Talk:United States Navy SEALs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

InfoBox changes being made?

An IP editor, 99.182.194.49, has been making a large number of edits to the Infobox at the beginning of the article, but he doesn't seem too willing to discuss what he's doing, nor does he seem very keen on supplying an Edit Summary when he changes something. I'm reverting his edit whenever he tries to italicize the motto (see MOS:ITALIC), but I was curious what some other editors thought about the work.

For example, should every SEAL engagement be listed in the Infobox? Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

99.182.194.49 (talk · contribs) has been making those same type of edits ALL over SOF related articles, just look at their contribs. I've reverted them on quite a few occasions and left edit summaries and talk page messages regarding them but to no avail. I tried a nice welcome message encouraging them to create an account and participate but that went unanswered too. As far as the "engagements" go, on template:infobox military unit it says "battles – optional – any notable engagements in which the unit participated. The decision of what constitutes a notable engagement is left to the editors of the specific article." So I'm not sure to what extent their "engagements" should be listed. I've also been reverting their edits where they list all engagements as "operation XYZ" instead of the wikipedia article name, for instance they changed War in Afghanistan (2001-present) to Operation Enduring Freedom despite OEF being a much larger operation than just the War in Afghanistan. — -dainomite   20:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Very well, then. It's a little discouraging when folks behave this way, because it's such a waste of time. I'll help as best I can, I just didn't want to go stepping all over a community-sanctioned effort that I didn't hear about. Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wash out rate

Obviosly the cause of this high wash out rate is they transfer a sailor into soldier .--Max Mayr 07:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

To my understanding the vast majority of the 'Servicemen' who enter BUD/S come straight from Navy Boot camp. The infamous dropout rate seems a greatly inflated figure when compared to the dropout rates the Ranger Indoctrination Program, for example. Considering the RIP Volunteer has been through Army Boot Camp, Infantry School and Airborne School before even being considered for RIP training. Naturally the wash out rates will be lower as your dealing with seasoned and better trained 'Servicemen' from day 1. If someone knows different, inform me please. - Joliver375 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You guys are wrong! I have heard these arguments before and they are FLAWED! The main reason for the high dropout rate at BUD/S has to do with people not being able to keep up with the demanding physical conditioning. And these people who come to BUD/S are in great physical shape. People who apply to become SEALs are screened and one thing that is screened is there physical fitness. They have to take a Physical Screening Test (PST) where they run, swim, do pushups, pullups and sit ups. They have to meet minimum requirements to have a chance at being selected to go to BUD/S but just meeting the bare minimum will not get them selected they need to go above and beyond and have competitive scores. Naval Special Warfare picks the people who have the best PST scores and meet all the other requirements to go to BUD/S. So as I said these people who go to BUD/S are in great physical shape. This just shows how hard the physical conditioning is at BUD/S. These people who come to BUD/S are in great shape and still a large majority of them quit during physical conditioning. If the reason most people were failing BUD/S was because they couldn't use a weapon properly then your argument would be valid but that is not the case. 99.182.194.49 (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Training

It's writen '50,000 push-ups in 2 minutes'. I doubt about this. Please, if someone is qualified about this matter could he check it? Thanks. Freedom Fighter 1988 (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well while I hate to seem to be slinging mud at any servicemen. In every single video clip I've seen regarding SEAL training, and a few were circulating during the recent piracy event, show SEAL recruits doing terrible push-ups. As in just bending their arms push-ups. I understand all about muscle failure and can see the SEAL instructors cutting recruits slack after recognizing true muscle failure but someone please verify that 'just bending your elbows' don't count as push-ups in the Navy or SEALs. With an Army Push-up, your elbows need to break the plane of your back. Meaning your elbows bend somewhere in the neighborhood of 110 degrees(?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.181.38 (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

For the SEAL physical screening test during pushups your chest should be pretty close to the ground. 99.182.194.49 (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Why teach the importance of teamwork when they are always outnumber? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomsday212 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Royal Marines with SEALs

The entry states "The Royal Marines, led by a Provost Sergeant, were the first off the helicopter followed by the SEALs and all immediately became entangled in the obstacles. In this exposed position the SEALs and Marines began taking fire from the platform's garrison." I'd never read about a joint RMC/SEAL operation that included a heliborne assault. This seems very specific, yet lacks a citation. Does anyone have a source for this? ForwardObserver85

I wrote it, I think the citation is Down Range by Dick Couch but I'm not sure on that. I have no idea how I manged all of that and neglected inline cites. Let me take a look, I'll get back to you. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright, it's Chapter Five "Night of the Navy SEALs" in Down Range. I can't find my physical copy but the online preview of the Chapter jarred my memory. The preview doesn't include the snippet on the helo assault but includes some details and names of the RMC guys on the SWCC boats with the SEALs. If you want a specific page cite let me know. The whole take down of that platform was a joint US/UK operation. They had a few AFSOC personnel too, the usual ubiquitous types for SOCOM. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the quick reply. Sounds like a good read, I'll have to pick up a copy next time I'm at B&N. I'm just about to wrap up "The Finishing School," so it'll be good to roll into another Dick Couch book. Thanks again, ForwardObserver85 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.51.229 (talk)

SO rating vs. SEAL qualification

I cannot find a reference to the creation of the Special Warfare Operator (SO) rating in this article, but unfortunately the wikilink from List of United States Navy ratings points to this article. Can someone add a section describing the relatively new rating of SO and that previous to its creation SEAL was a qualification that a sailor of any (correct?) rating could earn in BUD/S? I think this would help clear up some confusion with those not familiar with the many nuances of the Navy's rating and warfare qualification nomenclatures. Highspeed (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Content copied from navyseals.com

I added a copypaste template message because chunks of the content in the history section seem to be copied verbatim from navyseals.com. The history section also contains an ethnic slur and is written in a romantic style. 50.0.91.128 (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Good find, I'll try and fix it up. -- Jdc1197 - (talk · userpage · contributions) 16:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed the template with a partial justification that the website is in the public domain. I double checked and I'm actually wrong on that account. Nonetheless, instead of just tagging the article could you point out specific passages that of concern to you? Please don't make us guess. GraniteSand (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Starting from the history section the contents seem simply be a gently reworded copy of http://navyseals.com/nsw/navy-seal-history/. Some parts are copied verbatim. This is only one example of many.

The Wikipedia article:

The third and final Scouts and Raiders organization operated in China. Scouts and Raiders were deployed to fight with the Sino-American Cooperative Organization, or SACO. To help bolster the work of SACO, Admiral Ernest J. King ordered that 120 officers and 900 men be trained for "Amphibious Raider" at the Scout and Raider school at Fort Pierce, Florida. They formed the core of what was envisioned as a "guerrilla amphibious organization of Americans and Chinese operating from coastal waters, lakes and rivers employing small steamboats and sampans." While most Amphibious Raider forces remained at Camp Knox in Calcutta, three of the groups saw active service. They conducted a survey of the upper Yangtze River in the spring of 1945 and, disguised as coolies, conducted a detailed three-month survey of the Chinese coast from Shanghai to Kitchioh Wan, near Hong Kong.[4]

navyseals.com:

The third Scout and Raiders organization operated in China. Scouts and Raiders were deployed to fight with the Sino-American Cooperation Organization, or SACO. To help bolster the work of SACO, Admiral Ernest J. King ordered that 120 officers and 900 men be trained for “Amphibious Roger” at the Scout and Ranger school at Ft. Pierce, FL. They formed the core of what was envisioned as a “guerrilla amphibious organization of Americans and Chinese operating from coastal waters, lakes and rivers employing small steamers and sampans.” While most Amphibious Roger forces remained at Camp Knox in Calcutta, three of the groups saw active service. They conducted a survey of the Upper Yangtze River in the spring of 1945 and, disguised as coolies, conducted a detailed three-month survey of the Chinese coast from Shanghai to Kitchioh Wan, near Hong Kong.

50.0.91.128 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The media group which runs that website isn't a reliable source. Much of the text int his article has existed for years. The more likely explanation is that The Force 12 Media Network group ripped off Wikipedia's text, not the other way around. For example, a minor grammatical change made only three moths ago to text which had been in the article for years has managed to make it's way onto navyseals.com. This appears to be a case of unscrupulous people selling stuff over the internet using Wikipedia, not copy vio. GraniteSand (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. If that's the case, then navyseals.com should not be listed as a source for those sections and instead they should be marked as lacking citation.50.0.91.128 (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

navy or marines

Isnt this the job of the marines? to attack beaches inland etc and then the army takes over.but seems the navy needed some tough guy jobs so they created their own navy people army..the seals...they got tired of the us marines getting all the attention...and the air fore wanted a piece so they reated cct and pj..their own army of commandos to go in on land to destroy enemy air fi...elds craft anti air weapons...to kill enemy pilots and to rescue downed pilots..to rescue seals even who are trapped and need medical vacuation..seems everyone wants muscles on the ground..in israel russia spain and other places its clearer..fly is air force even from a carrier..jump is all army even if landing on a beach...infantry army only and special forces is army..unless we are fighting fish..they dont have navy commandos... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.193.163 (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

SEAL Team 2 Arctic Warfare

The citation for SEAL Team 2's arctic warfare specialty is from a manual dating from 1999-2000. With the NSW 21 transformation, all SEAL Teams are now standardized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.218.84 (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I'll see if there's been any pub put out since that mentions the move away from the attempt to have Team specific geographical/environmental specialization. GraniteSand (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)