Talk:United States Special Operations Command/Archive 1

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

Accuracy dispute (January 2004)

Too many errors to sit down and point them — pretty much all written by myself. Gonna try to fix it later, going to sleep soon. --Maio 14:08, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Fixed some. --Maio 16:30, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Good job (June 2004)

You should check out the GlobalSecurity data. I'll add a NSWC section. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tin soldier (talk • contribs) 04:34, 30 June 2004 (UTC)

"Joint Special Operations Command"

Special Operations Command = "Joint Special Operations Command"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.154.181 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2005 (UTC)

Special Forces

Listing several different Special Forces groups and their AOE isn't necessary. Theres only one Special Forces and all the units do the same job, just in different places. Outdawg (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

MARSOC

Im removing all the Marine units that are not apart of MARSOC.

Outdawg (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A gun called SOCOM

socom redir's here? does anyone know anything about the gun called a socom? i only know it's some kind of pistol.--Mobius Soul 01:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • You're referring to a gun by Heckler & Koch, known also als Mk 23, Mod 0. See http://hkpro.com/socom.htm Tierlieb 09:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The gun you are looking for might be the Springfield SOCOM II which is a version of the m14.
      • The weapon you're referring to is indeed the HK Mark 23 SOCOM. Which was developed by HK at the request of Special Operations Command for a high caliber pistol, capable of extreme use by special forces soldiers. Batman2005 23:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
        • According to this, the article SOCOM has been changed to an disambiguation page Tierlieb 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


Marine Corps joining SOCOM

The article mentiones talks Oct 28 on the topic of the Marine Corps joining the SOCOM - but which year was that? Tierlieb 09:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • 2005, but it was only part of the Corps. Swatjester 16:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


It was 2006. Outdawg (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

SOCOM

What does the "OM" in "SOCOM" stand for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.151.231.126 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Special Operations COMmand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.83.177 (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed 3 SOS reference

While the 3 SOS is certainly part of AFSOC, it falls under the 16th Special Operations Wing, not directly under AFSOC. In addition, it makes little sense to mention every geographically separated unit in SOCOM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.104.202 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

ASD/SOLIC

Why is there no reference to The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Opeation and Low Intensity Conflicts (ASD/SOLIC) in this article, given that it is that office which oversees SOCOMs activities Pat (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article is very well-written, but it does not meet the GA-criteria. As a result, I am placing this article on hold. WP only allows articles to be on hold for 7 days, so please address these issues as quickly as possible so that the article can be promoted.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The article almost meets the MoS, but the lead is too short for the article length
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The article is extremely unreferenced, relying almost solely on one reference. Inline citations (Harvard or otherwise) are not included, including quotations. This needs to be fixed. The few references that are not from the one source are all online. Some published materials are required. Also, be aware of avoiding primary sources when possible in accordance with WP:PSTS.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Good job.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Excellent.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    No edit wars in progress
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The used images are appropriately tagged, but an article of this length and on such an important topic should include more information images and diagrams. Those that are provided, while helpful, are not all-encompassing.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Good luck with this article. I will check back regularly to help as needed.

My primary concern is the referencing. The USDOD, while a reputable source, should not be almost the sole source. While the references to the fact sheets certainly help, they still conflict with WP:PSTS. In general, there is an unofficial rule that every paragraph should have at least one reference. Even though it is unofficial, it is still a good guideline to follow to ensure the article meets WP:Verify. Any news releases related to the SOCOM or publications such as encyclopedic entries on the topic should be included. Thanks, Codharris (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, although I did pass the article in prose, this could definitely use some work. I'm considering it good enough for GA. If you intend to continue on to A-class or featured article, which I do recommend, you will need to improve the prose. I suggest posting the article for peer review and copyediting. Additionally, please include an author in all images used in Wikipedia articles. The entries witha yellow box on the image page are required.Codharris (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll definitely work hard on improving this article. Outdawg (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Final GA Review

I've been reading through the edits you've made on the page history - this article has come a very long way since its original review. I allowed more than the usual 7 days to go by in the hopes that this article would make it - it is extremely comprehensive, broad, and focused. However, I have no choice but to review this article, and it does not meet the requirement of verifiability. I therefore have to fail this GAN. I strongly urge you to continue with the impressive updates you have been making, as I have noticed definite improvements to the references. In accordance with WP:CITE, however, many statements need to be cited, included statistics and statements which may cause controversy. Unfortunately, this article does not cite everything it needs to. I will continue to check this article when I can (I'm working on an FAC right now, so that may not be soon), then recommend that you renominate when the article meets the criteria. Once my FAC is done, I'll come back and put {{fact}} tags where appropriate, which should help. Codharris (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?
  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?
  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA-Pass

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Good job on this article. Put it on featured nomination in a little while. Thouroghly sourced, large article with wide view, lots of images. Good Job!!

I think it's important to point out that entire paragraphs are still unsourced. This is something that should be dealt with before the article is promoted to GA status, so placing the nomination on hold would have been a good idea. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I'll make sure everything is sourced. Outdawg (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also note that it is generally against status quo to delete sections from an article's talk page - including GA reviews that are not the most current. To avoid confusion between the old and new, it would have been better to archive the talk page, not delete the outdated sections. Additionally, the previous GA, despite the fact that the article ultimately passed in a second GAN, should be listed in the ArticleHistory banner in addition to the newer, successful one. Congrats on GA and good luck at FAC! 75.40.94.244 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Commands of the United States armed forces vs. Category:United States Special Operations Command

Category:United States Special Operations Command is itself a category within Category:Commands of the United States armed forces. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Organization Chart

I would be interested in converting the organization chart to a Graphviz chart. Does anyone know how the graph was created. I left a message on the authors talk page but he seems to not be active since 2009 (i could be reading the page wrong).


DouglasCalvert (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Section on Tier System needs referencing

No referencing on section about the tier system. While the information is generally true to what I know of it some parts of it are questionalable in nature.

Jimothy 183 (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed USS Ponce Paragraph

I have removed the paragraph which suggested that the USS Ponce was being converted into a floating launch pad for Navy SEAL boat teams. The article on the USS Ponce has well sourced information which clearly indicates that this is not the case for this particular ship. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-03/transport-vessel-isn-t-being-made-seal-mothership-admiral-says.html Thesassypenguin (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater and John Tower

Hi, I'm italian so sorry If I don't write very well in english. In the voice is written that Barry Goldwater was chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services in June, 1983. But, as we can read in this latter voice, the chairman in 1983 was John Tower. A refuse or what else? --Zerosei (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Good catch! As per their Biographical Directory of the United States Congress entries, Barry Goldwater was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence for the 98th United States Congress (1983-1985) and Tower was the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Goldwater became the Armed Services Committee Chairman in the 99th United States Congress (1985-1987). I'll add a clarify note to the text, but leave it to another interested editory to correct. – S. Rich (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. I hope the wording is clear. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but are you sure that Barry guided the studies? John Tower is not possible? --Zerosei (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not. I just kept the gist of the statement intact while correcting his title. It's my understanding that Goldwater was pretty instrumental in the process and a big driver but I'm not familiar enough with the source cited here to say for sure. I have no problem if you want to drop it pending additional clarification. TomPointTwo (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not very active in en.wiki, it's better if someone else decide. Anyway, I found another things in the voice (paragraph Earnest Will): "because of Earnest Will operational requirements, USSOCOM would acquire new weapons systems—the patrol coastal ships and the Mark V Special Operations Craft". But, as I read in Mark V Special Operations Craft these special boats were delivered from 1995 (7 years after Earnest Will). --Zerosei (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The syntax is acceptable. (The "would" makes the actual acquirement in the future. The design, testing, contracting, building etc. process takes a lot of time.)-- – S. Rich (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't think there would be necessary 7 years. Thank you. --Zerosei (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I was incorrect about the time frame for design, testing, etc of the Mark V. They did it all in 18 months (according to the article). But the information and syntax still works in this article. Earnest Will revealed the need and eventually they got the boat in the water some years later. (Actually, the idea for boat is an old one. Some guy named John F. Kennedy piloted a similar craft during WWII.) – S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Like italian MAS ;). Anyway, I don't want to be the ones who criticize too much this voice, even if because I'm not able to improve it, but some bibliographical references (for example notes 11 and 18) doesn't have the page. Is this good for a good article? Bye. --Zerosei (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Quiet Professionals

The phrase "Quiet Professionals" has long been associated with US Army SF. See: [1], [2], [3] . Now Public Affairs may have adopted the slogan for the cover of their 2013 Fact Book, but I can't find anything that says SOCCOM has adopted the phrase as a motto for the entire command. – S. Rich (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I know it's been associated with army SF but socom headquarters also use it as a motto. It's been all over the command, in their annual Fact Books, and Tip of the Spears and they regularly refer to the Quiet Professionals in their publications. When I get off work I'll add some links. — -dainomite   15:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
It's used more often for SOF in general these days, so I guess "nickname" would be more appropriate than "motto". But yes, I also recognize that it's used by Army SF, these links are to illustrate that "Quiet Professionals" doesn't exclusive mean Green Berets.
  • links relating to USSOCOM headquarters as Quiet Professionals: [12][13] also the cover of the 2012 and 2013 Fact Books put out by SOCOM's PAO. However, I recognize that that doesn't explicitly state "the official motto is..." or "the official nickname is..." too.
  • links relating to JSOC as Quiet Professionals[14]
What would be your opinion on putting "Quiet Professionals" under the nickname parameter? — -dainomite   22:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow! That's a lot of excellent work. Thanks.
Perhaps we can use the term to describe the operators – recognizing that 'operator' is a term of art. (There are lots of SOCOM staff & support personnel who would not fit in under the term any more than would staff & support personnel in other commands.) In a broader sense, I do not like the idea of a nickname for the command because the SOCCOM is never referred to as such using that term. (One nickname I'm familiar with is "Tampastan". And the informal motto of USArmy DENTAC was "To preserve the biting strength.") As we do not have an official motto (compare: "This we'll defend" is on the Army colors), I don't like the idea of posting it without WP:V. – S. Rich (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hehe, np. I've been on MacDill for five years and I haven't heard the Tampastan nickname before. MacDisney has to be my favorite though. I spose informal/unofficial would be a more accurate term since there's nothing from the command saying "our official motto is this." What about stating something like... "Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines are often referred to as Quiet Professionals...." since a few of those links actually say that, then we can use those as the refs to support it.— -dainomite   23:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
As I recall, "T'stan" was frowned upon, but my impression comes from steering clear of that neighborhood. As for your suggestion, I'd like to limit the moniker to those likely to be engaged with the bad guys. How about "The command directs the operations of and supports Green Berets, SEALs, ... who are known as the Quiet Professionals." – S. Rich (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I just left it at "Soldiers... et al" because every branch has SOF career fields whether it's SEAL, SWCC, Green Berets, CCT, PJ or Marine Special Operators. Listing it "Soldiers... et al" would be shorter than specifically listing off SOF career fields as I just did. If we did the "list method" I could see some anonymous guys always editting it like "zyxc should be included, these guys shouldn't."— -dainomite   00:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree – to a point. Lots of people want to Capitalize the terms soldiers, etc., when they actually pertain to non-proper nouns. (While I like the ideal personally, such capitalizations has POV motivations.) Why don't you go ahead and incorporate QP into the descriptions as you see fit. – S. Rich (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Joint Communications Unit

Should the Joint Communications Unit be mentioned as part of SOCOM according to its page? Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on United States Special Operations Command. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 19:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Special Operations Command. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 06:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on United States Special Operations Command. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Special_Operations_Command/Archive_1&oldid=1137284862"