Jump to content

Talk:SEAL Team Six/Archive 2

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

Split proposed

It has been proposed by Mr. Guye that the portion of the "Controversy" section noting the death of Special Forces Staff Sergeant Logan Melgar, and alleged involvement of two DEVGRU Special Operators in his death, be split off to a separate article. - wolf 19:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Thewolfchild: Yes, because the subject appears to be notable enough to warrant its own article, and if it has its own article, the content would be easier to organize and format. Also, splitting would make this content easier to find. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Mr. Guye: Erm, you didnt need to tell me why you proposed the split, I just asked that you state your reasons for the split here because you hadn't when you first added the split proposal template. Anyway, I agree with the split. Once it was mentioned that Marines have also been charged in the death, then it shouldn't be on the DEVGRU page anyway. - wolf 23:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If there is a section entitled "Controversies" it makes no sense to censor one of the more prominent controversies from that section. Melgar's death warrants its own article due to its importance, that shouldn't call for removing it from this article on a list of noteworthy controversies surrounding this organizationMauspatt (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree to split. Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

proposed changes to the current see also listings...

my proposed changes to listing that curently stands as:

  • Shayetet 13 (Israel) - propose to move it to Navy SEALs page, since it states on the pageo f the article as the IDF equivalent to the US navy seals
  • Commando marine (France) - same with shayetet 13, also link takes to FORUSCO a command that has non special forces elements
  • Special Boat Service (UK) - can stay, although also seen by many as a NAVY SEAL equivalent
  • Joint Task Force 2 (JTF-2) (Canada) - can stay, but is more of the 1st SFOD-D equivalent
  • Spetsnaz (Russia) - the russian term for spec ops, includes non military special forces. to vague to be the russian equivalent of DEVGRU
  • Kommando Spezialkräfte Marine (Germany) - also a SEALs equivalent
  • JW Formoza (Poland) - Polish equivalent of SEALs, says so on varius polish source, JW GROM would be a more accurate listing

Reality is, special missions units like DEVGRU are rare, even among NATO nations. a few equivalents would be the british SAS, polish JW GROM , the Light Reaction Regiment of the philipine army, the SSO of the Russian armed forces and maybe the IDFs Sayeret Matkal. i'm open to suggestions. SWAGnificient (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@SWAGnificient: I see now you're proposing to move some of these to the US Navy SEALs page. That's seems more reasonable than just removing them. I will note Spetsnaz should be replaced by the Spetsnaz Alpha Group. SBS is the Tier-1 marine equivalent to the SAS, same as ST6 to Delta. JTF-2 is Canada's only Tier-1 unit, they cover marine ops as well. Speaking of "Tier-1" (or Tier One), you should check the linked articles and their sources to determine which are Tier-1, like ST6, Delta, etc. and which are other special forces/anti-terrorism units, like Special Forces (United States Army), Navy SEALs, etc., also known as "Tier-2" in some circles. For example, "Shayetet 13" in their article are compared to SBS (Tier-1) and SEALs (Tier-2), so that should be clarified before it is moved, as should the others. Cheers - wolf 17:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
For France : Commandos Marine are tier 2, but Commando Hubert is tier 1. 91.164.214.187 (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"Army unit"

Before I begin, this will have been my first time being in this section of the wiki.

On the blurb when you search up "SEAL team six" you see "Army unit". SEAL team six is a naval special operations unit, so I propose that we change that to "Special Operations Naval Unit". I will likely forget I wrote this, so I probably won't respond to anything posted here, but if anyone knows how to edit that please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.112.78.235 (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

That’s google, not Wikipedia. MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Active edit war on this page

It appears two editors are involved in a disagreement at this time and neither is discussing on talk. If there's no discussion here, I'll put this up for protection and neither editor will be able to make changes. BusterD (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for engaging here. BusterD (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to make the article's wording more neutral, remove unnecessary capitalisation, and avoid euphemism.Konli17 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
After reviewing the edits in question, it appears @Konli17: is correct with regard to capitalization, however, I disagree with changing the wording. They are not euphemisms, but rather a proper description of this special operation unit’s roles. Garuda28 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
'Direct action' is a euphemism. Would al-Qaeda operations in the US planning the abduction or assassination of military commanders be described as "direct action...against high-value targets"? Konli17 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
We have an article titled Direct action (military) for the exact same reason it’s on this page. It’s a proper military term, not a euphemism. Garuda28 (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. It's a specifically American military term (The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (March 2016)), and it's a euphemism because it obscures the activity it refers to instead of clarifying it. Readers shouldn't need to click on a link, and avoiding euphemism means they don't need to. As it's specific to one country's military, I'm not sure it ought to be used at all outside quotes. Konli17 (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It’s a proper military term, descriptive and supported by the sources provided. And it’s an American military unit – it is expected that it will be primarily supported by American sources that provide an American viewpoint (especially related to its mission, role, and operations). I truly don’t find the arguments for removing a sourced and widely used military term compelling. I, however, am interested to see the perspective of other editors. If you would like, starting an RfC or posting to WP:MILHIST would be a good way to inform other editors of the discussion to bring some more eyes on this. Garuda28 (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Wow... Present words seems fine and terminology etc so that is fine... But, I can't believe to one user put as equal al-qaeda actions (internationally recognised as one terrorist organisation, and not a regular force or lawful belignient in any conflict) or any similar organisation and regular army unit what is recognised by all conventions as a force with regular combatant status, organised and trained and uniformed by one sovereign country. I am really surprised. I want to think to it is not some kind of pov view. Lazy to check that user other edits for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.93.240 (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Garuda, you still haven't answered my question. Whatever else it might be, it's far from descriptive. I've no objection to keeping the term in the article, but not as a euphemistic substitute for clearer terms. 109.93.93.240, I see no good reason why we should use different terms to describe the same actions by different people. That's not the same as equating them. Konli17 (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
A quick check of Google Books indicates that direct action is a widely-used military term relating to special forces operations, see US Military Innovation Since the Cold War: Creation Without Destruction p.151, and Contemporary Military Strategy and the Global War on Terror: US and UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq 2001-2012 p. 70 for starters. From personal experience, it is also used in the Australian Army, is in the official glossary, and there is a pam about it. It is not a euphemism. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Would you still consider it not to be a euphemism if it was used to describe AQ operations? Konli17 (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
What reliable sources uses it to describe AQ operations? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. So whether or not the term 'direct action' is a euphemism depends on who's using it? Konli17 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
We use what is in reliable sources on Wikipedia. You haven't answered the question. Is it used by reliable sources to describe AQ actions? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Are you really asserting that we're not allowed to use synonyms, or our heads? That, for example, if we know someone was shot to death because we have reliable sources saying they were shot to death but phrasing it differently, we must find a reliable source using that exact phrase before we can? You still haven't answered the question I put to you at 18:50 (nor the one at 23:28), so you're not in the best position to complain about that. Konli17 (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You are talking in circles. We use what reliable sources use, we don't decide what is and isn't a euphemism, which is why I didn't respond to your question. Are you claiming that reliable sources use the term "direct action" to refer to AQ operations? If so, what sources? If not, then why are we even talking about this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, we do decide what is and isn't a euphemism. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Euphemisms. Konli17 (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I've checked WP:EUPHEMISM; yes, it appears that to accord with the guideline, in description we should use something like "killing in combat" rather than Direct Action. The guideline states "use clear, direct language." There are two issues here. ::First, in accordance with the guideline, the preference should be something along the lines of "close-quarters infantry operations" or "close-quarters fighting", with the use of the word "kill" as appropriate.
Yet, also, on the other hand, we're here to explain such terminology to non-specialists. So, generally, the article should use clear, direct, language, not military euphemism, for describing what DevGru does. But, also, woven into the text, there should be an explanation that the technical military term, euphemism, officially used for this kind of task *is* Direct Action (and that article linked). So the answer is not one or the other, it's both, as far as I can see. However, that is likely to mean for this type of article, which is usually dominated by military terminology, that considerable adjustment might have to be made. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not a euphemism, it is a defined term meaning (in the US context) "short duration strikes and other small scale offensive actions by SOF to seize, destroy, capture, recover, or inflict damage on designated personnel or materiel." It cannot be simplified into "killing". The quoted definition is drawn from US Special Operations Forces in Action: The Challenge of Unconventional Warfare, Volume 2 p. xix. For example, Special Forces conduct "direct action" when rescuing hostages, which doesn't automatically mean anyone dies. How about we stick to the reliable sources instead of arguing what is or isn't a euphemism. I still don't have an answer about whether any reliable sources uses "direct action" to refer to AQ operations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I’m in agreement with Peacemaker67 here. Direct Action is a specific mission set, rather than just a fancy way of saying “killing people.” I also agree with Buckshot that it could be construed that way by someone who is not terribly familiar and we should define it in the article to avoid that misunderstanding (which I believe is the root of the problem here). Garuda28 (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
When (otherwise) reliable sources use euphemisms like direct action or collateral damage, the onus is on us to paraphrase. I'm happy with Buckshot's suggestion that the term be used where there's space to explain it, i.e. not in the infobox. Peacemaker, when the US military defines direct action as "short duration strikes and other small scale offensive actions by SOF to seize, destroy, capture, recover, or inflict damage on designated personnel or materiel.", does that cover when anyone does it, or just them? Konli17 (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you PM67 or Garuda28 are acknowledging some of the more philosophical issues about ABCA armies' use of language, because special forces as they've grown in importance have generated numerous terms that generally fit the definition of euphemisms. Advanced Force Operations springs to mind. Can you both not see that some of these terms can be *both* euphemism *and* technical military term at the same time - they fit *both* definitions?
But here, yes, to skip past repeating arguments, let's make sure that the listing of missions, "counter terrorism, hostage rescue, direct action" is make more simple and clear. ("Special reconnaissance" as far as I can tell is simply reconnaissance conducted by or for special forces.) If we insert the entire definition of "direct action", for example, that covers what hostage rescue is - it's the short duration, offensive action, to seize/destroy (the hostage takers) and to recover (the hostages). DOD and SOCOM often don't appear to think through the definitions they use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree, we should be aiming for more simplicity. Konli17 (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in words etc. Only problem is about what I said, one user tried to make one regular unit of sovereign state equal with al qaeda. Bad example, and scary and dangerous, can be almost as terrorist propaganda about delegitimisation of enemy. This planet no matter how it is, has some international law system and some conventions still about who is legal combatant, who is non state actor and who is just a terrorist. And about missions and euphemism. Hmmmmm for example there is peacekeeping as a mission and activity and in that is included many police and army units around the whole world mostly autorised by the UN, during that missions it happens to also people die. So considering to people die in peacekeeping and to sometimes they are killed by some peacekeeping troops it should be "killing in peacekeeping" and not peacekeeping anymore or what, so totally out of mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.32.136 (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Konli17 is very keen on everyone answering questions, but hasn't answered a single and simple one themselves about the use of the term regarding AQ. In what reliable source has it been used in that way? If is hasn't, why are we even discussing it? I fail to see why anyone should answer any of their questions if they won't explain where the idea comes from that AQ conducts "direct action". It is special forces that define one of their tasks as direct action, and it isn't just US, as I have explained, it is also used in Australia (by the SAS and Commando units), and a quick Google Books check indicates that it is also used in New Zealand and Britain (by their respective SAS) and Canada by their special operations troops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Konli17: there has been no consensus here established to support your changes. Until that happens, either through continued discussion or an RfC please refrain from attempting to claim consensus has been reached and implement. Consensus is not a vote, but as of right now you have two users who general oppose the change and one who is open to aspects. This is hardly consensus for the changes to be implemented. Garuda28 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
You said above that "we should define it in the article to avoid that misunderstanding", so I defined it. I did as you suggested, so what's the problem? Konli17 (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Konli17: You didn’t define according to any sources, removed counter–terrorism, which is a distinct and different mission set from DA. Beyond that you removed the “Type” of unit it is from the infobox and deleted most of its roles from the infobox and put it in the type section. I’ve just added the definition of DA based upon a source. Garuda28 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
No. You're back to using euphemism to obscure assassination and/or abduction. That can't stand. Konli17 (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Konli17: As the discussion on the talk page has so far made clear, there is, as of right now, no consensus to remove. Until that happens they should not be removed. I would suggest starting an RfC if you want to press this further. Garuda28 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't remove the euphemism, I explained it. Konli17 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Konli17: You did not cite material to support the direct action description (which was part of the reason it was incorrect). There is a reason Peacemaker67 needed to put a citation needed tag after the aforementioned edits. I fixed this, providing an explanation of direct action and cited material to back that up. I don't think we are making any progress with this back and forth. As of now, there is no consensus to remove the material, only to add a cited description. If you seek to further press the issue I would recommend starting an RfC. Garuda28 (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree, you have no consensus for this, Konli17, use a form of dispute resolution to get a consensus or drop it. An RfC is a good idea, but make sure you word it neutrally. I suggest drafting something for discussion here so you can get some guidance. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
A lover of euphemism offers guidance. I'll try not to be too harsh, but I can't promise to use terms that you'll need to click on to understand. Both of you seem determined to ignore the more important of the issues Buckshot06 and I have raised, choosing jargon over simplicity. I'd like to hear from @Buckshot06: again before we have to go to RfC. Konli17 (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears the guidance for "reliable sources" is broken if the US Army can define their own euphemistic terms to do shady stuff internationally but al qaeda is not allowed to do the same just because the former comes from a country with more wealth that can dictate the rules of engagement in their favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:C50C:2576:5A68:394E (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"...the US Army can define their own euphemistic terms to do shady stuff internationally but al qaeda is not allowed to do the same just because the former comes from a country with more wealth..." - if you really believe this, you either need to do a lot more reading, or question if perhaps you are looking to contribute to the wrong website... - wolf 05:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Al Qaeda is not allowed? Al Qaeda defender? Is this possible to people write this stuff. People should stop to use this as a forum or soapbox for own biased opinions 178.221.219.175 (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Credibility

Thewolfchild has "suggested" I propose changes on the talk page. He considers my last edits to be unconstructive for unknown reasons, makes flippant assumptions, does not welcome factually correct data and persistently reverts my changes.

There're several things that need to be addressed regarding this article; mostly misinformation and made up claims.

Name

The article states that ST6 was a predecessor to DEV, which is not true. It's the same SMU. The unit has been activated under the name "SEAL Team 6" only once, in 1980. It has not been dissolved nor disbanded ever, it only changed its name few times. Now it is called DEVGRU. There was also another name before DEV, but after ST6. I don't remember what was it.

Training

"Those who pass the stringent recruitment process will attend an eight month selection and training course with the unit's training department known as "Green Team"." – Green Team is the name of the course, it's not a "department" nor any kind of sub-unit within DEV. There's a 2-day screening and Green Team lasts 9 months (not 8), like SOCS (R) Matt Bissonnette (Mark Owen) has typed in his book No Easy Day.

"Like all special operations forces units that have an extremely intensive and high-risk training schedule, there can be serious injuries and deaths. SEAL Team Six/DEVGRU has lost several operators during training, including parachute accidents and close-quarters battle training accidents." – They have indeed had members KIT to MFF exercises (Lance "Cobra" Vaccaro and Tommy Valentine in 2008, Brett "Shady" Shadle in 2013 and Blake Marston in 2015), but there hasn't been anyone in DEV who was KIT during CQC training. "Special operations forces units", it's enough to leave out the "units" part (RAS syndrome).

"It is presumed that the unit's assessment process for potential new recruits is different from what a SEAL operator experienced in his previous career, and much of the training tests the candidate's mental capacity rather than his physical condition." – No, the basis of every SMU selection and course is focused on individual effort unlike other SOF selections where it is always a group effort. This has been known for a long time, written and discussed in detail by many former SMU operators. Another instance of RAS syndrome, "SEAL operator".

T/O

Black Sqdn. (an equivalent to Delta's G Sqdn.) is for what's called advanced force operations (AFO) which is, simply explained, "operational preparation of environment". Gray Sqdn. no longer exists and its boat crews (SWCC) have been distributed so that every sqdn. has their own SBT. Again, Green Team is not an actual team, but the name of the course, and shouldn't be listed under structure. There's an EOD detachment, but it is not listed. Its insignia can be seen on Kraig Vickers' plaque.

"Each assault squadron, usually led by a Commander (O-5), is divided into three troops of enlisted SEALs, often called assaulters." – No, not everyone is an assaulter, obviously there're snipers too.

"A troop chief also serves as an adviser to the troop commander and is the highest-enlisted SEAL in the troop, usually a Master Chief Petty Officer (E-9)." – Not usually, the master chief is definitely and always a troop (master) chief.

"The assault squadrons are supported by a variety of support personnel, including cryptologists, communicators, EOD technicians, dog handlers, and sometimes airmen from the United States Air Force 24th Special Tactics Squadron, the Air Force's JSOC element." – Not just assault squadrons, and K-9 handlers can be both combat supporters (e.g. Benito from https://patriotdogtraining.com/) or operators (e.g. Will Chesney who was also on the Op. Neptune's Spear).

Firearms

It lists MK18 and M4A1. For the M4A1 it says "not as commonly used, but still in inventory" – No. The M4A1 hasn't been used for a really long time, MK18 has been replaced by the HK416D by 2007. M16 and CAR-15 and other ancient blasters can then be listed as well.

Anyone who closely follows "happenings" with USSOCOM could have seen in 2020 that DEV uses or T&E's the Noveske N4 now.

Mk 12 SPR and SR-25 they don't use anymore.

LMGs are missing on the list (MK46, MK48) and the M79 launcher.

Other

"SEAL Team Six was disbanded in 1987, and its role, minus non-CT ship-boarding which was given to the newly formed SEAL Team 8, given to the newly formed DEVGRU." – This sentence makes no sense. Also again, not a "newly-formed DEVGRU", it's the same unit, only the name is different.

"The Central Intelligence Agency's highly secretive Special Activities Center (SAC) and more specifically its elite Special Operations Group (SOG) often works with, and recruits from, DEVGRU." – It doesn't recruit from. You have to retire/get discharged in order to apply for OGA gigs. The use of word "elite" is childish and would be good to not use it.

As for the TWA Flight 847 hijacking and Op. Prime Chance – there's no mention whatsoever if DEV was even involved in any of those events.

Gulf War – yes, they were there, but likely just sitting around waiting for a mission that didn't happen.

Forgive me for any technical mistakes. I haven't been actively editing on Wiki for ages now and I don't think I will, one of the reasons being users like Thewolfchild. Tomandandy (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hm, something familiar about this. Like last year when you made unsourced changes to Delta Force, were reverted, then posted a long screed on that talk page, then abruptly deleted it. I was the one that came to your talk page and encouraged you to come back and discuss the changes you sought. Now again you've removed 2kB of sourced content, simply stating that it was "false, incomplete & outdated". Yes, I reverted you, as many other editors would. I added a standard template message to your talk page, as many other editors would, but I then followed that up with a personal message to specifically clarify my reason for the revert. There was nothing "flippant" about my comment, and if you don't like the language of the notification template, then take that up in the appropriate forum, as I didn't write it, nor was I part of the group that approved it. So if you're really quitting, be honest about why, because this is all over a single revert, that as I said, many other editors would have done as well. As for the huge post you've written here, I'll leave it to others to review first. - wolf 21:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, my 2 cents. I guess Tomandandy has a lot of good points, however he is overconfident in what he thinks he knows. Just from the top of my head :
"there hasn't been anyone in DEV who was KIT during CQC " : what about he FIRST killed in training from SEAL Team 6, Rodney Choi? (Marcinko nicknamed him "Donnie Lee" in his memoir). What about Rich Horn? Damn it.
"As for the TWA Flight 847 hijacking ... – there's no mention whatsoever if DEV was even involved in any of those events." -> go see Steven Emerson's Secret Warriors book.
"In 1987, the unit was renamed as Naval Special Warfare Development Group" -> It's just a cover name, and it was "activated" in 1989. I can even tell you the month. Rob1bureau (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Rob1bureau Apologies. Didn't mean to come off as cocky. Thank you for providing the info. I stand corrected. Thewolfchild Sorry for the huge post, but I didn't think of a better way to point out errors in the article. Tomandandy (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SEAL_Team_Six/Archive_2&oldid=1013114567"