Talk:United States Army Special Forces

Weapons

Added refs per citation on Weapons section. Any more needed? Neutraliano (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox date

There has been an ongoing back-and-forth of edits to the infobox for awhile now regarding when the SF were formed; 1952 vs 1987, both apparently with refs. I'll revert to QUO, and meanwhile have started this thread so hopefully there will be some discussion leading to a consensus and resolution. - wolf 19:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Special Forces was formed in 1952 and is common knowledge in the military. You can go on the official US Army website (which I referenced) and it will say so. One of the references theWolfChild even uses says it was formed in 1952. The references theWolfChild is using saying 1987 are when Special Forces was made in one the US Army’s field branches like Field Artillery, Signal Corps, Cavalry, etc. This was done to improve funding and career advancement and is in no way related to the unit’s formation. Also saying the unit was formed in 1987 makes no sense historically when it’s very well documented that Army Special Forces fought in The Vietnam War which was from the early 60’s-mid 70’s. President Kennedy authorized Special Forced to wear the Green Beret in the early 60’s. So to continue to say 1987 is the founding date is wrong. Please tell me why you think it’s right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.16.108.86 (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not initially add the 1987 date with it's ref, I just noticed that it had been repeatedly changed to 1952, without a ref, by multiple IP addresses, (though it's likely that it's the same person behind all those IPs), and therefore reverted back to the sourced content. Only with the last edit was a ref attached, but that only means there are now apparently conflicting refs, so I again reverted to WP:QUO and started this talk page thread to encourage discussion and hopefully a resolution. Obviously the user(s) behind these IP addresses isn't familiar with Wikipedia's policies & guidelines, especially as they pertain to sourcing and the repeated changing of content, (ie WP:BRD). As such, assertions such as "it's common knowledge" and any other comments not supported by sourcing are inapplicable here. Also comments like "Thewolfchild" this and the "Thewolfchild" that aren't productive (iow; focus on edits, not editors). and the persistent reverting of content should stop until there is a resolution. Lastly, I would encourage this user(s) to create an account, or barring that, at least read Help:Getting started and go from there. Meanwhile, I'll wait to see if anyone comments here before posting any further. - wolf 00:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: This discussion has already been discussed and is located in the archives. If you wish to further discuss this matter, I would be willing to see your logic and point of view but based on other U.S. Army branch websites; it's evident that the birthdates listed on Wikipedia coincides with the official branch birthdates of the United States Army.

Below is what I posted in 2019 regarding this ongoing matter:

The Special Forces branch was established on 9 April 1987 by Army General Order Number 35. The article is misleading because although the first Special Forces unit was formed on 11 June 1952, when the 10th Special Forces Group was activated at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, it is not the date when the basic branch was established. I've reviewed other U.S. Army branches:

* Infantry Branch (United States)

* Field Artillery Branch (United States)

* Military Police Corps (United States)

* United States Army Aviation Branch

* United States Army Corps of Engineers

* Armor Branch

* Transportation Corps

* Signal Corps (United States Army)

The Active or Foundation date is based on the date which the branch was officially founded by the Department of the Army's General Orders or the Journals of Congress (16 June 1775), the list of dates can be seen on the Army's Birthdays website. The website lists in order the basic branches and their respective authorities (orders).

To address your point about World War II, the Army Special Forces (ARSOF) Office Command of the Historian recognizes the history going back to World War I with COL Charles R. Munske Articles by Conflicts which outlines the timeline for ARSOF -Signaleer (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

-Signaleer (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, I didn't have a position either way as I didn't initially add either date. I just noted that ip user(s) were repeatedly changing a sourced entry to an unsourced entry (and then to a sourced but conflicting entry). I just reverted (per brd, quo, etc) and tried to encourage them to engage on the tp. Whether or not your comments here, or from 2019, or your changes to article today, will bring an end to this disruption is yet to be determined as the date you've entered is not the one they seem to insist on having. Perhaps we can take a cue from the United States Army Rangers page (which lists "17th century to present" for the date) and/or the 75th Ranger Regiment page (which list lists three different dates: 1984-, 1942- & 2006- present, for the date) ...? Just a thought. - wolf 18:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand, you have a neutral position and trying to be an arbiter or third party to the problem at hand. There have been multiple users (both IP and registered Wiki users) who have reverted the date to the creation of the 10th SFG. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that an organization or unit is not the same as the creation of a branch or special branch of the United States Army (which the United States Army Special Forces is.) There is already a history section within the SF page as well as a dedicated History of the United States Army Special Forces. -Signaleer (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the date of the branch back to 9 April 1987, no other United States Army branches lists the Active or Foundation date as the first unit or organization of that branch. No U.S. Army branch has two separate dates listed in the information box, one for the official orders that established the Army branch and one for the first unit or organization of that branch.

For example, the United States Infantry was established on 14 June 1775. The oldest Infantry Regiment in the United States Army is the 181st Infantry Regiment, tracing it's lineage to established on 13 December 1636. I did not establish this standard which appears to be standardized across the U.S. Army branches, I am simply following what was already exists on Wikipedia.

@Thewolfchild:, I would recommend encouraging the IP users who are reverting the information box to make comments or create a user account and comment on the talk page. Since this is not the case, I would urge other users to weigh in. -Signaleer (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Signaleer: Where to begin... first, you don't debate content changes via edit summaries, you are still basically edit warring. Next, you're removing sourced content based solely in "I don't like it" and "other stuff exists". While some uniformity among similar articles can sometimes be desirable, it is not a requirement nor is it a sufficient reason for you to delete supported content. The only reason I made the edit I did was because the 1952 date is supported, there is an implicit consensus for it through the multiple IP users continually re-adding it, and with attached notes (in parentheses), the significance of both the 1952 date and the 1987 date is made clear, which should satisfy both you and all these IP users. Lastly, it's not my job to police any and all IP users that might edit this page, and to "encourage them to create accounts". As you know, account creation is not a requirement to edit WP. As I said before, I'm just trying to address the persistent disruption of this page. I had hoped that discussion would solve that (and still do, though it hasn't yet) and meanwhile I made an edit that reverted the improper changes made by both sides and added what should be a solution to satisfy both... that you keep reverting. - wolf 12:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I remind you that there is already a standard among the U.S. Army branches, something you are ignoring or not considering as part of this discussion. Secondly, there is no discussion amongst the IP users in this talk page, something that you area also ignoring. You are not an arbiter or an administrator and I have no problem escalating this discussion to a formal arbitration process.

@Thewolfchild:, I'll remind you of the WP:DISPUTE policy, since there is a lack of discussion regarding this on-going issue since 2019; I will request a WP:DRN in order to get a neutral third party involved in order to review and render thoughts and add to this two user dialogue. This is the best solution I can come with since you are unwilling to consider valid points which I have raised in this discussion.

Lastly, I will ask that you keep all discussions regarding this matter on this talk page in order to maintain a single location to allow all users to discuss this matter. My user talk page is not a platform for discussions regarding this article and any additional comments regarding this topic will be deleted. -Signaleer (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I have requested a WP:DRN, you can monitor this here. -Signaleer (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

And Signaleer, I'll remind you that I initially didn't have a position either way (which you even acknowledged above), I was only seeking to bring an end to the persistent disruption of this page, hopefully by encouraging discussion between the parties involved and (since quo didn't work) attempting an edit that took both positions into account along with, more importantly, sources and consensus. The IP editor(s) seem to have no interest in discussion and will likely continue seeking their preferred edit, but you. are. no. better. You just keep pushing your preferred edit at all costs. I wish the best of luck to any other 3PO editor that cares to wade into this. It will likely take more than that to resolve this. Have a nice day - wolf 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Another IP user has made changes to the article without additional comment to the article talk page or here. I have requested to the article blocked to prevent IP users from making additional changes, this request is pending. -Signaleer (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)