Talk:United States Army Special Forces
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
|
Related task forces...
|
|
Would someone with a more critical eye please take a look at the photo for this article? Maybe it's just me, but the helicopter in the background looks very suspicious, and makes me wonder if the picture is legit. Where is it from? Gcolive 20:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I objected to the use of the words "struggle against the North." I believe "in fighting..." is more neutral. Struggle implies to me "great efforts made by an underdog." Objectively speaking, this applied to the Viet Cong. It did not apply to the South Vietnamese Army.
Contents |
[edit] Unit name
I know little on the subject but I will tell you the "special force", "green berets" and "special operation forces" pages give entirely contradictory information. Someone should look at all three pages and get them to match up. But that someone isn't me because I have no specialized knowledge of this - I'm just editting for typos and clarity.
HJS
The unit's official name is the "United States Army Special Forces". Please, do not move this article to "Green Berets"; that article is supposed to be pointing to this one (as it is right now).
--Maio 05:40, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names) - "Green Berets" is the common name, so this article should be located there. --Jiang 01:59, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, it is the common name.. among Americans and other military developed countries. But in other countries, like for example in Latin America, guerillas use green berets as their head caps, and people refer to them as "Green Berets" — from the spanish translation of "boinas verdes". That is the very reason why the Army officialy changed their names to "Special Forces", to avoid any links to revolutionary guerrillas. Anyways, Green Berets redirect to this article, and in the article summary it is explained that their are also called like that. If you still beleive that it should be moved, then do so, but I will not agree with the decision (although I will not move it back). --Maio 05:02, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think it will be confusing if we move it there, as long was we keep the current bolded title in the text. A note about the name change should be added to the article. What about Night Stalkers? --Jiang 00:35, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
-
- Same POV: I don't agree with it, but if you wanna do it feel free to do so.. as long as we keep the current bolded text of the article. ;0) --Maio 09:50, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Headgear:the green beret
Today I added information about Kennedy and decided to move the paragraph about the Royal Marines before the mention of the Rangers, because with the addition of the Kennedy paragraph there is far more on U.S. Army Special Forces than the Royal Marines in this section. Where it was, before I moved it, the Royal Marines paragraph, separated the first U.S. paragraph from the second and (the new) third.
But the alteration that ALoan has made has obscured the information about the Royal Marines of today. I would like to reinstate a separate paragraph about the Royal Marines. As it is much shorter than the information on the US Special Forces I would like to place in before the mention of the Rangers. The reason for doing this is clarity, but as the Royals have been wearing green berets for longer than US forces, it is also follows seniority. Does anyone object to this. If so why Philip Baird Shearer 21:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
But to make the change of a change, without an explanation, can start an edit war and life is too short. Philip Baird Shearer 21:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining before editing, and for the pointer on my talk page. It is not something that I would go to the wall for, but I just thought that my version was clearer. The article is mainly about the US Special Forces because they are known as the 'green berets' and the Royal Marines generally are not. I just thought it looked a bit odd to refer to the Marines before explaining their link to the US Special Forces. The reference to the Marines' headgear and WWII is really an aside, and, pace your point about seniority, I don't think it needs to come first. Perhaps you disagree. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:48, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The moving of the section Headgear:the green beret to an article green beret by User:JohnCrawford (exporting information to 'green beret'), makes the talk about this section redundent. Philip Baird Shearer 08:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Women in the SF
This part of the article requires a little clarification. In its present reading, one might think they won't see a woman wearing the Special Forces Green Beret, but that's not true. Women can serve in SF units in a non-combat capacity (ex: clerks). They'll get airborne training, but they won't get tabbed. They'll wear the Green Beret, but it won't have the flash. They won't find themselves on an A-Team. My jaw dropped when one of the women in my Airborne class put on a Green Beret after graduating jump school and receiving her orders. On the other hand, she kicked butt during training (most women dropped out of my class, no pun intended), so more power to her. Rklawton 01:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, one female did qualify for the flash. I met her (Kate Wilder) this weekend and heard some of her story, did some googling, and came up with an AP source. Added to the article with a footnote...one of these days I'll register a login for WP. -- Anonymous Coward, 15:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.253.4.21 (talk • contribs) .
- Women assigned to support duties in SF groups now wear the maroon beret. When this switched, I don't know. I remember reading in Aaron Banks' book (I believe it was his) that the real SF soldiers weren't happy that support guys were wearing the beret. Apparently, the complaints were finally addressed. Incidentally, the only info I could find about Kate Wilder was that she was allowed to attend the course (probably as a test) but was caught cheating on the land nav and was kicked out [1]. How accurate the info is, I've no idea.--Nobunaga24 01:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not a terribly reliable source you've got there - I'm told by my father (who knew her and her husband at Bragg) that there was a lot of pressure to wash her out and rumors to the effect of what you see in that gunboards forum. The full AP article I linked to mentions that she was told she failed land nav right before the graduation ceremony and filed a sexual discrimination complaint. The complaint was investigated by Brig. Gen. F. Cecil Adams, who found that she had been wrongly failed. BTW, the reason she was allowed to go through the course was because the regs barred enlisted women from qualifying for the training but did not mention officers - she was a captain, and snuck in on a loophole (promptly closed after her). 169.253.4.21 20:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Casualties
Does anyone know the number of Special Forces casualties in the Iraq and Afghanistan War? How do they compare percentage-wise to other military units (normal infantry, rangers, ect.) in the US army? And how do they compare to green beret casualties of other US wars? How do they compare to the military units of Iraq and Afghanistan (Taliban soldiers, Baath soldiers, Al Queda Terrorists, ect.) during the current wars? Zachorious 17:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Team composition and culture
The MOS is a general job, if you want to add skill levels, then you can explain which paygrades generally hold these MOS levels.
The composition of an A team and B team are what is on paper, a list was better suited. Someone expressed a disliking for a list, so I did not revert. Giving the preferred rank for each position the way I have left it is best in my wholehearted opinion... The Supply and NBC NCOs are part of the B Team composition and should not be listed under the SF MOS list. If you wanted to list every single MOS that works with SF then go ahead, you have alot of listings ahead of you.
As for MGS, a "platoon" is an A Team, a game like MGS is not very accurate. I do not think we should leave room for a person to wonder "What is an SF platoon?", leaving (A Team) in parenthesis lets the reader know that they were talking about an ODA.
- Debatable whether a "platoon" is an A-team, considering a platoon refers to a composition of squads, and since A teams correspond more to squads. Your method for listing the ranks is inefficient: It's much better to put the MOS first, and then which ranks generally hold that MOS. That way, when listing the composition of the A and B teams, you need only put the MOS and the reader already knows what rank that will be, rather than having to give a stylistically mind-numbing list of all the ranks with the MOS over and over and over again. Come on, that's just common sense. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The equivalent to a platoon is an A Team. Platoons and Squads are not used in SF structure.
Reverting the pages over and over is quite embarrassing, I created the B team composition section so I think I should have the final say, I also created it to look like the original A team composition section. I think you are incorrect because it leaves misinformation in the article.
- Hi, I saw this dispute on WP:3O - the page to request a third opinion. It's difficult to decide on which version of this page is better because there is no line-by-line citation. If you could both provide sources that illustrate your point, a third opinion can be provided. Also, it would really help if all users involved would start leaving their signature at the end of their comments by typing four tildes (~). Regarding who has final say, no individual user has this right. Content disputes are decided by consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS). I'd also like to remind users, just in case, of the policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR. Thanks. Please provide the diffs, then contact me, and I will provide the opinion. KazakhPol 00:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Third Opinion is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute. """When editors cannot come to a compromise""" and need a third opinion, they list a dispute here.
There was a compromise; he stopped reverting the page, it was a dispute between the two of us so I said I think I should have the final say, case and point, we found a compromise.
-
- That wasn't a compromise. You weren't ever going to stop reverting, so I gave up. That's no compromise. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] US Army Special Forces page
Team Sergeant 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've seen and read enough. Have fun with your editing and "stories" concerning the US Army Special Forces.
Team Sergeant Master Sergeant Special Forces (ret) Team Sergeant 16:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
