beret casualties of other US wars? How do they compare to the military units of Iraq and Afghanistan (Taliban soldiers, Baath soldiers, Al Queda Terrorists, ect.) during the current wars? Zachorious 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Team composition and culture

The MOS is a general job, if you want to add skill levels, then you can explain which paygrades generally hold these MOS levels.

The composition of an A team and B team are what is on paper, a list was better suited. Someone expressed a disliking for a list, so I did not revert. Giving the preferred rank for each position the way I have left it is best in my wholehearted opinion... The Supply and NBC NCOs are part of the B Team composition and should not be listed under the SF MOS list. If you wanted to list every single MOS that works with SF then go ahead, you have alot of listings ahead of you.

As for MGS, a "platoon" is an A Team, a game like MGS is not very accurate. I do not think we should leave room for a person to wonder "What is an SF platoon?", leaving (A Team) in parenthesis lets the reader know that they were talking about an ODA.

You cannot discuss the positions or ranks of an A-Team unless you understand the mission and role of each of its members and the team itself. A-Team members are not simply Weapons (Infantrymen), Communications (Radio), Engineers (Combat Engineers), Medics or whatever. They are part of a team that are "Force Multipliers. Their primary role is to teach and lead. To take a group of indigenous soldiers, guerrillas and mold them into a fighting unit capable of taking on an enemy that is typically much larger, better equipped and far more experienced and come out victorious... and alive. These men bring far superior training, experience and a unique attitude to the teams that differentiates them from nearly every other member of the US Army.

Forget the bravado of John Wayne and Sylvester Stallone; it's all make believe and totally unreal. Special Forces Soldiers strength is in their ability to operate as a team, be it a very small team of just two or three or a full team of 12. They have the ability to quickly adapt to the situation, virtually any situation, overcome the hardships, obstacles and enemy constraints and win their objectives, succeed in their missions. They are expected to do far more than anyone else of their equivalent rank in the "Standard or Regular Army"; and they regularly do it.

This is not at all what their counterparts in a typical Infantry Company do or are about. Therefore there can be no equations or meaningful comparisons. During my Active Duty time while in Vietnam I had SSGTs (E-6's) in Command of and Leading full Companies of Indigenous troops in combat doing exactly what a Captain in a complimentary US Infantry Company would be doing in the exact same situation. He made the decisions as to which platoons to employ, what tactics to use, he called in and directed Air Power,(we typically were out of range of Artillery support) and did virtually everything else CO would do including the discipline of his troops. He was in complete Command with the full authority of any other combat commander. It's a hell of a lot to ask of and expect from a Staff Sergeant but in every instance they came through brilliantly.

While with MACVSOG operating in LAOS we had E-4 and E-5 Team Leaders on our Recon Teams command Lts and Captains who were new to the teams and learning the techniques. That's right, even a Enlisted and low ranking NCOs were in command of small teams with an Officer reporting to him and taking orders until they either obtained their own team or for the duration. Special Forces is indeed unique so don't even try to compare ranks and positions. [Personal Experience, 7th, 5th 11th and 12th Special Forces Groups (Abn) Vietnam 1968-70 MACVSOG CCC and IV Corps Mike Force A-404] Cork130 (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Debatable whether a "platoon" is an A-team, considering a platoon refers to a composition of squads, and since A teams correspond more to squads. Your method for listing the ranks is inefficient: It's much better to put the MOS first, and then which ranks generally hold that MOS. That way, when listing the composition of the A and B teams, you need only put the MOS and the reader already knows what rank that will be, rather than having to give a stylistically mind-numbing list of all the ranks with the MOS over and over and over again. Come on, that's just common sense. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The equivalent to a platoon is an A Team. Platoons and Squads are not used in SF structure.

Reverting the pages over and over is quite embarrassing, I created the B team composition section so I think I should have the final say, I also created it to look like the original A team composition section. I think you are incorrect because it leaves misinformation in the article.

Hi, I saw this dispute on WP:3O - the page to request a third opinion. It's difficult to decide on which version of this page is better because there is no line-by-line citation. If you could both provide sources that illustrate your point, a third opinion can be provided. Also, it would really help if all users involved would start leaving their signature at the end of their comments by typing four tildes (~). Regarding who has final say, no individual user has this right. Content disputes are decided by consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS). I'd also like to remind users, just in case, of the policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR. Thanks. Please provide the diffs, then contact me, and I will provide the opinion. KazakhPol 00:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third Opinion is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute. """When editors cannot come to a compromise""" and need a third opinion, they list a dispute here.

There was a compromise; he stopped reverting the page, it was a dispute between the two of us so I said I think I should have the final say, case and point, we found a compromise.

That wasn't a compromise. You weren't ever going to stop reverting, so I gave up. That's no compromise. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence in "C Team Composition" isn't. Can someone fix that? I have a doc on Vietnam era team composition but not current. 66.82.9.57 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Me again.

History section needed

Given that the SF is over 50 years old and members have served with distinction (even some notoriety) in America's wars, this article badly needs a comprehensive history. Maybe a general overview is better with links to specific, more detailed articles on certain periods. For instance, SF operations in Vietnam alone could be an article unto itself. I'll try to add what I can, but my knowledge is at the moment in a nascent stage. Linda Robinson's Masters of Chaos is an excellent source for more recent SF history (1980s-present) with a focus on operations in Panama, the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq. Alcarillo 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I stared a history section, essentially adapted from a US Army site. Alcarillo 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This article had a very good history section until someone removed it and created History of the United States Army Special Forces - I didn't like it when they did it and still don't; it should be put back into its original space. Meyerj (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's time to reconsider the above input. Now that the 5th SFGA has reverted back to the Vietnam Era Flash and as the Vietnam War is no longer such a taboo subject perhaps appropriate links and history could be added. As indicated by Mr. Meyer above, this could indeed be a complete topic in itself. SF has perhaps the most interesting and unheard of history of any Military unit in our country's history as most of the missions and operations have been classified. But after all these years the classifications have been removed and the stories are available... while the operators, shooters and warriors are still alive. Just a thought.Cork130 (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Cork130

External links questioned

I'm seeing a lot of links to specialoperations.com. Aside from the repetition, it's essentially a commerical site with a store, business directory. I question whether it qualifies as WP:SPAM. (See relevant WHOIS info [2].). Another site listed is of dubious value, too: sfahq.com (not the official site of the Special Forces Assn. [3]). There are plenty of other better sources out there, especially from .mil sites, we should be using. Alcarillo 17:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the anon user who started removing some of the commercial websites. I went through them as well and added links to official US Army sites. I kept the one called the 'Special Forces Search Engine' because it bills itself as a not-for-profit site. See their disclaimer here.[4] Alcarillo 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alcarillo (talk • contribs) 14:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Motto mistranslation

De Oppresso Liber, while not exactly correct grammar[5], does not mean "To Free the Oppressed." The closest meaning is "To Free From Oppression." See also Talk:De Oppresso Liber and List of Latin phrases. Alcarillo 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sniper School

The article doesn't mention SOTIC (Special Operations Target Interdiction Course), so I am curious -- did they change the school name? That's what it was called when I went to it in the 90's. Ikilled007 01:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ikilled007: As far as I know, SOTIC was renamed to "Special Forces Sniper Course" (SFSC) some time in the 2000s. As I am not serving, I do not know if this is the "official" name or just a "popular" name. Hopefully this helps (maybe the guys at SOFRep can shed some light). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedbinger (talk • contribs) 21:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

SF Battalion ?

How many companies in SF Battalion ? --Jonybond 15:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

3 companies..Alpha , Bravo and Charlie ..--Max Mayr 08:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the support company as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.196.27 (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Recovered link

This link was listed as being in this article, and dead. I have found a new link, but the old one appears to have been removed, so I do not know where to put it, so I will post it here. Dean Wormer 02:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• U.S. Coast Guard International Affairs

dont forget support coy as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.196.27 (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Added some photos.

Added 2 public domain photos.

I wanted to say something about the photo with the 3rd groups guys. Aren't active duty ODA numbers only three digits long? Did someone get a little too happy when pressing the '3' key? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.13.225 (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This.machinery 03:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

11/11/07- Also fixed numerous spelling errors. This.machinery 15:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

SF ODA numbers now use four digits.

Estéban (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

== 180A ? == 180A's typically are prior Team Sergeant's, E-8's, and occasionally highly experienced SFC's, E-7's, who are then selected to attend the Warrent Officer Academy. Upon graduation they are sent back to the Teams where they otherwise would not have been able to continue to serve as their only other option would have been either a promotion to staff or Sergeant Major, both removing them from the A-Teams. By opening the Warrent Officer Slots SF brought additional highly experienced men back onto the team into critical leadership positions as Officers capable of supporting the 18A or operating independently when required. (CB Motsett SFOC Graduate 1969, Served with 7th, 5th, 11th and 12th SFG(Abn).)

I think its First Seargent not Chief Warrant Officer ..please verify ?--Max Mayr 08:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/prerequ/wo180A.html <--- listed as Warrant. This.machinery 05:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well its say he must be at least E6 which means staff seargent and above....--Max Mayr 11:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That is to apply to become 180A. A 180A is a Special Forces Warrant Officer. Nicht Nein! 11:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You will find a 1SG (E8) at the HHC company at Group level, and no where else in SF. At B-team level, meaning SF companies, the ranking enlisted soldier will be a SGM (E9). These are enlisted ranks, not warrants. At the C-team level, meaning the battalion level, the ranking enlisted soldier will be a CSM (E9). The Group CSM (E9) is the ranking enlisted soldier in the SF Group and the Senior Enlisted Advisor to the SF Group Commander (Colonel)(O6).

Warrant Officers, MOS 180A, are found at the ODA or detachment level, at the B-team or company level, at C-team or battalion level, and higher, including multiple positions on Group staff.

Estéban (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence augmentation; articles on SF missions

I have some detail on the 4-man Special Operations Team-Alpha, which is a SIGINT augmentation to operational detachments. There is also a 2-man counter-intelligence/HUMINT augmentation team, but I haven't dug into sources beyond its existence.

You may also want to make some Wikilinks to special reconnaissance, which is a major SF role these days and is intelligence collection. There is also a direct action article, and unconventional warfare, but the latter needs work.

I started one on foreign internal defense, but it is definitely in draft stage. Even more fragmentary, and on one of my user pages, are current controversies in the SF community of overemphasizing SR and DA over UW and FID; that also still is in draft.

The SR-DA ("door-kicker") vs. UW/FID is one controversy. There is another, discussed in some CIA articles to which I can link after I remedy my caffeine deficiency, that addresses a possible legal loophole: where the White House is require to notify Congress and provide a Presidential Finding for use of CIA paramilitary personnel in a covert action or clandestine surveillance operation, there does not seem to be a legal prohibition of using SF in the same role. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes, battles, and SOF (and strategic forces in general)

Just as there was a recent combatant vs. belligerent debate in what clearly was a war, I'm increasingly wondering about how meaningful "battle" was with respect to what I will generically call strategic assets.

I can reasonably accept the Battle of A Shau. But what about smaller unconventional warfare operations? Before the tilt to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, were the SF detachments with the Kurds fighting battles, or really functioning at an operational or strategic level? What about the special recon and air support coordination against the Taliban, with the Northern Alliance providing the majority of the troops?

Was Hiroshima a battle? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For battles and information, instead of using contemporary links - though very few come to mind - this should stay for Vietnam war era conflicts with this unit. The purpose is 2 fold; We cannot ascertain exact applications of an SF unit in contemporary battles - closest we can use would be the Battle of Qala-i-Jangi as SF was in a direct action operation in support of CIA and General Dostum's fighters. Secondly, we cannot ascertain the functions of units with embedded SF operators or trainers (Ie MIKE Units in Vietnam - not a principle unit). As for further information, highly suggest Tom Clancy's Shadow Warriors as it gives a nice round description of detailed SF operations through the 1980's - albeit fragmented. Mcase07 (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

SF ODAs were indeed deployed in Kurdistan before Operation Iraqi Freedom, and had been deployed there for a considerable amount of time. As far as I am aware, no open source discussion of those deployments has yet taken place in the public domain.

Estéban (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly related articles on US Army Special Forces missions

I've written an article on foreign internal defense, which had far too much theory of insurgency and counterinsurgency. Yesterday, I did a major rewrite of insurgency, which needs to be understood before approaching UW and FID/COIN.

When I refer to UW, I refer to it as a U.S. mission with associated doctrine. You see, I volunteered to improve the unconventional warfare article, but, after preliminary edits, I can't really see why there is such an article separate from guerilla warfare, unless the purpose is to expand on the SF UW mission.

May I have some opinion? Should there be an article discussing the doctrine of each of the primary SF missions, which, by necessity, would be US-centric?

Insurgency, incidentally, is decidedly not intended to be US-centric. While its beginning sections should help clear that insurgency is not equivalent either to terrorism or to that which goes on in Iraq, no matter how much politicians and television hairspray abusers news anchors would like it to be. Instead, I go into the messy concept that a very wide range of historical conflicts qualify as insurgencies. There are models, which I hesitate to call academic since some were developed or refined by soldiers, of potential for insurgency, and what needs to change for the motivation of an insurgency to wither (paging the honored ghost of Ramon Magsaysay...).

Comments on insurgency are greatly welcomed, but I'll preface it to say that I don't know how to make an accurate description simple to understand. I assume the insurgents and counterinsurgents are armed with Occam's Combat Razor, which means giving the simplest explanation that covers the phenomena, but not oversimplifying beyond that point.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Personnel strength of SF command

There is starting to be a revert war that I'd like to avoid. When I asked for a citation for the much smaller number than is generally used, a National Geographic documentary was given.

I'm afraid I have never thought of National Geographic as a major source on military organizations. In contrast, sources like Jane's, the Military Balance, and indeed plausible official documents may be useful. As a reality check, I would suggest you start with the table of organization of SF groups and work out the theoretical number of personnel needed to put them at full manning. There are a number of Defense Department initiatives to enlarge USSOCOM, although I'm dubious where they will get the personnel for these specialized jobs, and, particularly with Special Forces, quickly generate units when full training and operational unit cohesion may take several years to build.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoulder sleeve insignia

Wich version of the shoulder sleeve insignia is the correct one?

• 
  With Special Forces tab
• 
  Without Special Forces tab

The US Army Institute of Heraldry shows it only with the Airborne tab [6] and as far as I know, the SF tab is a qualification tab, and can be worn without serving in a SF unit.--Darz Mol (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you qualify for the Green Beret you qualify for the SF tab. Non Special Forces qualified personnel in SF units do not qualify for, or wear the Green beret. The SF "shoulder sleeve insignia" includes the SF tab for Green Beret qualified personnel. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That previous statement may be correct for the period after 1983, but for the period that the 1st, 5th and 7th SFG(A) served in Vietnam, 1959-71, (before the SF Tab was developed) if you were jump qualified and assigned to the SF unit, you wore the beret, the SSI w/Airborne Tab (unit patch), and you were considered a "Green Beret". If you did not have jump wings, you wore the "fatigue" uniform cap or maybe you got away with a "boonie" hat, and always the unit patch. There were approximately 42 warrant officers assigned to 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne) between 1965 and 71 that wore the beret but have never been awarded the SF Tab. Not every soldier assigned to SF had the opportunity to attend the SF Qualification course but none-the-less served in the unit and wore the beret IF they had jump wings. The Army Regulation 600-8-22 authorizes the SF Tab retroactively for all ranks except warrant officer.

There was one other bennie to serving with SF in RVN, the CIB. It seems any soldier, with any MOS, assigned to SF and DESIRING to go out on patrol and thus finding himself in an exchange of gun fire with the enemy was entitled to be awarded the Combat InfantryMAN Badge. Meyerj (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes and that is the current period. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Something overlooked in our responses above… The Airborne Tab is a part of the SF SSI (patch). Yes the SF Tab is a Qualification Badge. When a previously SF qualified soldier is assigned to a non-SF unit, i.e. 10th Mountain Division, the tab is worn above (not attached to ) the 10th Division patch at the crest of the left shoulder, probably above the ranger tab, as it seems most SF attend that school first. If that soldier in the 10th Mountain Division has participated in combat with a SF unit, he should wear the SF patch with Airborne Tab only on the right shoulder (upper arm). Clear as mud, right. Meyerj (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

De Oppresso Liber does NOT...

...mean "to free the oppressed." In Latin it's a nonsensical phrase that–at best–can be construed to mean "free from the oppressed." Ifnkovhg (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the United States Army and U.S. Special Operations Command, the translation is "To free the oppressed." Official military website references: History of USASFC, GoArmy.com, U.S. Army Recruiting website, see left-hand side in the maroon colored box, soc.mil news release, Official USASFC website, SOCOM 2009 Factbook. -Signaleer (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Signaleer -- I understand what the army would like the Latin phrase to mean. As a Latin teacher, however, I feel compelled to point out that "De Oppresso Liber" is gobbledygook. Ifnkovhg (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If it was written in another way, I'd see no problem, but the "(Lati: foo)" is just wrong. If the army say something, that thing does not become true, therefore, although Signaleer found some references about this mistranstlation, it is still a mistranslation. In my opinion, we have two options. We can either remove their translation or correct it. I guess the people with green hat would not be happy if their motto was changed on this page. This makes the first option a better idea. The purpose of Wikipedia is to contains true informations, not to contains informations which make people happy. I do not think one should let something false be just to make some military fanboys happy. Oh, I just found an interresting way to give this translation (on the page about the motto) : "It is US Army tradition that the phrase is Latin for [...]". Don't you think it'd be better than the "(Latin: ...)" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.153.75 (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, here's 85.2.153.75 again. Just wondering if anybody else thinks this mistranslation should be corrected. Wikipedia is supposed to contain the truth, not mistakes which make people happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.69.33 (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

85.2.153.75 quote Wikipedia is to contain the truth. You must be joking, it is POV and bias on most days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.225.181 (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If we can get a native Latin speaker to correct this we should go with it. If all we have is "Latin Teachers" trying to correct it, then we shouldn't worry about it. We should let it mean what the Army wants it to mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.2.38 (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth Primogen (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That's true but at the same time we have outs for this sort of thing. The phrase clearly doesn't mean what it was intended to mean, as anyone who speaks Latin will tell you, and it's not original research to make note of the literal translation. TomPointTwo (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The motto of the unit is just that...a motto. A piece of history and lineage for literally hundreds of thousands of persons both civilian and military alike that span the globe. It's not meant to be a teaching tool or academic point for future students of the dead language Latin. Although if you desire use it as an example of error in it's use in popular culture. The obvious misuse or translation of Latin can be viewed from hundreds of army units to foreign and local government, civic organizations and even in family crests. Just as much as the argument that Halloween, Christmas and any other ancient traditions (or languages) can be argued about their misrepresentation or translations. The fact is that Wikipedia is here to share knowledge, not truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rescuemedic76 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Our Latin teacher User:Ifnkovhg above says the "translation" is gobbledygook. And even Google Translate can't handle it. But the answer to our editing question is available here → De oppresso liber#United States Army tradition. We say "by tradition considered to mean 'Free the Oppressors'" (or whatever). Don't use the word "translate". We will be fine. – S. Rich (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Full Spectrum Warriors

This article, like many about the U.S. Army Special Forces focuses on kinetic and direct-action (DA) operations. What this article does not discuss is the full spectrum of operations, these highly trained soldiers in addition to pulling the trigger also provides Regional Combatant Commanders, American ambassadors, and other agencies as directed in addition to kinetic, non-kinetic, direct and indirect–including Unconventional Warfare, Foreign Internal Defense, Special Reconnaissance, Direct Action, Combating Terrorism, Counter-proliferation, and Information Operations. On any given day, elements of three of five active duty Special Forces groups, U.S. Army Special Operations Forces elements are today working in more than 30 American Embassies, supporting country team mission planning and U.S. strategic objectives in the global war on terrorism. More than 120 Special Forces Operational Detachments-A are deployed on missions around the world, assisting some 100 counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency units. In addition, these soldiers deal with complex problems that are not typical of conventional forces, having to work with the indigenous people to provide aid, medical care, security, working through complex cultural issues, etc. which many other Special Operations Forces (SOF) are not trained to conduct the full spectrum of operations and missions such as 75th Ranger Regiment, PSYOP, etc. I added a photograph to illustrate this important aspect of their capabilities and missions in the world. -Signaleer (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Full Spectrum Warriors" reminds me of the Song "Boney was a warrior. Away, away-ay-ya! A warrior and a terrier ..."

Number of Active Duty SF Soldiers

The actual number is 9,500, not 4,500 as someone keeps persistently trying to add. This can be verified through a number of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intifadamericana (talk • contribs) 00:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please sign all comments on talk pages with ~~~~ which will generate who commented it. I have addressed in the edit history to see the wikipedia policy of verifiability, I will continue to revert any changes made to the ~4,500 unless a reliable source is presented. -Signaleer (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

76.238.153.100 (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC) The number is in every book, ever publication, every release stating the number of overall personnel. Not to mention it is a matter of simple addition. Plus, they are adding a battalion to each group, which will further increase the number. The total number of AD and NG SF troops is almost 14,000.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,020805_Masters_Chaos,00.html

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8028/struggle_to_transform_the_military.html

http://www.groups.sfahq.com/command/lambert_events_unite_50th.htm

OK thats great... So heres what you do... Edit the article to include your sources this time, provide an edit summary and stop changing IP/accounts with each revert/edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4twenty42o (talk • contribs) 11:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I tried adding the correct numbers in, but I'm new enough to wiki edot that I have messed it up some how, please refer to the other personeel heading here for the right numbers, could someone correct all this for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.196.27 (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Kennedy and the Special Forces

It would be nice if someone could elaborate on Kennedy's involvement with the SF during the Indochina War Era. Right now, the article states that Kennedy rebuilt the SF, but the history doesn't explain why that was necessary and what Kennedy's actions were that rebuilt the SF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.111.163 (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

ODA Numbering?

What mean new digits(four)in ODA/ODB/ODC? Anyone knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.172.141 (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's appropriate to detail, it would be appreciated if someone with knowledge of the new numbering scheme explained how the system now works. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Something found, but i don't know did is real numbering http://www.softairmania.it/threads/31556-Numerazione-degli-ODA-teams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.66.214 (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Noting the comments above, I believe the following example from the article is outdated (as it uses three, rather than four, numerals for identification): "An ODA is identified by its group, battalion, company and the team itself. For example, ODA 111 would be the first team in the first company of the first battalion of First Special Forces Group."

An ODA is identified by the aforementioned format: Group | Battalion | Company | Detachment ("Team"); thus, e.g., ODA 5311 would be: 5th SFG (A), 3d Bn, Co A, Det 1. However, the proper convention per hierarchy is reversed: Detachment 1, Company A, 3d Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne). If I am incorrect on any point, please feel free to correct. Tedbinger (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Separate training and selection article

A couple months ago I moved the bulk of the "training and selection" portion of the United States Navy SEALs article to it's own page United States Navy SEAL selection and training. The idea was to free up room in the parent article for more information on history, organization, personnel and operation information while giving that section room to grow.

I think the same thing can be done here. Unless anyone has any objections I'm going to move the training and selection portion of this article to a new page and merge in the articles Special Forces Assessment and Selection, Special Forces Qualification Course and probably Exercise Robin Sage into a new "United States Army Special Forces selection and training" article. This will open up more space here, reduce the number of stray articles and consolidate specific information in a way that will make it easier on the reader to get info and easier on the editor to add new info. Thoughts? TomPointTwo (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the bulk of the section, created the new article and merged in the previously mentioned articles. I've also added quite a few pictures to the news article and created some new content and references as well. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

While I wholeheartedly support your concept of creating an entirely new section on the selection, training and qualification requirements of SF Soldiers might I suggest a brief synopsis be provided here for those who only want the 10,000 foot view and not the detailed version? Perhaps just a few bullet points along with a summary. Just a suggestion. Cork130 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Cork130

SF uniform

Ive seen a wide variety of uniforms used by the Special Forces, so does the SF use ACUPAT normally?

And can they have uniforms purchased personally, i also saw multicam and different sorts(3rd Spec Ops group) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.181.94 (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as ACUPAT. The US Army digital pattern is correctly called UCP, for Universal Camouflage Pattern. ACU stands for Army Combat Uniform, which refers to the clothing articles themselves and not the pattern on them. Therefor, an ACU can be had in UCP, multicam, M81 woodland, OD green, khaki, black, pink, purple, fluorescent yellow, leopard print, or whatever else the manufacturer makes (everything after black is an obvious an exaggeration, so don't rage).

To answer your question, no. SF don't have a standard "uniform" in the sense that you're talking. An SF soldier's "uniform" is whatever the situation dictates he wears, be that the Army-standard ACU, the uber-expensive Crye combat uniform, jeans and an AC/DC t-shirt, Afghan robes (sorry, don't know the actual name), etc.. Spartan198 (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

When in garrison in the States it is typical for SF-types to wear the standard army UCP ACU's. This is mostly to avoid unnecessary grief from conventional 1SG's and SGM's who have nothing better to do. However, it is common to see SF soldiers who have recently returned from overseas, or are preparing to go overseas, wearing Multicam or sometimes even Woodland pattern ACU's. As Spartan said, when they're in the field or on operations, they wear whatever they think will get the job done best. In Iraq they could occasionally be seen wearing Desert Tiger Stripe, 3-color desert BDU's, UCP ACU's, or civilian garb. In Afghanistan many have been seen wearing Woodland pattern ACU's as opposed to Multicam in the more heavily wooded areas.ForwardObserver85 (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Green Beret

Unless there is a source that says otherwise I suggest that the link to the Royal Marines is changed to British Commandos -- PBS (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Green Berets (again)

There is an ongoing discussion at the disambiguation page for Green Berets which is relevant to this page. The gist of the discussion is whether the name Green Berets refers exclusively to the US Army Special Forces, or if it is also widely identified with other special forces groups. If you have something to add, please come and join in. GyroMagician (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Requirements for Special Forces

Are there any rules/guidelines about how long you must be an American citizen before you can train to join the Special Forces/The United States Army? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.216.205 (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You do not have to be a US citizen to join the US Army, only a legal resident in good standing. It's actually a way to expedite earning citizenship. As far as SF I do not believe there is a minimum amount of time you have to be a citizen. If I remember they only reason you have to be a citizen at all is because there is a Security Clearance requirement associated with the MOS. If this is just a question you want answered for personal reasons my advice is to contact a recruiter. Also see, United States Army Special Forces selection and training. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Your question can be answered at the following U.S. Army website: Special Forces: Qualifications & Benefits

Note: U.S. citizenship is a requirement. (See second point) Tedbinger (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problems

See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 August 12

A bit of history: the original section on the green beret was moved out into green beret back in 2004.[7] The wording in that article on the US Green Berets in that article is still close to the original wording moved out of this article.

There is a copyright violation, the section Special Forces (United States Army)#The Green Beret and page 70 of Us Special Operations Forces Handbook by IBP USA (2007), published by USA International Business Publications, it is a close paraphrase and some sentences have wording that is clearly copied. I have highlighted the phrase "upon completion of the grueling and revolutionary commando course". It was introduced into this article on 8 March 2009.

But before anyone rushes to change just that phrase, much more of the text than just that phrase is a copy or close paraphrasing that breaches copyright.

For example the text in the rest of the paragraph is very similar even though it was added before the 2009 edit. I have checked the book with a Google search of the text and it does not return Wikiepdia so it seems that they have not credited the text to Wikipedia if it originates with Wikipedia editors.

Some text in the same section was added in February 2007 which is likely be before the book was published. It includes the sentence "Edson Raff, one of the first Special Forces officers, is credited with" which is also on page 70 of the book but is unlikely to be a copyright violation by Wikipedia, because the second half of the sentence was different and was changed in the 8 March 2009 edit.

If on the other hand the book is mis-dated and was in fact copied from Wikiepdia at a date later than 8 March 2009 we need to identify the date. One problem is that the book is "updated yearly". If on the other hand the book is not a copy of this page and the publication date is accurate then here is a copy of our page from the start and end of 2007 (the year the book was published). and it means at least some of the text in our article is a copy of theirs. This needs more instigation and removal of any copyrighted material, or validation that the book is in part a copy of this article. -- PBS (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I don't have the time this minute but, unless someone else jumps in, I'll review the text and make the changes/deletions needed in the next few days. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a detailed look at the edit history to the section and have decided that the the book is a copy of our text made sometime between between 5 October 2010 and 3 May 2011.

The wording in the book is "However, this green beret was not authorized by the U.S. Army among the Rangers and OSS operatives who earned them." so I checked when that wording appeared in our text and then continued looking for differences up until the text matched:

• 30 December 2008 Wikipeida is using "originally unauthorized" rather than "not authorized by the U.S. Army"

"which was originally unauthorized for wear by the U.S. Army"

• 8 March 2009 Now changed to "not authorised" but has in the sentence "indeed a symbol of excellence,"

"The beret, indeed a symbol of excellence, was not authorized by the US Army among the Rangers and OSS operatives who earned them."

• 25 March 2009 removed "indeed a symbol of excellence" but no "However" at the start of the sentence (and notice "US" not "U.S.").

"The beret was not authorized by the US Army among the Rangers and OSS operatives who earned them."

• [21 August 2010 Added "however"

"However, this green beret was not authorized by the US Army among the Rangers and OSS operatives who earned them."

• 31 August 2010 added "U.S."

"(OSS) operatives who underwent training from the Royal Marines were awarded the Green Beret upon completion of the grueling and revolutionary commando course. However, this green beret was not authorized by the U.S. Army among the Rangers and OSS operatives who earned them."

• 5 October 2010 the sentence looks similar so check for the next change to the section that changed "Royal Marines" to "British Commandos".

"The origins of the Green Beret which Special Forces personnel wear can be traced to Scotland during the Second World War. U.S. Army Rangers and Office of Strategic Services (OSS) operatives who underwent training from the British Commandos were awarded the Green Beret upon completion of the grueling and revolutionary commando course."

• 3 May 2011 The start of the section now matches so checked for the next change: "produced and directed by, and starring, John Wayne," to "produced, directed and starring, John Wayne,". page 71 of the Book uses the wording of the pre 3 May edit.

It will be necessary to check for changes in other section of the Wikipedia text between the dates 5 October 2010 and 3 May 2011 to narrow down the date of the version of the text used by the book. But even without doing that we can conclude that theirs is a copy of ours. Money for old rope when you consider that they do not seem to acknowledge Wikipedia copyright and that Amazon is selling the book for $149.95 (USD). -- PBS (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The copy of this article was made between Revision as of 23:51, 20 February 2011 by Joe712 and Revision as of 13:17, 22 March 2011 by 199.46.196.232 I know this because the change that Joe712 made in the article ("its 2nd and 3rd Battalions" to "its 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Battalions") is included in the book but the change that 199.46.196.232 made (changing "in Nha Tong." to "in Nha Trang.") is not. AFAICT It is not possible to narrow it down further as the 7 intermediate revisions by 6 users did not alter the text that was copied. -- PBS (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As the company will presumably update their book version from a new copy of this page, could someone else check This search for "its 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Battalions" and This search "in Nha Tong." both find the sought after strings in the book. -- PBS (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

greeen and red braid

My father recently passed away, he was a Retired (1971) SGT Major of the 3rd Special Forces, he served several tours in Viet Nam. Upon his death I received a green and red shoulder braid of his and was wondering what it stood for. My Son recently graduated from from Basic and AIT at Ft. Benning. and was awarded a blue braid. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you James Law — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.55.126.178 (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Combatant Commander's In-extremis Force (CIF)

Apparently a Combatant Commander's In-extremis Force (CIF) was sent to Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily the night of the terrorist attack in Libya (September 11, 2012) for possible deployment to Benghazi. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have have information about these units.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

They're not too secret squirrel or anything but they're fairly hard to find citable info on because the distinction is rather esoteric to the SF community. The CIF is basically composed of the SF community's "shooter" subject matter experts. They group by company in that, unlike "jump" or "dive" teams, they're not broken down to individual ODAs in each Company at Battalion. Each Group has their own standalone CIF Company. Their training pipeline's initial training course is called Special Forces Advanced Reconnaissance and Target Exploitation Course (SFARTEC) which is offered at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School on Bragg. As one of many different specialties the SF community has I'm not sure that it's worth much of its own space. If you want to find out more what I've given you is more than enough to dig around some more. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on what I've heard from a couple of guys at one of the groups at Bragg, the CIF Teams are rather sought after positions as they are considered the more DA side of Special Forces (if a soldier joins SF looking for that sort of stuff). But if you want something a little more reputable, you might want to try contacting Jack Murphy or one of the other former SF guys at SOFREP.com to see if they can give you a more informed opinion. They host a web radio program where you can send in questions I believe, or you can try them on Facebook. Not sure. ForwardObserver85 (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Shoulder sleeve insignia infobox image

To Dooleydragon (talk · contribs), 103.28.133.5 (talk · contribs) and 103.28.132.60 (talk · contribs), please stop replacing File:United States Army Special Forces CSIB.png with File:Special Forces Patch MulitCam.jpg. The additional Special Forces tab and Ranger tab in the multicam file are NOT a part of the SFG's unit Shoulder Sleeve Insignia they are Individual tabs.— -dainomite   05:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Having seen the infobox image changed a few times recently, I agree. The SSI without added tabs is correct way to present this in the infobox. The other image might be added lower in the text as an added bit of information. – S. Rich (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sierratangoxray: We are editing according to what the reliable sources say. In this instance, we are looking for what the Shoulder Sleeve Insignia is according to the ARs. We are not looking at what individuals wear or don't wear. McChizzle & Dainomite are correct. Individuals assigned/attached to SF units get to wear the SSI and the SSI includes the Airborne tab. This is true for all kinds of airborne units. They do not wear the SF tab as part of the SSI. – S. Rich (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I agree the SF Tab is a separate item of wear. I would suggest there is a place for the image of the Tab in the 'Uniforms and insignia' paragraph. Meyerj (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Special Forces (United States Army). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090826004637/http://www.usarec.army.mil:80/hq/warrant/prerequ/WO180A.html to http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/prerequ/WO180A.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

SOD?

So I just saw some articles referencing a Special Operations Detachment, apparently a (relatively) new part of the SoF community, it looks like they are SF if the picture on the top of the source article can be believed:

https://warisboring.com/rhode-island-commandos-quietly-deploy-all-over-the-world-7fa78607038c#.9rg5v6lfg - Picture: https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1500/desat/multiply/grey/overlay/grey/1*vBLzzs-gIC9WELITwUW90Q.jpeg

There is an Army Article which confirms the SoD elements.

https://www.army.mil/article/137107/NC_Guard_activates_third_special_operations_forces_unit__steps_up_partnership_with_senior_commands_a/ - http://ri.ng.mil/army/sodg/SitePages/Home.aspx

Picture seems to validate the unit name and a different organizational flash. I'd edit it myself but not really sure where it really falls in under the organizational structure. Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of two soldiers in the photo, they're wearing USSOCOM beret flashes and shoulder sleeve insignia. --It's been my experience that USAR and ARNG soldiers are not great about wearing the appropriate uniform apparel.-- Based on the articles, it suggest they are support units to USSOCOM HQ. There are many SF qualified (tabbed) soldiers that are not assigned to an ODA, ODB, ODC, etc. However, when I was with 7th SFG(A), there were USAR/ARNG units assigned to USASOC and/or USSOCOM for unique missions. If you're familiar with the turn "sheep dipping," you will have an appreciation for how some of these units are probably used to support varying missions within the US Government. --McChizzle (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Move proposal

In the article, it states the proper name is "United States Army Special Forces". If this is the case, why is the article name "Special Forces (United States Army)"? RadiculousJ (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

For me, at least, the naming is logical and useful. Why? A reader interested in Special Forces can search for "Special Forces" without using "United States Army Special Forces" and come up with this article in the list. And you will see that US Army SF redirects to this very article. – S. Rich (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Born and Raised speaking a relatively unknown language

I would rather have been born and raised by native americans and speak a different language than english

i think this would make a stronger special forces soldier

your motivational videos leave a man with no other option than to commit after experiencing modern society

best regards

86.145.188.242 (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation 35 error

Citation 35's "archived from the original" link is no longer an active URL. RealAlexMurray (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No opposition expressed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Special Forces (United States Army) → United States Army Special Forces – The lead sentence gives the name as this, and the associated history article is under this name as well. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Special Forces (United States Army) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

History

Text under this section reads that the 10th Special Forces Group (SFG) was formed in June 1952 under Col. Aaron Bank. According to Bank's account in his "From OSS to the Green Berets," the 10th SFG was formed after the East German uprising (Volksaufstand) of June 17, 1953, when the U.S. government recognized that people in a Soviet bloc country were willing to rebel & take up arms against their oppressors. BubbleDine (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It appears that the Vietnam period has become a footnote

WW2 engagement?

The articles says it was formed in 1952, so how does it have WW2 in its engagement list? 2A00:23C6:7617:AD01:3C9D:C31D:4E14:26C5 (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The Special Forces branch was established on 9 April 1987 by Army General Order Number 35. The article is misleading because although the first Special Forces unit was formed on 11 June 1952, when the 10th Special Forces Group was activated at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, it is not the date when the basic branch was established. I've reviewed other U.S. Army branches:

* Infantry Branch (United States)

* Field Artillery Branch (United States)

* Military Police Corps (United States)

* United States Army Aviation Branch

* United States Army Corps of Engineers

* Armor Branch

* Transportation Corps

* Signal Corps (United States Army)

The Active or Foundation date is based on the date which the branch was officially founded by the Department of the Army's General Orders or the Journals of Congress (16 June 1775), the list of dates can be seen on the Army's Birthdays website. The website lists in order the basic branches and their respective authorities (orders).

To address your point about World War II, the Army Special Forces (ARSOF) Office Command of the Historian recognizes the history going back to World War I with COL Charles R. Munske Articles by Conflicts which outlines the timeline for ARSOF -Signaleer (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"The Special Forces branch was established on 9 April 1987"

What you are doing is based on a lack of knowledge about the previous Covert, Secret, Clandestine side of U.S. Army Special Forces as not the Unclassified "Official Branch" of U.S. Army Special Forces of the U.S. Army. The Official Branches you mentioned are the Not Classified Conventional Warfare Branches of the U.S. Army.

example ″The U.S. Army Special Forces Tab Award Eligibility "1st Special Service Force, August 1942 to December 1944."

The previously Classified part as CIA History, not U.S. Military History'

Was U.S. Military Personnel were trained as part of the Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S.) to do Insurgency Warfare, Foreign Internal Defense, Lead "Partisan" Direct Actions, Special Reconnaissance, Special Surveillance, Intelligence Verification, Assassinations, other Missions as assigned at NAZI Occupied Nations. When the O.S.S. got smarter they trained "Husband and Wife" Two Person Teams, as less conspicuous than a bunch of men of combatant age.

The U.S. Army Special Forces Tab Award Eligibility of Current U.S. Army Regulations

5.2.1) 1st Special Service Force, August 1942 to December 1944. 5.2.2) OSS Detachment 101, April 1942 to September 1945. 5.2.3) OSS Jedburgh Detachments, May 1944 to May 1945. 5.2.4) OSS Operational Groups, May 1944 to May 1945. 5.2.5) OSS Maritime Unit, April 1942 to September 1945. 5.2.6) 6th Army Special Reconnaissance Unit (Alamo Scouts), February 1944 to September 1945.

After World War 2, the Office of Strategic Services split into two entities, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the predecessor covert U.S. Army Special Forces. Later on the CIA realized they made a mistake and still needed their own CIA Controlled "Para Military" and formed the Special Operations Directorate (Division) and Special Operations Group.

There is also a few other mistakes, some are still Classified. It is not my intention to disclose Classified Information.

There is also another level above the Direct Action Only (no Cultural Anthropology nor Language) U.S. Army Special Forces 1st Operational Detachment Delta and the U.S. Navy's Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU), but below the CIA's SAD and or SOG.

Pertaining to the Vietnam War there was another Level above the U.S. Army Special Forces Group's Teams, as Airborne (included Air Mobile aka Air Assault)--->U.S. Army Ranger School--->U.S. Army Special Forces School--->U.S. Army Special Forces Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol School (including CIA HUMINT, and Language) as Strategic Special Reconnaissance and Strategic Special Surveillance, Intelligence Verification, Directing U.S. Airstrikes on Ho Chi Minh Trail, later on Assassinations, Operations at Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia till after Official End of Vietnam War 1975 to 1977. IF you want to KNOW what we were doing, go file a Freedom Of Information Act (F.O.I.A.) Request, 2009 President Obama's Political Appointee Senior Executive Staff (S.E.S.s) rubber stamped lots of things "Declassified" and did not even mark out our Names, Serial (Service) Numbers, Grades/Ranks as a Violation of U.S. Law Privacy Act.

Strategic U.S. Army Special Forces Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols were NOT the same as Tactical U.S. Army Ranger Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols.

Strategic U.S. Army Special Forces Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols Theater or Higher,

Tactical U.S. Army Ranger Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols were Company to Division Level.

We also NEVER carried more than 20 pounds, to become easily detected and or "Combat Ineffective". We never carried the too often did not work M-16 all three M-16 versions we used the M-3 submachinegun. We Never did Ambushes nor Firefights like the easily detected U.S. Army Ranger Patrols, as soon as that happened all your (weeks of surviving in the triple canopy jungle) Reconnaissance and Surveillance Intelligence is Compromised. U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group Standard Operation Procedures, SOP, Republic of South VietnamNakamuradavid (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nakamuradavid: If you are suggesting changes to the article, please provide specific requests and reliable sources to support the changes. Sundayclose (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group Standard Operation Procedures, SOP, Republic of South VietnamNakamuradavid (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nakamuradavid:,@McChizzle:,@Artis payne: Since 1775, Congress has authorized the establishment of certain branches within the United States Army. Today, these are represented by the Army's basic and special branches. The Continental Congress, War Department, and Department of the Army has created legal authority for the Army's branches. This website, lists each of the branch's birthday along with the legal authority and additional information: https://history.army.mil/html/faq/branches.html

In most cases, the lineage and branch history predates the official branch birthday. For example, the United States Army Aviation Branch traces it's history back to the American Civil War with air balloons and later the Aeronautical Division, U.S. Signal Corps in 1907, the branch was not established by the Department of the Army until 12 April 1983. This is indicated not only on the Aviation branch site but as I mentioned above, other branches of the United States Army Wikipedia sites. -Signaleer (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Read "George Washington's Commandos: Special Ops During the American Revolution" https://nationalinterest.org/feature/george-washingtons-commandos-special-ops-during-the-american-11572. There is a considerable difference between KNOWING from being a U.S. Army Special Forces Enlisted, Non Commissioned Officer during the Vietnam war and later on as a Commissioned Officer Iran Iraq Wars,CIA Operation Cyclone to today, than reading History usually written by somebody that was NEVER U.S. Army Special Forces as never required to know the History of U.S. Army Special Forces.Nakamuradavid (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had been U.S. Army Special Forces Signaleer instead of Signal Corps, you would have had the U.S. Army Special Forces History memorized. The First U.S. Army Special Forces started 1675, when the British Colony of American Colonists at Plymouth started a Military Force using Indian Tactics, instead of European Continental Military (standing in the open in ranks) to fight. This kind of History was almost beaten (literally) into Us during the Vietnam War Training U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group's U.S. Army Special Forces School Republic of South Vietnam, followed by U.S. Army Special Forces Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol School Republic of South Vietnam https://nationalinterest.org/feature/george-washingtons-commandos-special-ops-during-the-american-11572 Nakamuradavid (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Continued confusion over term Operator

I note confusion between first and second paragraphs of the section "Use_of_the_term_"Operator"". Aren't the green berets members of us special forces? But not necessarily of delta force? The beginning of the second paragraph has a very specific definition which the end of that paragraph and the first paragraph seem to contradict. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Infobox date

There has been an ongoing back-and-forth of edits to the infobox for awhile now regarding when the SF were formed; 1952 vs 1987, both apparently with refs. I'll revert to QUO, and meanwhile have started this thread so hopefully there will be some discussion leading to a consensus and resolution. - wolf 19:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Special Forces was formed in 1952 and is common knowledge in the military. You can go on the official US Army website (which I referenced) and it will say so. One of the references theWolfChild even uses says it was formed in 1952. The references theWolfChild is using saying 1987 are when Special Forces was made in one the US Army’s field branches like Field Artillery, Signal Corps, Cavalry, etc. This was done to improve funding and career advancement and is in no way related to the unit’s formation. Also saying the unit was formed in 1987 makes no sense historically when it’s very well documented that Army Special Forces fought in The Vietnam War which was from the early 60’s-mid 70’s. President Kennedy authorized Special Forced to wear the Green Beret in the early 60’s. So to continue to say 1987 is the founding date is wrong. Please tell me why you think it’s right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.16.108.86 (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not initially add the 1987 date with it's ref, I just noticed that it had been repeatedly changed to 1952, without a ref, by multiple IP addresses, (though it's likely that it's the same person behind all those IPs), and therefore reverted back to the sourced content. Only with the last edit was a ref attached, but that only means there are now apparently conflicting refs, so I again reverted to WP:QUO and started this talk page thread to encourage discussion and hopefully a resolution. Obviously the user(s) behind these IP addresses isn't familiar with Wikipedia's policies & guidelines, especially as they pertain to sourcing and the repeated changing of content, (ie WP:BRD). As such, assertions such as "it's common knowledge" and any other comments not supported by sourcing are inapplicable here. Also comments like "Thewolfchild" this and the "Thewolfchild" that aren't productive (iow; focus on edits, not editors). and the persistent reverting of content should stop until there is a resolution. Lastly, I would encourage this user(s) to create an account, or barring that, at least read Help:Getting started and go from there. Meanwhile, I'll wait to see if anyone comments here before posting any further. - wolf 00:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: This discussion has already been discussed and is located in the archives. If you wish to further discuss this matter, I would be willing to see your logic and point of view but based on other U.S. Army branch websites; it's evident that the birthdates listed on Wikipedia coincides with the official branch birthdates of the United States Army.

Below is what I posted in 2019 regarding this ongoing matter:

The Special Forces branch was established on 9 April 1987 by Army General Order Number 35. The article is misleading because although the first Special Forces unit was formed on 11 June 1952, when the 10th Special Forces Group was activated at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, it is not the date when the basic branch was established. I've reviewed other U.S. Army branches:

* Infantry Branch (United States)

* Field Artillery Branch (United States)

* Military Police Corps (United States)

* United States Army Aviation Branch

* United States Army Corps of Engineers

* Armor Branch

* Transportation Corps

* Signal Corps (United States Army)

The Active or Foundation date is based on the date which the branch was officially founded by the Department of the Army's General Orders or the Journals of Congress (16 June 1775), the list of dates can be seen on the Army's Birthdays website. The website lists in order the basic branches and their respective authorities (orders).

To address your point about World War II, the Army Special Forces (ARSOF) Office Command of the Historian recognizes the history going back to World War I with COL Charles R. Munske Articles by Conflicts which outlines the timeline for ARSOF -Signaleer (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

-Signaleer (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, I didn't have a position either way as I didn't initially add either date. I just noted that ip user(s) were repeatedly changing a sourced entry to an unsourced entry (and then to a sourced but conflicting entry). I just reverted (per brd, quo, etc) and tried to encourage them to engage on the tp. Whether or not your comments here, or from 2019, or your changes to article today, will bring an end to this disruption is yet to be determined as the date you've entered is not the one they seem to insist on having. Perhaps we can take a cue from the United States Army Rangers page (which lists "17th century to present" for the date) and/or the 75th Ranger Regiment page (which list lists three different dates: 1984-, 1942- & 2006- present, for the date) ...? Just a thought. - wolf 18:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand, you have a neutral position and trying to be an arbiter or third party to the problem at hand. There have been multiple users (both IP and registered Wiki users) who have reverted the date to the creation of the 10th SFG. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that an organization or unit is not the same as the creation of a branch or special branch of the United States Army (which the United States Army Special Forces is.) There is already a history section within the SF page as well as a dedicated History of the United States Army Special Forces. -Signaleer (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the date of the branch back to 9 April 1987, no other United States Army branches lists the Active or Foundation date as the first unit or organization of that branch. No U.S. Army branch has two separate dates listed in the information box, one for the official orders that established the Army branch and one for the first unit or organization of that branch.

For example, the United States Infantry was established on 14 June 1775. The oldest Infantry Regiment in the United States Army is the 181st Infantry Regiment, tracing it's lineage to established on 13 December 1636. I did not establish this standard which appears to be standardized across the U.S. Army branches, I am simply following what was already exists on Wikipedia.

@Thewolfchild:, I would recommend encouraging the IP users who are reverting the information box to make comments or create a user account and comment on the talk page. Since this is not the case, I would urge other users to weigh in. -Signaleer (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Signaleer: Where to begin... first, you don't debate content changes via edit summaries, you are still basically edit warring. Next, you're removing sourced content based solely in "I don't like it" and "other stuff exists". While some uniformity among similar articles can sometimes be desirable, it is not a requirement nor is it a sufficient reason for you to delete supported content. The only reason I made the edit I did was because the 1952 date is supported, there is an implicit consensus for it through the multiple IP users continually re-adding it, and with attached notes (in parentheses), the significance of both the 1952 date and the 1987 date is made clear, which should satisfy both you and all these IP users. Lastly, it's not my job to police any and all IP users that might edit this page, and to "encourage them to create accounts". As you know, account creation is not a requirement to edit WP. As I said before, I'm just trying to address the persistent disruption of this page. I had hoped that discussion would solve that (and still do, though it hasn't yet) and meanwhile I made an edit that reverted the improper changes made by both sides and added what should be a solution to satisfy both... that you keep reverting. - wolf 12:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I remind you that there is already a standard among the U.S. Army branches, something you are ignoring or not considering as part of this discussion. Secondly, there is no discussion amongst the IP users in this talk page, something that you area also ignoring. You are not an arbiter or an administrator and I have no problem escalating this discussion to a formal arbitration process.

@Thewolfchild:, I'll remind you of the WP:DISPUTE policy, since there is a lack of discussion regarding this on-going issue since 2019; I will request a WP:DRN in order to get a neutral third party involved in order to review and render thoughts and add to this two user dialogue. This is the best solution I can come with since you are unwilling to consider valid points which I have raised in this discussion.

Lastly, I will ask that you keep all discussions regarding this matter on this talk page in order to maintain a single location to allow all users to discuss this matter. My user talk page is not a platform for discussions regarding this article and any additional comments regarding this topic will be deleted. -Signaleer (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I have requested a WP:DRN, you can monitor this here. -Signaleer (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

And Signaleer, I'll remind you that I initially didn't have a position either way (which you even acknowledged above), I was only seeking to bring an end to the persistent disruption of this page, hopefully by encouraging discussion between the parties involved and (since quo didn't work) attempting an edit that took both positions into account along with, more importantly, sources and consensus. The IP editor(s) seem to have no interest in discussion and will likely continue seeking their preferred edit, but you. are. no. better. You just keep pushing your preferred edit at all costs. I wish the best of luck to any other 3PO editor that cares to wade into this. It will likely take more than that to resolve this. Have a nice day - wolf 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Another IP user has made changes to the article without additional comment to the article talk page or here. I have requested to the article blocked to prevent IP users from making additional changes, this request is pending. -Signaleer (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

(break)

One thing I feel should point out; earlier/above I had indicated the possibility of a single person being behind the IP edits made to the "Active" (year) parameter of the infobox (specifically those adding/changing the year to 1952). But after notifying the first five IP users listed at the DRN report, I now believe this to be unlikely. They are all posting from different states, and are all using disparate service providers. Keep in mind this just the five people named at DRN, I haven't checked the geo/info of any of the other IP users that are also in favor of adding 1952 to the infobox. (fyi) - wolf 18:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The DRN is closed, the only suggestion given by an admin was to possibly go post an RfC. The other users have been (unfairly imo) prevented from further editing for a month. Signaleer, after two weeks, with no further discussion here or efforts at DR anywhere else (afaik), you suddenly removed sourced content without even an edit summary. These kinds of actions are not a collaborative way to edit this project. - wolf 12:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• A decision was rendered, as we were both pinged. @El C: I am requesting that you please weigh in and explain your position. In the meantime, I reverting the article. @Thewolfchild: if you wish to escalate this process in order to satisfy your opposition, please feel free to proceed. -Signaleer (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Signaleer: A decision was not "rendered" to support your side in a content dispute. The decision, (a perhaps flawed one), was made to temporarily protect the page, and to try and encourage some of these editors using ip accounts to engage on the talk page. One editor did comment on the talk page. Others have commented in edit summaries. The original edit with "1952" was in the infobox as far back as 2006, supported by the prose in the article. You changed it to "1987" in late 2019, and have since engaged in a long, slow edit war against the consensus of more than a half dozen editors (that I've found so far), not to mention the implied consensus of over 15 years. I even reverted one of their 1952 edits as not supported, and one of them then added references. You still persisted in this edit war against all those editors, by insisting the date must be based on just the branch, even though the article is about SF as a whole, with well-documented dates and milestones going back to the early 50s.

I attempted a compromise edit, to end this disruption, which took both your side and theirs into account, and more importantly, the article's content and supporting refs. One of them since posted in support of that edit. Conversely, no one has so far supported your edit. You are clearly editing against consensus, and doing so based solely on wp:ose and wp:idli. After weeks, and without a comment or even an edit summary, you again reverted to your preferred edit. I reverted to quo, the stable version, with an edit summary and talk page comment, and you again revert, with yet another disingenuous comment that the RPP somehow supports your edit. It doesn't. You are edit warring. Instead of disrupting the page, you should be starting an RfC, as your were advised to by an admin at your failed DRN. - wolf 19:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Signaleer: sorry, but I found my interaction with Thewolfchild to have been markedly unproductive, so I'm not really inclined to engage this matter further at this time due to that. My advise, though, is that you should not use WP:DRN in the future as it is by far the worse WP:DRR out there. A WP:3O or an WP:RFC are generally much better in bringing outside input to any given dispute, during which disputants are expected to present their arguments and sources in support of these. But, again, disputants who do not engage the article talk page and only communicate via edit summaries, at some point that practice becomes disruptive editing. El_C 08:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:El_C, User:Signaleer - This is not a dispute that can be resolved by Third Opinion because it already has more than two parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, at this point, I lean toward allowing a 3O (if by inaction alone), since there's been only one other participant on the talk, an IP's comment from July. I made it clear to the IPs that if they fail to engage the article talk page, they effectively forfeit their position. They may choose to engage it at any time, but until they do, we really have just the two disputants here, both of whom are veterans but also both exhibiting a similar gap in how to resolve an editing dispute (albeit Thewolfchild much more exhaustively, with me at least). Perhaps they're just not that experienced when it comes to WP:DR. Lot's of editors edit uneventfully for years before facing their first major editing dispute, I see that all the time. So what might be intuitive to both of us, may well elude them. El_C 17:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

User:El_C - I have not reviewed the content details of the case up until now and I consider myself neutral. I am willing to provide a Third Opinion or Fourth Opinion or whatever if that will help to resolve this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks a bunch! El_C 18:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, Robert McClenon is not an admin, though his advise is usually good. Anyway, while a 3O or an RfC is ongoing, the longstanding version is the version that should be displaying over the contending one (I honestly don't know which is which in this case), unless there are very good reasons not to do so. El_C 13:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I closed the DRN thread after I asked whether anyone was interested in moderated discussion, and no one answered. I did not advise anyone to start an RFC. I only said that if another request was made at DRN, I would probably start an RFC. I have no idea why a request was made for DRN if no one would reply to it. It appears to me that some editors may be more interested in being difficult than in being collaborative, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

At this point, my thought is that all of the involved editors should be warned. I see one admin who is trying to contain a dispute, and multiple editors who seem to be just arguing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Offer to Provide Opinion

Do the editors who have a content dispute want me to look into the dispute and provide a neutral opinion? I am willing to do this. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me. Here's my take; one editor prefers edit "x", numerous other editors prefer edit "y", and this has resulted in a months-long edit war. Until now, I was just seeking to end the disruption. I actually reverted one of the "y" editors when they lacked refs and I'm the one that started this discussion. While only one of the "y" editors has posted here, multiple others have posted detailed edit summaries, have provided refs when requested and even agreed to the compromise edit. The "x" editor shows no willingness to compromise, provides no sound reasoning for their reverts (other than OSE and IDLI) and are clearly editing against consensus. The "x" editor posted a disingenuous DRN and then conned an admin into locking their opponents out with a faulty RPP, (an admin who, when I dared to ask them about it, took severe umbrage, and despite now being involved, has posted multiple derisive comments here). I was not part of the "y" edit camp, I just objected to persistent disruption and abuse of process by the single "x" editor. I hadn't even bothered to edit this article since being reverted three days ago, and I'm only now posting here in response to these tp posts.

Btw, the "y" editors who've added/changed the date to 1952, or agreed to listing both 1952 and 1987 include (but are not limited to);

• 50.206.243.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [8]
• 65.127.60.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [9]
• 12.16.108.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [10]
• 207.172.52.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [11]
• 107.77.204.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [12]
• 50.224.129.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [13]
• 71.70.88.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [14]
• 47.152.18.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [15]
• Leeisbeast10 (talk · contribs) [16]
• Artis payne (talk · contribs) [17]
• McChizzle (talk · contribs) [18]
• and myself [19] (attemped compromise edit)

Multiple editors have pointed out that this shouldn't be limited to just the branch birthday as the article is clearly not about just that, but the specialty that pre-dates it by 35 years. I suppose you can now include me with all of them. Thanks - wolf 02:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The RfPP wasn't faulty. The page was originally fully-protected (due to edit warring) on the IP's/your version. The fact that this confused you somehow and led to your long winded repetition on my talk page (+2 emails) — that isn't on me. I was not conned by your opponent. There is no con. Any editor, registered or IP, is welcome to contribute to this discussion at any time. And if they neglect to do so, that isn't on me, either. I've protected ~8,000 pages and the only thing remarkable about this one, frankly, has been you and the manner in which you've conducted yourself. Which is to say, exhaustingly. My aim in saying that isn't derision, it is just a frank account of my experience. El_C 03:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure El_C... whatever you say. Keep posting your poorly "aimed", defensive rants about how you never do anything wrong while dumping the blame on me, as per usual. Now, are we done here? I think we're done here. - wolf 04:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Mercifully brief, at least. El_C 05:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Finally correct, at least. ;-) - wolf 06:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

Please could you add the following item to the "See also" section:

• British Ranger Regiment - unit of the British Army modelled on the Green Berets, which carries out a similar role 13tez (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done - wolf 04:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2021

You must be a male United Stated citizen between 20 and 30 years old. You also must have a 20/20 on your vision test. 104.11.196.187 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? - wolf 02:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)