Talk:United States Naval Special Warfare Command

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States C‑class

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Removal of "our" edit

Changed "This littoral capability is more important now than ever in our history" with "This littoral capability is considered more important now than ever in history". Wikipedia isn't only aimed towards Americans. (Could also be "in U.S.'s history")

Removal of several biased statements edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Removed word such as "brave men" while we know that they were, and are indeed brave men. The choice of words heavily detriments the academic objectivity of the whole article.

The whole piece reads like it was written by NSW's PR team.Martin Turner (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Global War on Terror" should be removed edit

Apart from lacking the proper sources and citations, this section of the article is particularly biased and suits more a novel, than an academic paper.

I propose these section to be removed pending a better informed, or at least more academic re-write.

Add topic