Talk:Marine expeditionary unit (special operations capable)

NPOV required

"our" (etc) appears a fair bit. This is the English Language Wikipedia, not the US partisan wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of that, removing tag (FYI: template:Globalize/USA may have been more appropriate). bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Article title

The words "Special operations capable" appear, as a phrase in English, to describe the fact that a particular unit is capable of handling special operations. They are not, of themselves, suitable, unless it can be proven that they are, to be valid as a Wikipedia article title.

Please show rationale for the article name here.

This is not in any way a dispute over the topic itself, which seems to be wholly valid, simply a request for a far better name that reflects the reality of the language. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no English phrase of "Special operations capable" but special operations "capable". This article topic isn't titled as an adjective, it is to be read as a proper noun; hence the all-capitalized letters. It is a bipartisan word that is used in the United States Marine Corps to explain the degree of the special operations that they are capable of performing, just as of like the SOFs of SOCOM. These are referencing to all the units of the USMC that aren't participating with USSOCOM but capable of performing the same function, and explaining why. This article is meant to be read to understand its meaning. Please feel free give suggestions in the name title if it feels that it must be changed.RekonDog (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't accept your rationale, so have put it up for community discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Inaccuracy

Under the section, "Maritime Security" the article states, "The Marine Corps does not deploy traditional Special Operations Forces (SOF)." The USMC does indeed deploy its own "traditional" SOF through MARSOC as of 2006. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARSOC. 147.9.168.15 (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Special Operations Capable → to be decided — The title of the article at present feels incorrect. The title is stated to be a noun, which an article title should be, by the creator, but it is, in grammar, an adjectival phrase. Thus a name needs to be decided upon and then the Article moved to it. — Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

1. Oppose bahamut0013♠♣ 12:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

A logical approach for naming might be "United States Marine Corps, Special Operations capable roles". The article reflects up the USMC, and their special ops capabilities. So I am setting this possible title up as a starting point for us to evaluate. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems overly complicated for a mere technicality. The United States Military treats this as a warfighting concept, not an adjective, much like amphibious warfare or mechanized warfare. This article is not about the concept of being a special operations unit, but being designated with the title "Special Operations Capable". No change or rename is needed. bahamut0013♠♣ 12:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article reflects this usage with precision (I have not checked), then it may be a valid exception to the naming convention of "requiring" nouns. I would think this needs to be highlighted in the opening sentence by a content expert rather than by a passing editor such as I am. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen my recent revisions? I believe I have made such a modification about an hour ago. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now. I think it gets to 90%, which is a substantial improvement. 90% is good enough for me :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. If you have any suggestions on that last 10%, let me know. I've removed the tag. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article is VERY misleading.

This article needs a serious fix - first of all; anybody reading it would automatically assume that the Marine Corps is capable of doing all the tasks that SOCOM is able to do. I hope that's a fn joke and the biased devil-dog Private who thinks hes on the same tactical level as a Delta operator needs to fix this nonsense. That "SOC" designation next to a MEUs title does not mean the MEU is capable of special operations - it means it has a Force Recon platoon attached to it that "could" perform certain SOF duties if needed. Trust me... there is not one responsible soul in the US military that would choose Force Recon to rescue hostages over a JSOC unit, or to conduct a high risk direct action raid in Afghanistan over a Ranger platoon, or to conduct a foreign internal defense assignment over SF, or to conduct a VBSS on an enemy ship over a SEAL platoon. It would NEVER happen unless the other units were unavaiable. Even FORECONs traditional assignment of recon is in jeapordy because all other units have their own reconnaissance capabilities that are equally proficient. I understand that Force works for the MEU commander - but lets face it. The MEU commander does not and will never send Force Recon shooters to do a close target recce on an al-Qaeda safe house in Afghanistan or wherever. With the existence of MARSOC; Force Recon's days are numbered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.214.240.185 (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

== The above points are excellent! The Corps is an outstanding combat force, but there is a lot of confusion between an "elite force" and SOF - they are not the same.

The following Statement is also Hugely misleading: "One significant detail is that the Marine Corps solely manages their battlespace shaping methods mainly in the aspect of conventional warfare."

Who would have known that the Corps owns submarines, aircraft carriers, AEGIS cruisers, subamrines, and mine sweepers, not to mention f-15/22s, heavy bombers, etc.

Sorry, Marines do not establish sea and air control in the battlespace nor do they conduct anti-submarine warefare, mine clearance, provide logistics beyond what is embarked, etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Who wrote this drivel?

In the footnotes, there is not a single source - except one - that is any newer than 1992 !! This article is so misleading and full of outright untruths that I was laughing after the second sentence in the lead paragraph. I suppose this is the classic example of anything is true if it is on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.146.19 (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I wrote this drivel (well, initially I did--I created the article with majority of the meat on-hand)! Only if you all aren't anti-Marine Corps and haters of Marines. FYI, There hasn't been any nuance of material regarding the Marine Expeditionary Force except what is written in the Marine Corps's doctrines and manuals covering the role of the Fleet Marine Force--except for Strategy 2021 (which never has been release to the public whatsoever; gives Marines/Navy larger roles in fighting multiple theaters of war worldwide simultaneously) And for a fact, there are sources...read the footnotes. Every single fashion and form of this article came from those sources. It is like saying that our individual rights are bogus because the Constitution was written over 280 years ago...outdated. Remember, the Marine Corps is tasked in expeditionary warfare, a job that the Army and Air Force don't get to participate. Every MEF unit that is assigned to the FMF has to be certified as "Special Operations 'capable'" every year before going on a rotational 1.5 year float-on-a-boat (being the naval 'policemen' of the world). Again, like the article defines, the Marine Corps didn't have a Special Operations Force (until MARSOC was established) assigned to USSOCOM. Even the new MARSOC unit is controversial to the Marine Corps to this day, although it is silently mentioned--to many of us old school Marines, we think that MARSOC is useless and have no place in the USMC. Anyways, it solely became the duty of the Fleet Marine Force to ensure that the Marines are specifically trained in all scopes of field that the USSOCOM defined in their objective. Particular units in the FMF are capable of exacting all the missions as other USSOCOM units, except in-extremis hostage rescue missions (USMC left this task to our brethren SEALs); further note, the Marine Corps don't adhere their specialized roles to other adjacent units, like the Army Special Forces and Navy SEALs. Marines can go to almost any country in the world within 24 hours to give humanitarian aid or deliver a death sentence--determining the situation of hostility or emergency management; which ever the Commander-in-Chief demands. Marines do the exact missions of specialized operational forces only for the sake of the Marine Corps...we take only care of our own. Marines dislike the usage of "special forces" and wish not to be labeled as such. We believe that all special operational forces are only support units for the real warriors, the grunts--infantrymen, those that really have to fight the wars on the battlefields. You don't see FORECON operators, SEALs, or Green Berets going into frontal assaults against the amassed enemy, dodging bullets and evading artillery, jumping into trench after trench hoping to not to eat a bullet or mortar. This is what separates the Marines from the rest of the branches...we are Marines, an organic unit of teamwork and craftsmanship whose objective is to take the hurt to the enemy and win battles. Example: FORECON operators ensure that intelligence gathered are for the safety and surety of accomplishment for our Marine infantry so that they gain victory with minimal losses. God Speed everyone and good riddance! RekonDog (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I would had figure that my ole' buddy Bahumut clarified this issue, advocating it. Please don't let his endeavors fade away as his life did, in a sorrowful way. RekonDog (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Massive revisions or an outright rewrite are in order here

This article is quite honestly atrocious. From the numerous grammatical errors to the misuse of words due to a lack of understanding of their definitions, whoever wrote this obviously barely graduated high school. Beyond the grammar, however, many of the claims in this article are demonstrably false. It is clearly going to be necessary to search for additional sources and overhaul this entire page. ForwardObserver85 (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I happened to have a post-graduate degree in Philosophy, mind you; thanks for your kind words of endearment (e.g. Mr. FO85)..I'll take it as a complement. If anyone feels that it needs a rewrite, please go ahead..the floor is open. However, it just seems to me that all of you whom had contested against this article are, nor was, a U.S. Marine. Like a geologist trying to argue against an astrophysicist about quantum physics being explained about the Universe. This article has been under scrutiny ever since I created it back in 2008. I don't blame anyone--whom never earned the title of a U.S. Marine--for the onslaught of confusion about what exactly is "Special Operations Capable", but it is a nomenclature of the title "Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable)" [MEU(SOC)] and its ideology that follows suit. Anyone who served in the Marine Corps can easily define this entitlement, as well as explaining it in its grandeur. I am not a professional writer (but aiming to be one) and my grammar is just as savvy as much as I am a southerner with a silver tongue. That is why it is up to you editors and patrons of wikipedia to edit and correct my grammar as it seems fit. Insomuch, it seems rather useless to insult and badger ones intellect while it takes a simple endeavor to 'edit' the page since it is open forum. If there are any questions about this article, it would seem wise to jester the one who created it, i.e. me, (or talk to another fellow Marine, former or active) without having condescending manners, and maybe perhaps we can finally reach civil grounds? RekonDog (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Re-write of Article; Help Requested

Hello,

I’ve started re-writing this article. While the foundation that was laid by the original author is much appreciated, much of the opening paragraph didn’t make sense grammatically, and was extremely repetitive.

I’ll begin looking at the rest of the article some time soon.

That being said, I could use assistance with this, and most importantly with citations. The latter would be greatly appreciated. MWFwiki (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, also, can someone explain why we have a picture of a USCG MSST on an article about USMC MEUs? MWFwiki (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Nvm, changed the picture MWFwiki (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@MWFwiki: I re-wrote the intro. The article should be titled Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) or MEU(SOC) or similar not Special operations capable. The history of the formation of MEU(SOC) in the 1980s should be moved from the introduction of the United States Marine Corps Special Operations Capable Forces article. I would then delete the United States Marine Corps Special Operations Capable Forces article. The title "Special Operations Capable Forces" is misleading as the term Special Operations Capable only relates to MEUs. This article Special operations capable could be turned in a disambiguation page instead of a redirect as the UK military recently started using the term SOC in relation to the Army and the Royal Marines and the Netherlands Marine Corps also use the term SOC.

I have added new references in further reading. The Marine Corps Orders sources in the article are outdated. The current Marine Corps Orders do not contain the term SOC. The MEU policy orders - MCO 3120.9C dated August 2009 mentioned SOC and was replaced by MCO 3120.13 in October 2015 and no longer mentions SOC. The MEU pre deployment training - MCO 3502.3B dated April 2012 mentioned SOC and was replaced by MCO 3502.3C in September 2019 and no longer mentions SOC.--Melbguy05 (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Melbguy05: Thanks! Yeah, definitely was needed and agree with the idea that we change the title of the article.

SOC proper *is* a concept that we could possibly look at defining — i.e. conventional units that can perform certain SO tasks — but that is another topic. The current article is absolutely about MEU(SOC)s, not the SOC concept in general.

MWFwiki (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move the page to Marine expeditionary unit (special operations capable) at this time, per the discussion below, with a redirect from the capitalized version to this article. Dekimasuよ! 13:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Special operations capable → Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) – The topic of the article is the Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) program a Marine Expeditionary Unit that has been designated as Special Operations Capable. The correct name of the Unites States Marine Corps program was Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable). WP:TITLE requires article titles to be precise. The other title option is the acronym MEU(SOC) that is concise however it not does have the characteristics of recognizability, naturalness and also consistency with Marine Expeditionary Unit. WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME advises that the name should generally be the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit belongs. Melbguy05 (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• Support this move. The current title is too generic, it could apply to any unit of any nation that is considered "spec ops capable", meanwhile, it does not help with USMC-specific searches. Surprised it lasted this long. - wolf 03:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
• Correction Title should be Marine expeditionary unit (special operations capable). It is a name of a type of military unit so it isn't capitalized MOS:MILTERMS - see discussion in Talk:Logistics combat element#Requested move 25 March 2017 for a multiple related move request of United States Marine Corps unit types.--Melbguy05 (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.