Talk:Operation Red Wings

as-Sahab

Several items in the article are attributed to as-Sahab - a media outlet of an extremist group. According to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_and_fringe_sources extremist sources should not be used in articles that are not about the extremists themselves. Shouldn't these items attributed to as Sahab then be removed in following with that guideline? SJSA 09:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

as a media outlet of an extremist group, as-Sahab has been surprisingly honest in their accounts. If/When they contradict more 'official' sources and inquiries, then the official version of events is given (if possible, with a "as-Sahab disputed the claim, suggesting..."), but where there is no contradiction and the stories mesh together, there is no reason to remove half an account. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The standard would seem to be verifiability not truth. SJSA 11:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Another user is now attempting to remove these videos. I can't say I disagree with him, as these particular videos show no explicit links to this particular operation and are from an inherently untrustworthy source. SJSA 05:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG

Removing "Three_Dead_Navy_SEALs_in_Operation_Redwing.PNG", it has been deleted from Commons by Bastique because: Request by family members to remove. Do not restore. -- 16:13, 12 February 2009

File background[1]:

• 16:02, 12 February 2009 Bastique deleted "File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG" ‎ (Request by family members to remove. Do not restore)
• 18:57, 5 February 2009 Abigor restored "File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG" ‎ (10 revisions and 1 file restored: You cannot identify the people on the votes. and there are in scope)
• 00:30, 10 January 2009 Yann deleted "File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG" ‎ (as per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people: unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life)
• 08:53, 11 December 2008 Yann restored "File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG" ‎ (2 revisions and 1 file restored: "Out of project scope" is not a valid reason to delete this file)
• 23:31, 10 December 2008 Maxim deleted "File:Three Dead Navy SEALs in Operation Redwing.PNG" ‎ (Out of project scope: adds nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject)

Videos

Hacketta seems to object to the videos presence because, "Having supported the operation to search and resuce [sic] these men, I have removed the video. Furthermore, I was at Asadbad PRT [Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) Asadabad????] and we removed each of these videos as they came up for sale or found them." Sherurcij has since reverted the video erasure. So just to clear up any misunderstanding Hacketta what is your objection to the videos? Do you claim that they are fraudulent? Do you claim you purchased all copies thus own the copyright? Please respond -- Esemono (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

unnecesary videos

i removed the videos simply because they add nothing to the article and fall more along the lines of propaganda than reliable info.(how terrorist video of terrorist examining stolen items adds anything to the article beats me.)

unnecesary videos

i removed the videos simply because they add nothing to the article and fall more along the lines of propaganda than reliable info.(how terrorist video of terrorist examining stolen items adds anything to the article beats me.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.123.207 (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If they were Fox News videos of the United States examining hard drives seized from militant forces, nobody would suggest this. I'm reinstating the videos as their removal is pure POV. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

no, there is no pov in deleting the aforementioned videos. just look at them, they make the article look like slop and add absolutely nothing to the article. in fact, the videos themselves are highly pov. my motives arent political or ideological, im just trying to clean up the article..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.123.207 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What do they say that is POV? Can you explain this a bit further? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

what makes them pov is the fact that they were made for propaganda purposes by terrorist and have no real informational value. besides that, the videos add nothing to the article and make it look sloppy which is warrant enough for removal.68.206.123.207 (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

alright how about a compromise. the recent addition of the plaque picture was a good improvement in terms of pictures ,but needs to be shrunk just a little bit to fit better in my opinion. about the videos anyway, i think that 1 (one) video kept would be alright.(maybe put it in a material losses section???)68.206.123.207 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

just delete the videos already...

lets get right to the point. the videos add absolutely nothing to the article, make it look sloppy, and come from unverifiable sources. ther is absolutely no pov in removing the videos,on the contrary keeping the videos indicates pov. perhaps replacing them with some decent pictures that add to the article(not the aforementioned dead body pics) would be nice. and if none can be found, we should just keep the picture of the seals and the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.123.207 (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If they were Fox News videos of the United States examining hard drives seized from militant forces, nobody would suggest this. I'm reinstating the videos as their removal is pure POV. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Firefight section

I'm removing the citation from the statement, "Unable to verify any hostile intent from the herders..": West, Diane (August 17, 2007). "Death by rules of engagement"

This article is an op/ed piece and as such should not be used as a source for a factual statement. The article does quote from Lutrell's book, but the citation should source the book directly rather than point to an article which is self-identified as opinion. If anyone objects to this, I suggest they cite the relevant text from Lutrell's book in this section and create another section for "Controversies Arising from Operation Redwing". 65.30.180.228 (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had this article on my watchlist for several months now since the edit war took place over the photos of the dead SEALs. I observed the recent edit war over the Taliban videos without intervening, because, in my opinion, the article is neutrally written. The Taliban propaganda videos do look a little out of place, but I don't think it's a big deal. They probably should be labeled something along the lines of, "Taliban video of captured US equipment being examined" or something along those lines to put the source in perspective. Otherwise, I don't think there are major issues with this article at this time. Cla68 (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We should add info from Victory Point

This article relies too much on the Luttrell book, which concentrates on his battle and flight, but doesn't really cover the mission well or the after action learnings. Proceedings reviewed a new book, Victory Point which contains the Marine view of the engagement. It's not a perfect overview either (review is negative), but is helpful as one more part of the puzzle.

http://www.mca-marines.org/GAZETTE/bookreviews.asp (USNI review is hard copy, sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.44.253 (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially as regards the size of force that ambushed the SEALs. Luttrell's initial after-action report indicates a force of '20-35' fighters, while the initial intelligence assessment specifies 'up to 20' fighters. Other, later intelligence assessments indicate an initial force of 8-10 men, with one or more PK machine guns, one or more RPGs, numerous AK-47s, and two video cameras. The information is in the book 'Victory Point', some of which is summarized on the website www.victorypoint.info. I remember Luttrell's Navy Cross citation also states they were were ambushed by about 20 men, but I can't seem to find my source for that part.

Waceaquinas (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving the Page... Annnd then BACK Again (Doh!) :(

I'm 'moving the page' (renaming the article) to bring it in line with the accepted/official title of the operation. --Chachap (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhmmm, sorry. I pooched the hell out of that 'page move'. I read down though the 'history', after the fact, that the accurate name of the operation is "Red Wings", (for the Detroit Red Wings hockey team; reference history at 21 June 2010). I had taken my action based on the published subtitle of the Marcus Luttrell book, 'Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10', which apparently is NOT accurate; had also checked here on the 'Discuss' page, but found nothing to the contrary. I apologize for the error, and hope that this caused little inconvenience for other users -- Changes have been REVERTED.

--Chachap (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Your reference is to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Red_Wings&diff=prev&oldid=369429334

revision 369429334 167.7.127.186 (talk) Edit summary: In the book Victory Point, author Ed Darack describes the fact that this operation--named after the Detroit Red Wings--has been variously misnamed by the popular media.

I find it unlikely that Luttrell, the only surviving SEAL in the operation, would let that slip for two republishings of his book in paperback. I think we should use the most commonly used name (I believe that would be Redwing) until the official name is better corroborated. To start off, it would be nice to have the relevant text from Ed Darack's Victory Point on this talk page. --Anthonzi (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's Op. "RED WINGS" not Redwing(s)

Ed Darack's book 'Victory Point: Operations Red Wings and Whalers - the Marine Corps' Battle for Freedom in Afghanistan' (2009) is pretty clear in establishing the correct name of the operation as "Red Wings" (and that it was based on the NHL's Detroit Red Wings hockey team). I'm posting this note in hopes that others won't make my mistake (above)! --Chachap (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would Marcus Luttrell's book have the incorrect name of the operation? Darack was not on the mission; Luttrell was. --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Whichever one is the official name, all of the commonly used variations should appear in the lead sentence.--Anthonzi (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)