Jump to content

Talk:Joint Task Force 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

I have found no evidence that CBC reported the role of JTF-2 in Haiti on the February 29, 2004 kidnapping of Aristide. If someone has the source from CBC, they should include it as a footnote/reference. There's a good chance that I just simply haven't found it yet.

There is, however, a source in the Canadian Press wire service from March 5, 2004 that I will add.

Ageless 09:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC) ageless[reply]

JTF1?

[edit]

This doesn't really pertain to the article, but is there another/previous JTF, thereby facilitating the 2 in JTF2?

This is from the official JTF-2 website. In Canadian military terminology "joint task force" refers to any force that is made up of two or more elements (land, air or sea) of the Canadian Forces (CF). Since JTF-2 includes personal from all three elements it is considered a joint task force. When JTF-2 was formed it was given the "2" designation because there is already a JTF-1 in use. There has been attempts recently to change the name for JTF-2, however, there is a lot of opposition to any name change. L.J. Brooks 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above commment is not correct. It was several years after JTF2's inception that personnel came from other CF branches The "2" was spin. The story behind the "2" has been added to the "unit history" section. Note: This was my first permanent edit I seemed to have created two instances of a reference to David Pugliese's book "Canada's Secret Commandos: The Unauthorized Story of Joint Task Force Two" if someone would care to fix this that would be good, although I will try to firgure out how to do the fix myselfEoag (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-editing of article

[edit]

I'm in the process of re-doing the JTF-2 article. There is no an official JTF-2 webpage up and running and I'm using information extracted from it to update the page. When finished I will attempt to do the same for CANSOFCOM and CSOR. L.J. Brooks 18:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with my re-doing of this article. I've removed a couple of items (e.g.) the snippet about JTF 2 members deployed to Iraq. The only info on JTF in Iraq had to do with the rescue of the two peace activists. There has been no mention in the Canadian press about JTF being deployed into Iraq. I also removed the reference to the Canadian Forces Armed Assistance Directions as there is very little info on this process. I still have to sort out some of the references because some of the links are no longer valid. L.J. Brooks 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the heading Command, control and organisation it states that there are believed to be 250 men and woman (in theory anyway, as Canadian law is very clear about government discrimination, making no exception for combat. A good example would be a female LAV III commander Killed last year in Afghanistan.) in the JTF2 and that this could have increased to 600, and gives a citation that doesn't say that. It states in the citation that's given there are believed to be 350 men a woman in in the JTF2. I'm going to change it to reflect that. Colin 8 16:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin 8 - Good point. The JTF 2 webpage states that women are eligible for JTF 2. Any help is much appreciated. I'm still doing updates. However, I'm having a problem listing all the references. It appears that I've ran out of room! Just in case of any confusion, I'll reiterate that the information on the JTF 2 selection process is from the JTF 2 webpage. L.J. Brooks 22:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regimental Theme Music

[edit]

Much talk in the Special Operations community has been that the operators have selected the theme from Robert Duncan's remix of the USMC "Fired Up, Feels Good" cadence used in the TV Show "The Unit" Whether or not that is true, obviously is up for debate, though I am trying to get several CURRENT operators to confirm this for me so that we can ensure that my portion of this article is true.

MCase07

I removed it for now. You'll need to find a reliable source in order to reinstate the material. Sancho 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir, again, I can't really see a song that is unplayable by a marching band no less being an American USMC cadence being used. However, this is the new Canadian Forces, where ANYTHING anymore is possible ;) I will attempt to delve further.
Right on. Also, just remember to sign your comments on talk pages by using four tildes: ~~~~. Sancho 17:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture

[edit]

As the section had no references, I removed the better part of the speculation on the new PlayStation 3 Game "SOCOM: Confrontation" as there has been no news of JTF2 being included. Though, they have been confirmed by some gaming engineers, the team compositions have not as yet been confirmed and thus have been removed. Mcase07 22:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Mcase07[reply]

Equipment

[edit]

Decided to remove Equipment and it's TO&E as most of the equipment was simply copied from the original Canadian Forces page. Also some of the equipment used is unconfirmed (I have yet to see or hear the use of the G36 and G3 by the CF, I understand that SF may purchase there own weapons but until I see declassified reports from DND concerning the procurement of foreign weapons I remove it) and others are simply absurd (JTF-2 using howitzers?) Come on even as a Soldier myself, I know for damn well sure that JTF2 does not have howitzers. Pte. M. 12 November 2007. (1:25 p.m.)


- Good call. Whereas most military units would use artillery, a specialist unit such as JTF-2 DIRECTLY using artillery is not part of their operations manifest. As they are a direct action specialist team, they would likely call in fire for effect in any situation. In addition to this, in the FN P90 article, it states that it is currently in use with JTF-2. While I can see its ability and use in this unit, I cannot see anywhere or any confirmed source that states that it would be used by this unit. Can anyone confirm its use or at least the possession by the unit of this particular submachine gun. Mcase07 (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: I wanted to make note of the POSSIBILITY of JTF-2 using howitzers, regardless of the absurdity. Please note, at Firebase Cobra; a pure US Army SF base, they manned and continued bombardments round the clock from the operators themselves. So I do see it as a remote possibility. But unconfirmed. Perhaps it should state "...and the units operators have access to artillery should it be fit for the mission they are issued. Mcase07 (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the information on the purchase about 2.5 years ago from Edmonton Journal should be included. The news state that JTF#2 has purchased $17.8 Million worth of equipment mainly weapons. It mention the percurement of the FN Herstal's Project 90 (P90 5.7X28mm) On you tube there was an introduction about JTF2's requirement showing couple of pictures; guns I've see are MP5A2, MP5A3 (SEF trigger group), C7/C8 Series, an pump action shotgun looks similiar to Mossberg or M3 (Poor picture and lightning) Kullwarrior —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unconfirmed Action

[edit]

Can we please include the 2004-2005 Christian Crisis to Unconfirmed Operations please? As I see it, there is zero proof our special operators nor any statements of record by any operators, politicians and/or military personnel that Canada had boots on ground in the purpose of Hostage Rescuse by JTF2. Rightfully, and seeing the cited document still does not give factual evidence or contributed statements DIRECTLY to JTF2. We can all wish and hope, but doesn't bring Santa down the Chimney. Mcase07 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JTF2

[edit]

I was under the impression it was named "JTF2" as Joint Task Force was originally an RCMP unit, but decided to pass off the their responsibilities because the job of Joint Task Force was counterintuitive to the RCMP's mandate of preserving lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richwhitfield (talk • contribs) 08:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


== JTF2 == Unit History I believe that the information saying that JTF2 was named from JTF4 is not correct. Moreover, there is an JTF1 Unit, commonly called : ERT for Emergency Response Team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.50.172.157 (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JTF2 misconduct allegations?

[edit]

I recall there was a story awhile ago about a member of JTF2 that charged his sergeant with abuse. However, because JTF2 members cannot be named, the hearing could not proceed as the defendant couldn't be named. Does anyone have a link to that or know what happened afterwards? 129.97.20.203 (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Training and selection

[edit]

This section definitely breaches WP:UNDUE, can somebody other than myself cut it down to an appropriate size? Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged war crimes

[edit]

I've just deleted the "Alleged war crimes" section, which appears to be a hold-over from some real-time reporting that was subsequently overtaken by events. Essentially, there was an accusation of war crimes by JTF2 members which triggered a parallel investigation about why it was not reported properly. The accusation was later set aside and the members involved found to have not done what they were accused of. The section in this article stated all this, but also stated that the unit was still under investigation for the failure to report the incident. Since there actually was no "incident", it follows that the investigation into the failure to report it has also been set aside. Consequently: no war crimes, no reporting failure, no need to have an "Alleged war crimes section". It maybe that someone sees some reason to record that JTF2 was falsely accused of committing a war crimes, but I'm not certain that falls within the notability guidelines. Is my interpretation wrong? Geoff NoNick (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly

[edit]

Joint Task Force 2 is not a branch of the Canadian Army. The Army is an environmental command and has no control whatsoever on JTF2's operations. The Land Staff (Army chain of command) is unrelated to the staff of CANSOFCOM. JTF2 recruits from all three environmental commands, including the Navy, by the way. Please restore the correct revision. (Same discussion at Talk:Canadian Special Operations Regiment) CharlieEchoTango 19:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]
"In his book Enduring the Freedom, Sean M. Maloney reported that during operations in Afghanistan, Canada's JTF2 was the only foreign unit accepted to join American Tier 1 special operations units, such as 1st SFOD-D (Delta Force) and DEVGRU"

First this quote really needs a real citation. As for the dubious-ness it seems that this quote needs to come from someone with a NPOV, ie, someone not from JTF2. Are we to accept that a member of JTF2 was aware of all ops carried out by US SFOD-D/DEVGRU? DouglasCalvert (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the claim over 2 years, without any ref added, as well I looked online and could not fine any other NPOV sources, but the book or copy's of this page. Kyle1278 01:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Morisset Claims

[edit]

Several of the claims by this supposed former-JTF2 operator have already been debunked, and many others are doubtful to say the least. Even the advertisements for it are preposterous, such as one French site which claimed that:

"Unlike the British SAS and the United States’ Delta Force, this special Canadian intervention unit was, according to David Rudd of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, trained 'to infiltrate into dangerous areas behind enemy lines, look for key targets and take them out. They don't go out to arrest people. They don't go out there to hand out food parcels. They go out to kill targets.'”

Huh, I had no idea the SAS & Delta just went around arresting people and handing out food parcels. Good thing we're allies with the real killers, JTF2. (yes, that was sarcasm) He even supposedly goes on to claim that 16 JTF2 operators neutralized 60 American Delta operators and Rangers in 12 seconds. Remarkably, nobody could verify this claim, so I guess we'll just have to take his word for it. (again, that was sarcasm)

http://www.jcl.qc.ca/detail_livre/nous-etions-invincibles/ http://circ.jmellon.com/docs/view.asp?id=1210 http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2008/05/05/did_tellall_book_on_jtf2_make_it_all_up.html ForwardObserver85 (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joint Task Force 2. 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:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Joint Task Force 2. 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:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joint Task Force 2. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joint Task Force 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Joint Task Force 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joint Task Force 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Task Force 2 structure according to former operator

[edit]

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

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

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

Book ref used multiple times, how to...

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joint_Task_Force_2&oldid=1217899370"