Talk:United States Navy SEALs/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removal of sourced content

@Fustos: - this here, the article talk page, is where you go next, after your edit has been reverted. You were even clearly reminded of WP:BRD in the edit summary. But instead, you chose to revert again. That is the first step in an edit war and is considered disruptive editing. Now, since you didn't come to the talk page (you do have a history of being uncommunicative), I have started a discussion for you. You removed sourced content. That edit has been reverted. Here is the place where you have an opportunity to explain your edit. (This is how it is supposed to go... ) - ^theWOLFchild 18:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

the edit states "The total number of Navy SEALs assigned to Naval Special Warfare Command is approximately 8,195 out of a total staffing of 8,985" <- this is incorrect. That number is the total personnel attached to the Naval Special Warfare Command. SEALs + clerks and jerks. The total number of SEALs according to the SEAL database, active is around 4,000; NOT 8,195. It's simply false information. According the the NSWC lede NSWC is organized primarily around eight Navy SEAL teams, three special boat teams, and various supporting commands, totaling approximately 9,200 personnel. Fustos (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, well I think we've been here before. Instead of just removing content because you feel it doesn't adequately clarify what is in the source, how about improving it? (or do you feel the source is incorrect?) Expand the entry to explain that the numbers down to include other non-SEAL special-warfare operators, and break the numbers of how many of whoever is there. Wouldn't that be better? You don't build an encyclopaedia by just taking away. - ^theWOLFchild 19:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

you don't build it by adding false info either. (Personal attack removed), i'm assuming you went trough the source and found where it said - the total number of Navy SEALs assigned to Naval Special Warfare Command is approximately 8,195 out of a total staffing of 8,985 - because i didn't. Fustos (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the onus is on you to show the "info is false". And insulting me isn't going to accomplish anything. (Have you read WP:NPA?) Meanwhile, I see you've gone and reverted yet again, when this discussion haven't even concluded yet. Despite the numerous times I have cited it for you, you clearly have not read WP:BRD, and instead you seem intent to edit war until you have your way. That's not how it works, believe me, I know. When I was new like you, I did the same thing and I ended up getting blocked. If you continue the way you're going, you'll be reported and likely end up getting blocked yourself. Stop fighting everyone over everything, try following some guidelines, discuss instead of edit-warring and you'll get more accomplished. Lastly, I didn't add that content or the source, so don't go "assuming" anything. It just makes an "ass" out of "u" and "ming" (whoever ming is...) - ^theWOLFchild 20:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow... I can't even take a couple minutes to type out a reply without you reverting yet again. You really don't think any of the rules here apply to you, do you? - ^theWOLFchild 20:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

source does not support the claims. It states all personnel assigned. Which includes HQ staff, Warfare center staff and DEVGRU staff. Nowhere does it say there are 8,195 SEALs. what is to discuss about that? Fustos (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, the entry is not necessarily wrong. It states there are 8985 military personal assigned to NSW, out of which 8195 are SEALs. It appears the editor excluded the number of military personel from HQ and the NSW center (school), and included those in Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 11 and DevGru, who are all SEALs, (except for combatant crewmen (SWCC) or 'Swicks' who are considered SEALs (arguably de facto if not de jure as they are SW operators and wear the trident). So, the entry is not "false", it just needs clarification. You would know this is you bothered to do 90 seconds of research.

"What is there to discuss?" you ask? Well, we could discuss your attitude, which sucks, but we'll get to that later. What is there to discuss now? How about improving the article? (Like I suggested in my very first post). But you seem intent on just removing content you don't agree with, (even if you're wrong) and even if you have to edit war to remove it. I asked you above if you thought the source itself was incorrect. Again, you didn't answer that either. I checked the source, it's the GAO, so it's pretty solid. It's now clear that you lack either the interest, or the ability (or both) to make the necessary changes, so I'll just do myself, again. But first I'll give you a chance to self-revert. If not, then when I'm finished cleaning up your mess, I reporting you for disruptive editing, among other things. - ^theWOLFchild 21:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Fustos: Well, I was right. You didn't do anything toward improving the article, you didn't even revert yourself. I have re-added that entry. I confirmed the numbers with source and reworded for clarity. I also noted where exactly to find the numbers in the source by adding the page number. One of the ways it seems you went wrong is, you stated there were only "about 4,000 SEALs". It seems you were only counting the numbered teams, and missed the SDV teams, and reserve units, who are all also SEALs, as well as DevGru. I changed the "SEALs" to "Special Operators" which also includes SWCC's. The numbers in the source are as follows;

• Group One: 1,746 (SEALs)
• Group Two: 1,719 (SEALs)
• Group Three: 620 (SEALs)
• Group Four: 1,084 (SWCCs)
• Group Ten: 728 (NSW Special Operators)
• Group Eleven: 956 (SEALs)
• DevGru: 1,342 (SEALs)

Total Special Operators is 8,195. Add in HQ & NSW Center, total is 8,985 (military). Add in civilians, total is 10,166.

These numbers are confirmed in a reliable source. If you try removing/reverting this info again, you'll need to have a better explanation that some snippy edit summary that says "this is wrong". This only took minutes to confirm and then re-edit the entry. In other words, in only took minutes to improve the article, instead of the hours you wasted edit-warring and removing content and a valuable source of info. In other words, not improving the article. Please consider that before you go on your next deletion spree, disrupting one article after another. - ^theWOLFchild 00:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

i actually agree with the new changes. Fustos (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Fustos: Well that's nice, but do you think you can keep that in mind the next you're reverted? It will happen, and instead edit-warring and fighting whoever it is that reverts you, can you just follow the guidelines, discuss it and work with them toward improving the article? All this bullshit today was completely unnecessary. - ^theWOLFchild 01:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'll be happy to block for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Our previous encounters aside, if you look at the history here, you'll see I have been trying (and trying) to get this editor to engage on talk pages instead of just reverting everything with a "what's the point in talking?" attitude. I even pointed out my own history and how edit-warring accomplishes nothing. I had hoped that after this nonsense here came to a close, that perhaps he would get on board. However, it doesn't seem to be the case. I came here hoping he started a discussion, or was at least willing to have one about this edit. But, of course he's not here. In regards to your comment, I'm not looking to have anyone blocked, I feel that should be a last resort in cases like this. This editor is fairly new and I'm not sure if ESL is an issue, but if you could help reinforce (if you're willing, that is) the notion that constant reverting-regardless-of-outcome and refusal to discuss anything at anytime makes article building and improvement extremely difficult, not to mention that goes against the policies and guidelines here, it would be greatly appreciated and a benefit to the project. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 19:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thewolfchild, I'm of that age where a successful act of remembrance is finding my glasses, so you'll forgive me if I forgot, for the moment, our previous interactions. I see what you are doing here on this talk page, and I appreciate it. I also see you took my blocking comment in the spirit in which I intended it: I have no intention of blocking anyone, but obviously this needs to be hashed out here. I can't really comment on the content issue because (as a good impartial administrator!) I really haven't looked into it--though I did look at the history and the edits. If y'all can't work this out DRV is an option, or you could maybe post a notion on one of the project pages? Good luck with it, and thanks for the note. Fustos, it seems the ball is in your court (below). Drmies (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Meh, I doubt he'll respond. He seems to think of the policies here as optional and the talk pages as a pain in the ass that just get in the way of his editing. I'll just wait for the next problem he causes and try again to get him to maybe read a guideline or two and actually engage in a discussion, instead of just revert, rinse, repeat. Thanks anyway - ^theWOLFchild 03:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

NSW personnel killed in action

@Fustos: - Today, you made an addition, and while the content was worthwhile and sourced, the formatting needed improvement, which I did. I see this is an example of trying to improve articles, instead of just reverting or removing content, which I have been expounding. But, you again just revert, undoing all the improvements, with some remark about "bolding" and smiley face, as if this some kind of game. Well, congrats, you've now got the attention of an administrator who has locked the page and seems more than willing to dish out blocks. I'm hoping to avoid that. Instead of reverting, if you had just come here, asked why I made changes to your edit and expressed any concerns you had about those changes, I'm sure we could've worked it out. I've shown you how that is possible, very recently and right here on this very article. As for your edit, putting everything in all caps was not necessary, and not how content is typically written. That's why I switched most of it to lower case. If I hadn't someone else would've anyway. While the content is sourced from the museum, the KIA numbers is a separate item, hence the addition of a sub-heading. Lastly, I totaled up the numbers from the three eras noted and listed a grand total, something that most readers (if not all) would want to see. I put it in bold, which I felt helped make it stand out against the other numbers, but it's not of particular importance to me. However, you used the bolding as an excuse to undo everything, which did nothing to improve the article and only served as a nuisance edit.

So, again, here is your opportunity to discuss the edit and the changes made, instead of causing anymore disruption. I'm asking you to engage in some cooperative dialogue here (and remember, you now have an admin watching). - ^theWOLFchild 19:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

btw, what is your contribution to the casualty section again? oh... that's right! nothing. i see no source, links or improvement. Fustos (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Fustos: - Wow, are you always angry and miserable? You just get off a full month block for edit-warring and incivility, and within the very first hour of your block expiring, you go right back to edit-warring and incivility. You need to read WP:BRD, then WP:DICK and then WP:TEAMWORK. Right now you are running afoul of all three. - ^theWOLFchild 13:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

my block expired about 4 days ago. But i know this, a few minutes after a logged in, you were on my page. you must've missed me dearly. also, i see you making non usefull changes to the section i added. how about adding relevant information, backed up with sources for a change? hm... Fustos (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ew, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. What is it with you and... er, nevermind. Anyway, you edited a page on my watch list, That's how I knew about this edit. And yeah, I tried extending an olive branch to your on your talk page, like a civilized, mature adult. And your reply was, well... the opposite of a civilized mature adult. And don't preach about contributions to me, you have deleted and disrupted faaar more than you've added or cooperated. Speaking of which, nice job "discussing" the article by the way, (you know... what this talk page is actually for?) It's clear you didn't learn anything from time out. Let me know if you have anything collegial and on topic to say. For a change. - ^theWOLFchild 17:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"SEAL Team" section needs references

This whole section (currently 3.2 in the TOC) discusses the organization, leadership. and makeup of the SEAL teams. Almost all of the content in this section is unreferenced and therefore, complete speculation. It seems to me, if we wish to abide by WP polices and standards, that this section should be trimmed significantly pending more research and authoritative references. What are your thoughts? airuditious (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

SEAL Team SIX or SEAL Team Six?

At Wikipedia "SEAL Team 6" is also shown as SEAL Team SIX and as SEAL Team Six. Is there a consensus for either SIX or Six? This is also an issue for the other SEAL teams. [1], [2], [3] Jerry Stockton (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Official Website of the United States Navy: Admiral William H. McRaven, "McRaven has commanded at every level within the special operations community, including assignments as deputy commanding general for Operations at JSOC; commodore of Naval Special Warfare Group One; commander of SEAL Team Three ..." [4] Jerry Stockton (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Another option is SEAL Team 1, SEAL Team 2, SEAL Team 3 … Thoughts anyone? Jerry Stockton (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• You could try asking at WT:MILHIST, you might get more of a response. - wolf 06:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Given the lack of response, I'd be BOLD and change it to Six etc. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Go with One, Two, Six, etc., where ever you find them. - wolf 23:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the help. Jerry Stockton (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

infobox simplification

the infobox is too long and complex. i reckon we should remove the irrelevant roles like "Hostage rescue" as it is too specific and already comes under counter-terrorism which is already up there, "unconventional warfare" as it already comes under special operations which is up there, and "HVT raids" as it already comes under direct-action which is also up there already.

i'll try to do it now so nobody revert it please unless you want to keep the infobox long and complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbaylis2019 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 27 August 2019 (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:

• Logo Naval Special Warfare Development Group.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Query regarding selection and training subsection.

If I'm correct weren't the polices changed to award the SEALS with the trident after completing BUD/s instead of after SQT? Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 15:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)