Jump to content

Talk:SEAL Team Six/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Merge proposal

I propose to merge United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group and United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group because obviously they deal with the same unit. Rob1bureau (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A merge would be good but the name needs to stay as United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group. Also most of the content on both articles are the same, but some inaccurate info that is in the United States Navy Special Warfare Development Group article isn't in the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group article. The Navy Special Warfare Development Group article also perpetuates the misconception that SEAL Team 6 and DEVGRU are the exact same thing. Outdawg (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From everything I read (and from my days in the Navy when it was just "frogman") these are the same unit. DEVGRU is short from Developmental Group, as in they are responsible for researching and developing (R&D) new equipment and the Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP) employed. Each SEAL team has a numeric designation. SEAL Team 6 (which is the tier one JSOC unit) also has R&D tasks. SEAL team 6 and DEVGRU are the same unit by everything I know and researched. RCPayne (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Reopening merge

Same topic, histories need to be merged.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

My gosh -- why haven't the articles been merged! --S. Rich (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, there is absolutely no reason not to merge "Navy" into "Naval". As a matter of fact I'd say there isn't really even discussion required, just be bold and do it. TomPointTwo (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
On my TTD list. Hopefully someone with more expertise will do it first!--S. Rich (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Support: These two articles should have been merged a long time ago. Neovu79 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

more sources

Several former ST-6 operators of the 1980s have written books, including Robert Gormly Combat Swimmer (Gormly was Cdr of ST-6 during the Grenada invasion and Achille Lauro hijack), Dennis Chalker One Perfect Op and Chuck Pfarrer Warrior Soul. On the web, two interesting articles about SEALs in the "Black Hawk Down" battle : [1] and [2] Rob1bureau (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The article states that "The claim had been made by one former Team member that in one year SEAL Team Six fired more rounds of ammunition than the entire U.S. Marine Corps," citing "Chuck Pfarrer. Warrior Soul. Random House. pp. 325–326. ISBN 0891418636." Richard Marcinko made the same claim in Rogue Warrior Task Force Blue, pg. 125: "My SEALs used to shoot more ammo in a year than the entire U.S. Marine Corps." However, the book claims to be a work of fiction. However, in one of the Rogue Warrior books, he implies that the govt. made him label them as fiction, even though they weren't. Not enough to substantiate it, but interesting considering the other source. 15.219.153.75 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've always taken it as a hyperbolic statement from some flamboyant people. That DevGru could go through more ammo (even just 5.56mm or 7.62mm) than the entire Marine Corps is essentially impossible. Just to make annual marksmanship qualifications the Marine Corps has to go through a minimum of 50 million 5.56 rounds (250,000 Marines x 200+ rounds per qual). Minimum. That means that if there were 150 dudes in DevGru each would have to shoot about 350,000 rounds a year just to equal the Marine Corps' mandated annual training requirements. Add in the the tens of thousands of infantrymen in the Marines who will use (tens of) thousands of rounds a year and operational usage/waste and it gets increasingly improbable. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Red Cell

In the book One Perfect Op, Dennis Chalker clearly describes Red Cell as a unit completely separate from SEAL Team Six with a completely different mission. Red Cell is not SEAL Team Six, it was never a part of Six and SEAL Team Six certainly didn't "evolve" from Red Cell. Out (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

SEAL Team Six v. The Pirates

From The Atlantic:

Background information provided by the White House provides an intriguing clue as to the identity of the Navy SEAL team that rescued Capt. Richard Phillips from Somali pirates. After the mission, Obama telephoned several military officials, including "Vice Admiral William McRaven, Commander Joint Special Operations Command." Interesting choice; it means that at least some of the Navy Seals who participated in the rescue were part a classified special missions unit -- the Naval Special Warfare Development Group -- DevGru, popularly known as "SEAL Team Six." The commander of JSOC technically provides support for other special forces (SF) units. But really -- the JSOC commander overseas Delta Force, SEALTeam Six and other secret teams.

Austinmayor (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous editor "71.209.189.20" deleted this saying "Internet speculation, not evidence". I believe the deletion was improper for the following reason.
First, a stylistic observation -- all hyper-linked citations will, by definition, lead to the Internet. Therefore, the use of the modifier "internet" serves no non-rhetorical function in a deletion rationale.
Second, the link leads to the web site of The Atlantic magazine. The Atlantic is an American magazine founded in 1857, written with content focusing on "foreign affairs, politics, and the economy [as well as] cultural trends". In other words, it is an honest-to-god dead-tree magazine with an editorial focus on just this type of matter.
Third, the article was written by Marc Ambinder, an associate editor at The Atlantic and a contributing editor to the National Journal. He previously worked at ABC News as a reporter, researcher and a field producer, and was one of the founders of ABC's "The Note". Ambinder is currently the chief political consultant to CBS News. The Atlantic, National Journal, ABC News and CBS News are all legitimate news organizations, although they each have a presence on the Internet.
And finally, not all inferences are mere "speculation". Logical inferences are the basis for much of our understanding of the world, e.g. if the sky is blue and the ocean is blue, then "the sky and the ocean are the same color" is not mere speculation.
All the best, etc. Austinmayor (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I know, this section needs to be re-written, as it is too biased and talking subjectively about the skills of DEVGRU. I am not saying they are crap or anything, it is just that this page needs to uphold the integrity of the site by stating everything in an objective manner. Attack Rhino (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this part is too "enthusiasitic". And the last paragraph is full of big mistakes :

  • The rescue of Captain Richard Phillips marks the first known U.S. Military operation regarding Somalia since Operation Gothic Serpent in 1993 : what about Operations Continue Hope which lasted until 1995, or the US air strikes in Somalia early 2007 ?
  • Gothic Serpent also exclusively involved Special Operations Personnel, including DEVGRU, Pararescue, Delta Force, Rangers, and the 160th SOAR. : it involved too the CIA station of Mog', a P-3 Orion and OH-58Ds surveillance aircraft, a 10th Moutain Div QRF etc., let alone the Malays and Pakistanis... Rob1bureau (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Beyond that, the statement isn't even accurate. The United States took action on Somali soil on January 9th, 2007 by sending AC-130 Hercules (Spectre/Spooky) Gunships to Ras Kamboni. The US Air Force are the only operators of this airframe and the air wing that flies them is a subordinate command of US Air Force Special Operations Command, which is also subordinate to Joint Special Operations Command. Therefore it is [The Maersk Alabama Incident] neither the first US action against Somalia since 1993 nor is it the first one to involve Special Operations Forces. It may be the first to involve ground special operations units and certainly the first to use seaborne special operators and the first incident against Somalia involving Navy SEALs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.166.246 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

NSWDG/Devgru

Seal Team 6 was officially disbanded. DEVGRU is often refered to as ST 6 because the mission expectations are similar and some of the original members of DEVGRU were from ST 6. DEVGRU is a development group with many divisions. DEVGRU has been linked to Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), NCI and USSOCOM. Mythwatcher (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

SEAL Team VI wasn't disbanded per se, the name was just jettisoned. The unit, it's purpose, and all of the personnel remained, but it was just given a new name. It's the same way that 1st SFOD-D (aka Delta Force) has been changed to Combat Applications Group and then Army Compartmented Elements and so on. Every so often they switch up the cover names for whatever reason.ForwardObserver85 (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden killed

This article should mention that the unit were among those involved in the operation killing Osama bin Laden. Granbarr(talk) 06:13, May 2 2011(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.21.232.230 (talk)

Yes, it should. Needs more info, though, like the name of the Operation would be good. Ebrockway (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, and it seems as I was writing the above, it was done... Ebrockway (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no verifiable evidence that the compound provided in the map link is the compound in question. In fact, the Pentagon has said that the compound was constructed 6 years ago, yet the image of a compound this article links to is from a 2005 satellite photo, and does not appear to be new construction. 99.239.161.7 (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Geronimo was the codename for bin Laden and not the operation as stated. This was stated on one of the news channels last night but, I can't find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.127.124.15 (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Elephants?

ST6 uses elephants?184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

Which is it?

"The training course attrition rate is extremely high; at least half the class will fail the course. During one selection course, out of the original 20 candidates, only 12 completed the course."

The second sentence implies that this is a very high attrition rate, but it's still not "less than half". This needs to be clarified.

24.76.164.65 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Kirby

I don't believe this link should be here. Just based on the information in the wiki, Honey Badger was a project under which Operation Credible Sport was created. (Thus "Operation Honey Badger" is a misnomer, and discredited here http://operation-credible-sport.co.tv/ ... sources at the bottom. Although that's not the intent of the discussion.) Operation Credible Sport preceded the creation of ST6, which was not fully operational until 1981. I'm removing the link for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thendcomes (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Visiting from the Death of Osama bin Laden article with a question: Is it correct to refer to DEVGRU operators as "SEALs"? They are obviously all "former" SEALs, but isn't DEVGRU a wholly separate entity? Or are they considered just a supercapable subset of the overall SEAL organization? jengod (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's correct to refer to them as SEALs as all members of DevGru have completed the SEAL training pipeline and hold the Navy rating of Special Warfare Operator. They fall under the command of the Joint Special Operations Command which makes their place in the bureaucracy different from SEALs from regular temas who are all under the pervue of the Naval Special Warfare Command but they're still all SEALs. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Excellent--more synonyms to write with is better than fewer. Heh. Thanks Tom. jengod (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to disagree... I know several ETs and ITs who were/are part of DEVGRU. They go though SERE, jump school, etc... but they aren't technically SOs.74.110.103.102 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
You're 100% correct and I stand corrected; there are support personnel at DevGru, and all other Teams, who are ETs, ITs, MAs, GMs, etc. Generally, with very few exceptions, these personnel are not operational but organizational support personnel. They fill functions such as non-tactical intelligence, dog handlers, armorers, supply, administration, etc. With that said the number of these sailors who "saddle up" are few and far between but not existent. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I have worked for an ITC and an ITCS (former CTOCS) at two different shore duty commands. From what I've been able to ascertain, they both performed support functions, but for the forward deployed operators... such duties as crypto keymat courier and deploying LANs for operational personnel at FOBs and safehouses. As for going out with the operators on missions... neither of them said yes they did, or no they didn't.74.110.103.102 (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Not to sound like a punk or anything, but that's getting perilously close to OPSEC violations. Might want to tone it back a bit. As for support personnel, I've served with several personnel who were attached in support positions to SF & SEAL Teams (from my time in each respective service). In those units, support services can go on ops provided they are necessary for the mission, and the same goes for the JSOC personnel. One instance of this was when a Comms guy had to jump with DevGru when they were handling the Maersk Alabama situation. However, it is rare that a non-combat oriented rate/MOS will go into a fire-fight with them. Typically you'll only see non-operators in such roles as EOD and the occasional dog-handler. ForwardObserver85 (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The "See also" section

It seems like just a random list of various countries counter terrorism units, with no rationale as to why they are notable. It seems to suggest that those units are equivalents to ST6/DEVGRU, but most of them are domestic police units or "ordinary" special operations units. The only units that would be notable IMO would be naval counter terrorism units with a significant amount of overseas operational experience.

The articles on the SBS and SAS don't have such lists. In my opinion the list is misleading and does not add anything of value to the article and should be removed. Links to CIA/SAD, Delta and JSOC are obviously merited and should remain though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.139.169 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point, I agree. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Dropout rate

The article says: "The training course attrition rate is extremely high; at least half the class will fail the course. During one selection course, out of the original 20 candidates, only 12 completed the course." Last I checked, the sourced figure of 8 in 20 is less than half, so I'll remove the "at least half" bit. Jpatokal (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Disney Trademark

I think we need to include a section about Disney's recent attempt to Trademark Seal Team Six for use in Toys, Television Shows, Movies, and Entertainment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.58.231 (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of Team Members Killed in the Crash

From the "Military Times" article: "Of the 22 NSW members killed, 17 were SEALs and five were direct support personnel, according to the source in the NSW community. Two of the SEALs were from a West Coast SEAL unit, but the others were from Gold Squadron of Naval Special Warfare Development Group..."

This implies that only 15 Gold Squadron members were killed, not 22 like the page currently claims. The Al Jarzeera article claims that crash was "...was thought to include 22 SEALs...", but they seem to be hedging and this number lines up suspiciously with the total number of Naval Special Warfare members killed.

Yes, sources within the NSW are quoted as specifically stating that 17 SEALs were killed, 15 from DevGru. The media in general has about zero credibility when it comes to deciphering and correctly disseminating the semantics of the US military so the assertion of "22" probably comes from a combination of shitty journalism and the inevitable rough numbers out of the gate on big stories. TomPointTwo (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

no members of usama raid killed?

references 47, 48, 49 alledgedly says that the people who died was NOT of the usama raid team, only 47 says so, 48 says: "most of them belonging to the same elite unit as the Navy SEALs who killed former Al Qaeda leader Usama" 49 says: "most of them belonging to the same elite unit as the Navy SEALs who killed former Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.32.163 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

David Addison??? Linda Norgrove???

I REALLY like how all of DEVGRUs successes are listed on here. But some of their huge failures are not. Very unbiased, good job and keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.214.240.185 (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Does the SBS & SAS list all of their failures? Nope. ForwardObserver85 (talk) 02:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Propose split

This article covers two distinct subjects: SEAL Team Six and the Naval Special Warfare Development Group. While ST6 was the predecessor to DEVGRU and some personnel and missions were carried over from one to the other they are not the same organization. ST6 hasn't existed for twenty-five years yet much of the article that is supposedly about DEVGRU is a chronicling of ST6. The two are distinct units with two different sets of personnel, two different chains of command and two different missions sets. Much of the continued association between the two is the chronic confusion by the media of the two to the point that SEAL Team Six has become a pop culture reference to what is now DEVGRU. I'll do the editing necessary to move the information over unless someone has a reason to object. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I object. If ST-6 doesn't exist anymore, why is there a need to give it a seperate article? For all intents and purposes, ST-6 is DEVGRU and DEVGRU is ST-6. It's just 2 names for one team. Civilians aren't the only one's who refer them as being the same thing. ST-6 is just a pet name (aka) for DEVGRU.--98.209.42.117 (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree TomPointTwo. DevGru and ST6 are the same unit. Any Special Operations Group is going to evolve as the world changes, and that is what happened with this unit. However, the switch from ST6 to DevGru was in name only. They didn't restructure, change administrative paths, or have an exodus or influx of personnel. It's the same as when 1st SFOD-D changed it's name to ACE and then to CAG. Same units, different names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForwardObserver85 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
TomPointTwo I think your argument would be much more persuasive if you fleshed out the following list in order to show how separate the two organizations are:
  1. Personnel
    1. DEVGRU
    2. ST6
  2. Chains of Command
    1. DEVGRU
    2. ST6
  3. Mission Sets
    1. DEVGRU
    2. ST6
I realize the personnel item might be a little difficult but if there are clearly two separate organizations the latter two items should be easy to fill in. I think this would make it a lot easier to convince people the change is neccessary.DouglasCalvert (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm not understanding you but I'm unsure if you're aware that ST6 doesn't exist anymore, it was disbanded in '87, full stop. Most of the personnel from ST6 carried over to DevGru but DevGru has a wider mission set and the force structure has changed since then. The present force structure in JSOC between the Navy and JSOC, i.e. NSWC, didn't exist for ST6, they were very much on their own program. DevGru also has a training and development mission set that ST6 never officially did. DevGru is a clearing house for developing new equipment, tactics, training and procedures for the SEAL community at large while ST6 was almost exclusively a band of high-speed strategic counter terror guys for the blue side of DoD. ST6 even had Marines in it, which DevGru never has and probably never will. In many ways DevGru was supposed to be a break, culturally and organizationally, from the "bad old days" of ST6 in the eyes of Navy brass. There are many units in which similar things have occurred, a pertinent example being the Marine Corps' 1st Force Recon Co. becoming MCSOCOM Det 1 which became the MSOR or even the Army's LRRP Companies constituting into the 75th Ranger Regiment. I understand the carry over in personnel and the direct assumption of many specific duties between the two but they are distinct and separate commands with different places in the bureaucracy, different pipelines and different roles, historically. Regardless, I don't have the time to commit to doing the legwork myself these days anyway but I'll leave all this on the table should it come up with others in the future. Or I find the time to revisit this. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, Tom. DevGru is first and foremost a counter-terror unit. They are structured as such, train as such, and operate as such. The name is supposed to be deceptively benign, such as when the Army changed Delta's name to Army Compartmented Elements or when the Vietnam-era Special Operations Group was renamed Studies and Observations Group. It just goes back to a long-line of secretive units being given non-attention grabbing names. It would be good not to confuse DevGru with an actual tactics and equipment research unit like the Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group. In the book SEAL Team Six by Howard Wasdin it talks specifically about how both ST6 and Delta started having to integrate and stop doing their own thing. This was not due to any units being disbanded, it was due to the realized need for centralized command of the nation's top tier units to be able to operate together and to the same standard. I've read nowhere from any personnel within the NSW or JSOC community that suggests this was ever anything more than a name change as opposed to the very real evolution of the UDT's to the SEALs. For the LRRP example, there too nothing changed. They were LRRPs, and then one day they were told that they had become Rangers. They sewed on their scrolls, and then went back to doing the same mission with the same officers in the same area. ForwardObserver85 (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I know DevGru's primary purpose is to demonstrate new and exciting ways of shooting people in the face. They are also a research and development group though, it's not just some sort of "cover story". There is quite a significant stable of people over there who aren't shooters, or even uniformed Navy. Delta's various name changes is partly analogous but the difference is that ST6 was actually done away with in order to affect organizational change. Delta pretty much rolled along with carte blanche until McCrystal came into town. What DevGru is or is not called these days doesn't matter. It's not about the name, it's about ST6 being a different organization than what was envisioned and stood up with DevGru. It was a change in direction. I don't want to deviate from topic but a lot changed when the LRRP Companies constituted into the new Regiment and the example was provided to demonstrate that this sort of thing is not unprecedented and in previous cases we treat the units separately despite the direct transition of many personnel and mission sets. TomPointTwo (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I realize that DevGru has a sizable community of people developing new and exciting things, but that is not what the unit is about. It is first and foremost an operational unit, not a research unit. It just seems like you're suggesting that DevGru is like Natick, AWG, and ARDEC all rolled into one team that occasionally goes out and tests their new found inventions by offing the occasional terrorist. Beyond that, the majority of their support personnel are operationally oriented, not R&D oriented. But if you have evidence that suggests otherwise, I'll gladly look at it and change my stance. ForwardObserver85 (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


Source for the weapons and equipment

Just wondering, what are the sources for the weapons section? Can't seem to find one. Tredoslop (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There weren't any, and I haven't yet added them to my revisions, but I will put them here until I do. I removed some blatantly false information regarding the firearms of DEVGRU. My information is based on more than a decade of research and can be easily corroborated by doing simple Google searches for the particular weapon in question. Information was also obtained from the book "No Easy Day" by Mark Owen, the book includes pictures of Owen's gear and weapons, as well as descriptions of other weapons not pictured in the book. I eliminated all the shotguns on the page save one, as it is not widely known what shotguns DEVGRU uses currently. I also removed a Sniper Rifle entry, as the rifle in question was used by a SEAL in the film "Act of Valor", and was used as a stand in for the Mk.11 Mod. 0 rifle. While real SEAL's were featured in the film, the weapons used were supplied by movie prop houses, and not the SEAL's actual rifles. I'm a bit new to wikicode, so go easy on me while I figure out how to get the citations in there. Thanks. GLOCK10mm (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)



Does anyone else think the weapons section is completely unnecessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.236.66 (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems a bit WP:UNDUE and seems to distract from the article. It would be better to just name (with a WP:RS) what weapons the unit is proficient/receives training in. This seems more suitable for a gun article than a unit article IMO. Student7 (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Move to "SEAL Team Six"

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group → SEAL Team Six – On Google News, I get 159 hits for "SEAL Team Six", nine for "DEVGRU", and one for "United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group." --Relisted. walk victor falk talk 19:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Clinical psych (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment "SEAL Team Six" 303 kGhits. "DEVGRU" 1.13 MGhits. Google books: 15,400 resp. 2380 Ghits (note that several best-sellers have titles including "SEAL Team Six"). walk victor falk talk 19:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support DEVGRU per Victor falk. I'm somewhat hesitant to use an incorrect name for a title, even if it is common. But if DEVGRU is more common, concise, and unambiguous, I think it's our best bet. It wouldn't be our only title consisting of military quasi-acronym jargon; compare to DEFCON or Spetsnaz. --BDD (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as nominated, Oppose DEVGRU. DEVGRU is, as far as I can see, the common name here. Seal Team Six, while the old name is still the common name. Maybe in the future something else will replace it as the common name, but until that happens we use the old and still the common name. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Did you mean to say "DEVGRU is not, as far as I can see, the common name"? --BDD (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2014 (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.

What a complete load of crap. Wikiality strikes again. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup, wp:commonname is literally one of the dumbest policies on wikipedia. That, and nfcc. - theWOLFchild 15:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

rock kept at the Virginia Beach (former members who are no longer welcome at the command )

According to two retired SEAL Team 6 operators, Bissonnette’s name has been added to a rock kept at the Virginia Beach SEAL Team 6 base. The rock is used to mark former members who are no longer welcome at the command, including former SEALs who have violated a series of unwritten codes of conduct among the unit. https://theintercept.com/2016/01/19/navy-seal-turns-over-picture-of-bin-ladens-body-faces-investigation-of-business-ties/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.248 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

   IP edits alleging anonymous reports are of very little interest.
--Jerzy•t 03:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Name origin

According to this XKCD post, "SEAL Team Six" was named as such to trick spies into believing there were at least six such teams. The statement is sourced to SEAL Target Geronimo: The Inside Story of the Mission to Kill Osama bin Laden, which we also use as a reference at Death of Osama bin Laden, so it's probably true, at least for our purposes. I'm hesitant to add it without a copy of the book available to verify, however. --BDD (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That is already noted in the article, with multiple sources. - theWOLFchild 15:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Weapons

There's a great big, very detailed section without a single source. Any idea where this info came from? A few of these weapons have been mentioned in sources about the bin Laden raid. The section has been added and deleted a few times. @Markunator:@GraniteSand:@Fatherjonas:@Mapsfly:. Felsic2 (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Since there's no discussion, and since it's been controversial, I'm going to delete it. Material like this needs solid sourcing. Felsic2 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The images used were all sourced. One person commenting does not a controversy make. On the other hand, do we really need a weapons section sourced or otherwise? I could see how it might be of interest if the SEALs used distinctive weapons, but it appears they use whatever they need to get a particular job done. Rklawton (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to restoring images. But we can't use those as citations for text, can we? Felsic2 (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Check out the image sources. If the image sources support the text, then that's a citation. If it doesn't, it's not. So if we've got an image of a SEAL with an M4 and the photo source says that's what it is, then there's no problem having text saying that's what it is, too. Even so, I'm not convinced a random list of whatever we could find on the web probably isn't a very good basis for a section in this article. Rklawton (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Your explanation of images as sources makes sense. Also your point about lists compiled from random sources. If we can find a source that discusses these weapons, and especially if it's possible to add context, then it'd be fine material to include. Felsic2 (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Revert

This comment belongs here:

Invitation to explain edit

Hello Thewolfchild,

Since "It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]" (per WP:NOTBROKEN) I invite you to further explain this edit and to possibly self-revert. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Afer your edit, you left behind a useless redlink. The edit before yours was fine. Once I reverted you, it again was fine. Now it's a blue link that goes straight to the intended article. Not sure what the problem is. (perhaps you dont like being reverted ?) Now, maybe you can expalin why you couldn't respect the simple request that heads my talk page? Why post there , instead of here on the article talk where this discussion belongs? - theWOLFchild 22:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Additional note; at the time I reverted, the link in question was red. Now for some reason it is blue, but regardless... your edit leads that link to a redirect page, my edit leads the link to the intended article, so... no, I won't be self-reverting, as there is no need to. - theWOLFchild 22:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@Lklundin: - Ah, I see now. The reason the link was red at one was because you hadn't created your needless redirect yet. Then when you did, you made an error, just making things worse. There was nothing wrong with the original edit and therefore nothing wrong with my revert to restore it. All your monkeying about with all this, and posting ridiculous rants on my talk page trying to pass blame on me is just an incredible waste of time. Im sure if you try real hard, you can find something better, and more constructive to do. - theWOLFchild 14:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

SEAL Team SIX or SEAL Team Six?

At Wikipedia "SEAL Team 6" is also shown as SEAL Team SIX and as SEAL Team Six. Is there a consensus for either SIX or Six? [3], [4], [5] Jerry Stockton (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It should be "Six". Some people here have a thing about putting naval unit numbers in all caps. - wolf 22:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SEAL_Team_Six/Archive_1&oldid=1047296877"