Talk:List of military special forces units/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

First of all, kudos to whoever put together this gigantic list. Anyway, I just thought I'd mention that I went through and fixed a few of the links. Some of the acronym names would send the user to an unrelated topic that coincidentally shared the same acronym. Mainly, I just added (Special Forces) to the link name, except in the case of the Polish 1st, where I added (Polish) to the name.

Here's the full list of the links I changed:
Algeria: GIS
Argentina: Albatros
Colombia: GOES, GCA
El Salvador: BESM
Norway: FSK
Poland: 1st Commando Regiment

Omnipotent Q 06:16, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

USAF Office of Special Investigations

I propose removal from the list unless a citation is offered. This unit does not fall under nor is it closely associated with any USSOCOM element. 86steveD (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

US Marine Special Forces

why isn't Force Recon and Marine recon on here? ? ? If specialized police units are in this article for Russia and others and units not recognized as special forces on other countries Force Recon should be added (yes they still are around) and marine recon should be added any takers? ? ? If not maybe the other units should be removed such as russias police forces and put onto another article like elite forces or something... (Jan 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.71.102 (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ps there are many recon units other people have listed and not been removed so I will add them to USMC...and plz dont think me adding them is an American power trip it is not....if other countries have them listed and they are not officially spec ops units but instead elite units then I see no wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.71.102 (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Special Forces tournament

I really think the tournament should be mentioned on this.~Mikel-Fikel82

Please start news threads at the bottom of the page and sign your comments using four "~" characters which turns into a signature (see notice at top of page). As for this tournament, if it is added somewhere — and I'm not saying it should be — the page for Special forces would be more appropriate, as this page only lists forces. --Deon Steyn 06:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Police and Elite Forces

Special forces describes them as military, but some of the listed ones are police. Should police forces be removed? -- Error 02:51, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Police units should be moved to a seperate article, like "List of law enforcement tactical units" Asdquefty 20:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also a distinct difference between "Special Forces" and the slightly more conventional "Elite Forces". There are a number of units listed here that fall into the latter category. Perhaps a separate list for "Elite Forces" should be considered. Your thoughts? Dragases 12:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dragases. Certain units are elite, but are not special forces. Marines are considered elite but they are not special forces. Asdquefty 20:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If this is agreed as such, then the following units from Malaysia should be removed.

• Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency - as this is a Coast Guard equivalent only.
• 10th Para Brigade - elite troops, not special forces.
• UTK - Police tactical unit

However, I'm not sure whether to reclassify VAT 69 (also a police unit), as they are primarily a paramilitary outfit.

Grammar Change

Sorry I just made a quick grammar change so that the note in the Serbia and Montenegro section was correct, it now reads "Has not existed since 2003" thats all.

Acronyms

Many units are listed only by an acronym. When you add a unit, please indicate what the acronym means. Asdquefty 13:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Russia/Soviet Union

What is that gibberish under the Russia/Soviet Union section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superknijn (talk • contribs)

If you're talking about this, it's only vandalism. I reverted it. --Nkcs 03:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom Special forces

All of the UK special forces should be included here. Its fair enough not include them on the United Kingdom Special Forces page if they are not part of the UKSF. But just because they are not in the group UKSF does not mean that they are not special forces and should not be included here.

For example the Pathfinder platoon is not part of the UKSF group but they are special forces belonging to the united kingdom and should be included on this page. 195.137.109.177 17:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The UK does not have any SF which are not already listed; SAS, SBS, SRR and supported by JSF Air Wing, 18(UKSF) Signals and the SFSG. There are a number of highly trained personnel in other areas of the armed forces, but they're not SF. If you don't get SF pay, then you're not SF! (And parachute pay doesn't count, in fact you don't get both Parachute pay and SF pay)ALR 20:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

References

Without adequate referencing this list falls victim of every wannabe whose national armed forces have a unit doing a line in cool shades and black balaclavas. It would add a lot more to require some evidence that the units identified are considered SF by official sources eg in the UK the units identified are mentioned in Hansard, therefore verifiable. Some form of required citation would remove a lot of the tit-for-tat inclusion and deletion of units. Some countries on the list appear to have someone that considers their entire armed forces, including the head cook and bottlewasher, to be SF and it's completely unbelievable, undermining any credible identifications on the article.

fwiw I don't see law enforcement as SF since they have a very limited tactical role and should probably be removed as well.

ALR 19:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

We have been threatening to clean up the list for a while now so I have gone ahead as per discussion here (and it's AfD proposal). I have made the following changes:

1. Remove units that are clearly Police units
2. Made wikilink list headings (Army, Navy etc.) instead of nested lists.
3. Remove wikilinks to armed forces pages (Navy of XYZ), because they are not of interest here links to them will be in the articles of the special force in question.

--Deon Steyn 06:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What about historial, not active units? Example:

Finland:

* Erillinen Pataljoona 4 (Continuation War) <- Unit disbanded November 30, 1944. Korppi76 12:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is bad

because it has a lot of red links leading to no articles! it is useless to list them if they don't have an article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.86 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Bulgaria's Special Operations

Does this sound like an accurate description of what Bulgaria's special operations are capable of doing and what Bulgaria has the general ability to do? I'm not sure, but I would think that a description of Bulgaria's special operations forces would not be able to easily sound as though it was a descrption of the U.S. Army Rangers or the Russian Spetsnaz. Someone shoud look into this. — Hizrael 11:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

I had a look at the article and it desperately needs a cleanup- especially a throwing out of all kinds of disbanded and non special Force units (i.e. all these Paratroopers). 2nd wouldn't it be better to split the remainder in two lists? Police/Law enforcement Special Forces and Military Special Forces? They have completely different duties, objectives and procedures and shouldn't be thrown together. If no one objects I will clean this article up in a few days time. noclador 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Any objection against outsourcing the special forces sections, so we only have links to the militaries of the specific political entities, where they tell who and what is special. Here should only be a list of definitions and the aforementioned links to the respective militaries as a whole. Wandalstouring 08:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've thrown out all paratrooper and marine units- those are not Special Forces. noclador 00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed some probable vandalism - It's beyond unlikely that Godzilla is the Special Forces Unit for the Vatican. --72.245.36.227 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

France police-type units

French PI2G, RAID, GIPN and ERIS should be removed because they are not special forces in the military sense. PI2G, RAID, GIPN should be moved to List of Special Response Units. ERIS are reaction units against riots in prisons, so I don't know if it can go in the list. There is no GSIGN commanding GIGN, EPIGN and Gendarmerie part of the GSPR anymore. Rob1bureau (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Police Units

These have been moved to List of special police units. SWAT and Specialist Police units do not consitute the Special Forces tag. They are NOT by their very nature (Archangel1 (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)).

References and validity of units

All none referenced units will be deleted. Look at what you are contributing as opposed to what you want them to be. Adding Non-Special Forces units does not help this piece and only lends its self to other contributors following suit. The probelm on here is that people add units on here that are NOT SF units. Before placing units you need to look at the true definition of Special Forces.

References for these units needs to be solid as opposed to some TV tough guy website where any old mess tin repair units has the SF tag (Archangel1 (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)).

You keep deleting units for no reason. The israeli units I posted are SF units - from the Specia Forces article: "In most countries special forces (SF) is a generic term for highly-trained military units that conduct specialized operations such as reconnaissance, unconventional warfare, and counter-terrorism actions." Those units posted are special forces. Check Isayeret.com Yosy (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a very clear issue around how to describe SF, and in this I agree with Archangel. The Israeli forces are good at what they do, but they are very limited in geographic area and their ability to deal with a diverse range of threats on a long term basis outside their home turf. I also have some difficulty ion describing such a high percentage of regular forces.

I'd suggest finding something independent to validate your claims.

ALR (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

But since when is the (supposed) ability of operating outside a given a theatre a reason to describe SF? I added those units based on their mission description. And they do qualify for SF title, due to their nature, missions, etc. I'm not being biased. Anyways, until we clarify this issue, I'll just leave the top 3 israeli SF. Yosy (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The ability to operate on an enduring basis with limited host support is a key capability. the absence of a significant expeditionary capability in the Israeli force structure mitigates against the independent operation of any individual force element. I will concede that restriction applies to many of the units listed on this article, one of the reasons I suggested it was deleted a while ago; any tinpot dictatorship can kit out any one of their units in black masking tape across the eyes and a grat-issue of max factor for boys and send them on a course labelled super duper para commando underwater knife fighter on acid.

In the case of Israel it's worth also looking at how these units conduct their tasks, many of the units you've listed operate as classic infantry; although in a non-permissive heavily civilianised environment.

And finally it's worth applying some common sense to the resourcing aspect. SF are resource intensive, selection, training, supporting and equipping them for a broad spectrum of operations, and maintaining currency, requires a significant investment. They're special because they're distinguished from the common herd, something to aspire to. That generates an operational effect far beyond the scale of the unit.

ALR (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Special Forces units are military formations who's actions on the battlefield will have a strategic effect on the battleplan as apposed to those which a tactical asset which assist in the plans of a lower-level task force commander. The units you have listed (as have many others) are highly trained troops but I know highly trained chefs but they are not Steven Seagal in disguise. They problem with a list of this nature is that there is a number of countries that label their forces SF although they are anything but. It is used as a properganda tool against angainst any potential aggressor as well as a moral boosting gesture for the units at hand.

The units to compare them to are:

• British Special Air Service Yes, the Special Forces Support Group no.
• Delta Force yes, United States Army Rangers No.
• Selous Scouts yes, Rhodesian Light Infantry no.

Do not get drawn into the trap of adding:

• Police units (They have their own section)
• Commando units (They have their own section)
• Airborne units (They have their own section)
• Special Operation units (They have their own section)
• Bodyguard/Close Protection teams
• Coast guard teams
• Intelligence units, ie KGB, etc
• Hostage rescue units.

Historic units are of little value and should only be added if their is a link page and they are titled (Disbanded)

All those units which are not referenced in the next few days will be deleted. Their has been enough notice for this to be rectified but without any results (Archangel1 (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)).

Fine, I'll go with that definition. But keep in mind that special forces sometimes are also commandos, hostage rescue, etc Yosy (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with your assertion that the Commando role confers SF status, Commando operations would not normally take place on an enduring basis at less than Troop level, whereas SF can operate on a persistent basis at section level. Commando could, but wouldn't normally be employed in that way by the commander.

The Commander can use SF in hostage rescue, in the UK that would be governed by the legislation around Military Aid to Civil Authority/ Power, howeve that does not imply that units specialising in these policing roles can be employed for other tasks which SF could support.

ALR (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If Special Operations Forces and Commando units are not special forces, what units could possibly fit your criteria for special forces? There should be consensus on what type of units that do and not fall under the definition of special forces, before anyone goes on a deletion spree. Out (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The remit required to be labelled 'Special Forces' has been clearly laid out. It is true that the criteria can vary from nation rto nation hence the reason for the previous posting which outlined the generic standard required in this piece. Airborne, Commando, Special Operations and Specialist Police units all have their own page to add your contributions (Archangel1 (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)).

Special Operations Forces ARE Special Forces internationally. Only in the US there is a distinction between the two, which is mentioned in the Special Forces article. If you type "Special Operation Forces" in the search bar, Wikipedia (correctly) re-directs you to the Special Forces page. Therefore EVERY special operations unit is a special forces unit and as such qualifies for this list. Still, I agree that commando units are not necessarily SF. Yosy (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But the US also describe Media, Psychological Operations, Cloudcounters and Civil Affairs as SOF.

ALR (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with a piece of this nature is the issue of national pride, jingoism and propaganda. Those of a patriotic nature will always that there nation is a hot-bell of ninjas, warriors and TV tough guys. There are times when you need to take a view from a neutral stand point and asses the merits of your contributions before tapping the keys.

Special Operations is a term which has been used to describe military formations that perform a task outside that of a standard unit. The case in point is nations that decribe themselves as having brigade up brigade of would-be James Bonds but the truth of the matter is that this just isn't the case. As has been already hightlighted, this a tool used by goverments to boost moral and formulate an esprit de corps. The safest way to approach a tag lie 'Special Operations' is to badge those that are in the limbo between Special Forces and GS troops.

The Spec Ops article on Wiki has been put together by somebody from the US or one of their friendly nations that have followed their lead and therefore highlights a future edit. Remember, these comments are being made to down play the quality of your home nations. They are made to improve the quality of the piece (Archangel1 (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)).

I agree with Yosy, Special Operations Forces and Special Forces are the same. The terms are synonymous. Archangel1 has given very general and vague definitions for both special operations forces and special forces. If there is a difference it still has not been clearly explained and defined. Like I said before there needs to be consensus before content is removed. Out (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Let me make this very clear for you to understand as I thought it was crystal before but c'est la vie. Right imagine this. I'm not sure where you are from but I'm sure you know who Delta Force, Rangers, 82nd Airborne Division and some GS Infantry unit are. As you can see, there is a sliding level of skill sets with which each branch has. Top of the tree you have Delta. They the true definition of Special Forces. They are a small, highly trained unit that are the key stratigic land asset in the US miltary.

Rangers are Spec Ops. They are at the top of the Infantry tree and are skilled enough to act as the muscle for the SF. Where as Delta are the scalpel, Rangers are the sledgehammer. They have skills, training and support above and beyond that of the normal land forces which is due to their close links to SF.

82nd Airborne Division are elite Airborne infantry troops who have a specific skill set above and beyond that of GS troops due to their parachute role.

GS troops are at the bottom of the scale and have no stand-out skills to set them apart from the norm. Above you can see the sliding scale of, Special Forces, Spec Ops, Airborne and General Service. The Special Forces page on Wiki is in need of changed and reflects the view point of the United States military with regards to their usage of the 'Spec Ops' term (Archangel1 (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)).

I don't mean to get personal but to be totally honest it seems as if you've created your definition for SF and SOF. Your definition merely implies that only Tier one SOF units are SF. SOF are SOF because of they're ability to conduct surgical/"scalpel" operations. The terms SOF and SF are synonymous, they are the same thing. On top of that you've removed some units that actually fit your incongruous criteria for SF. I think it would be appropriate to stop removing so much content before having consensus from other contributers. Out (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree that SF and SOF are synonymous, particularly given the US broad usage of SOF for lots of tasks which are general military functions elsewhere in the world.

ALR (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Out - Archangel1's definition of what SF are is too much focused on a theoretical strategic level. If Delta Force ceased to exist the US government would ask the Rangers to fill that spot - they probably wouldn't be as good as Delta Force because they didn't had all that training, but they would do the job. Therefor Archangel1 should stop deleting units from the list since, as of yet, no-one supports his definition. Yosy (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Largely that's because SF is a strategic asset.

Extending the Delta/ 75th Ranger example, the two organisations are configured and equipped differently, their operational doctrine is different with the 75th tending towards larger scale activities more akin to the Commando role. 75th Ranger wouldn't do the same job that Delta can do, since they'd be significantly more overt, require a greater logistic footprint for ingress and egress.

In the UK context I'd compare 75th Ranger with the Commando Bde or 16AAB.

Given the inability to reach a resolution it might be worth asking for some independent eyes on this, either through a request at MilHist or going through RFC. The opinions at MilHist are likely to be a little more informed.

ALR (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, although I think this yet again highlights some of the problems with the international interpretations of certain subjects. One mans Military Police man is another mans Jason Bourne. This, at the end of the day, leads me to believe that articles of this nature should be deleted so as not to cloud the mind of those using Wiki as a reference tool. The reason the units where deleted are that they were had no references, were not SF (possibly SOF) and/or had no article page. If you are going to go through the trouble of adding to a list then you should also be prepared to create an article page.

I wont be adding onto this talk page anymore as I feel it is a waste of my time. Out and Yosy have their own views on the subject but possibly lack the requisite military knowledge to contribute fully on an article of this nature. That is not a personel attack , mearly the recognition that some people that are on here sometimes take their sources from Hollywood action films or Boys Own comics. The fact that people do not understand the definition of 'Special Forces' means that an article of this nature fails at the starting blocks (Archangel1 (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)).

First of all, I certainly don't take my sources from Hollywood since I'm ex-military and currently reserve (by no means does that mean that I'm an expert on this subject though); I'm also a member of MilHist by the way. Second, the definition of SF is crystal clear in the SF article and follows the definition most countries have regarding their SF. Third, I think that units without an article should non-the-less be part of this list (just because they don't have an article, doesn't mean they don't exist). Fourth, we need to contact someone higher up to clear this matter, but until then stop deleting units, until we clarify this matter Yosy (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The Yard Stick for any unit to be added to this list is, how do they compare to the Special Air Service and or the Special Boat Service but being British I may be biased Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, since the SAS and SBS are in a lot of ways the basis for SF worldwide. But keep in mind that several countries don't have SF with so many capabilities as those two, and prefer to spread different capabilities among different units. But those units, non-the-less are SF. Yosy (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that users should add units that are:

a) with or without an article b) are described by their countries as being special forces, but keep in mind that they should have some capabilities that are common with other, more known, special forces. Yosy (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with that recommendation since it completely removes any form of QA and makes a mockery of those units whose capability does constitute that of SF.

ALR (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was told differently in strong terms by some SOAR wing commanders and their ex-boss - Special Forces build situations. Special Ops are the best of their kind at breaking things. After a few more beers it was explained thus: A Green Beret that lives with the natives and helps them to build a strong village that is allied tightly with the Green Berets, reporting all and working with them in a mutually beneficial relationship is the model of a Special Forces operation. In return the Green Beret brings medicine, sanitation, jobs, etc.. Creation of positive facts on the ground. (IN, lots of time, symbiosis, care, successful ally) SpecOps like a Delta Team are the exact opposite. They specialize at breaking stuff, extreme violence and death then exit. (IN, Extreme Action, EXIT). This would make SAS etc.. SpecOps not Special Forces. 3dc (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)3dc

I'd suggest that's a very specific example based on the USian distinction, in particular the comparison with SAS is deceptive. It's worth looking at the history of the SAS, and even recently when considering the entry into Afghan and the approach taken then, embedding SAS with the incumbent warlords. Some of that is related to the significant doctrinal differences between UK and US approaches, although it's notable that the US is moving towards a the UKs experience with respect to Iraq and Afghan at present.

Hard knock is just one part of what they do.

ALR (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is not a worldwide consensus of what SF actually are - the UK, US, Russia for instance, all have different doctrines of SF units and roles. Therefore we should had units that are OFFICIALLY described as being SF by their countries. After all, in the SF article section that links to this list it is written (not by me): "Many countries have military organizations which describe themselves as being special forces." Yosy (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Who would concede that SF are SOF and that not all SOF are SF? If there is consensus on this point, we could define SF as units who conduct specific types of special operations. As of yet no one has provided a clear definition of SF, there has only been a comparison between SOF operational skill sets. Out (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is ridiculous. The bickering of what constitutes SF is futile. As Archangel pointed out there is a spectrum of capability and training in the field with, for example, Delta at one end and an infantry line company at the other. That being said, the current operating environment has blurred that line to some degree (i.e. everybody kicks in doors now) and caused the Spec Ops community to adapt and evolve their mission set. Second, there is mission overlap between sf units. Third, there are units who are not included that are distinct and are clearly “SF”, i.e., DEVGRU. Fourth, to say a combat air controller is not “SF” is ludicrous when he is deployed with a Delta or Seal Team. You would be hard pressed to find someone in the community who would deny a ranger, pj, or force recon marine the moniker of “operator” because of some narrow and arbitrary definition. This page would be better served as a comprehensive list of (military, paramilitary and police) elite/sf/sof units as a whole with a descriptor of why the unit is designated as such. Unless you are a PhD and a published authority on the subject, you would be well advised to back down from such a myopic view. It is a lot easier to defend the position that a unit is elite than the extremely narrow distinction that it is “SF”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.177.246 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WORLD WAR II UNITS

Would the Long Range Desert Group , the Royal Marines Boom Patrol Detachment (see Operation Frankton) and the Special Operations Executive not qualify ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Archangel1 made the decision to remove historical units and try to focus on extant capabilities. I can see arguments for both approaches, and am sanguine about how any discussion might drive an outcome. I could more usefully see the three of them being discussed in the SF article, as part of the derivation for modern capabilities.

ALR (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose we create an article called "List of defunct special forces units" to deal with those units. Yosy (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Created the list above: List of defunct special forces units. Everyone is free to contribute. Even if the unit has no article in Wikipedia add them any way. Yosy (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

STOP DELETING ISRAELI UNITS

Those units that I posted are SF in every sense of the word. So stop deleting them. Yosy (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

References

As already stated there are no references for these units. There has been ample time to add these and now the un-referenced have been deleted. It may prompt people to do more then add names to the list (Archangel1 (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)).

I have begun to add references to the units - mainly by using their respective Armies homepages. --noclador (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any appetite for sourcing quality around this topic. Essentially if someone claims that the equivalent of the 15th Foot and Mouth is an SF unit there will be a drive to have it included. Given the inability for rigour around the article personally I'd support deletion, but given the subject area I wouldn't expect that to be successful.

ALR (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And for what its worth, neither Shadowspear nor specialoperations.com meet the requirements of WP:RS and geocities is specifically identified as being unacceptable; self published.

ALR (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And rather ironically, eliteukforces.info appears to be self published and therefore doesn't meet the requirements of verifiability. Now there are other acceptable sources for the SAS and SBS, but I rather doubt there is anything contemporary about the SRR.

ALR (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can all editor refer to WP:NONENG. All those that do not abide by it face having there additions deleted (Archangel1 (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).

No they don't - that guideline states that non-English references are OK when reliable English references aren't available. If you can find a better English-language reference use it to replace the non-English reference, and cease deleting cited material. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(Archangel1

Stop it! You throw out units that are clearly Special Forces and are referenced perfectly! i.e. the 1er Régiment de Parachutistes d'Infanterie de Marine is referenced! the reference link [1] goes to the French Army page of the unit an there it says: "Bienvenue sur le site officiel du 1er Régiment de Parachutistes d'Infanterie de Marine, régiment Forces Spéciales." that is valid and good reference! stop your deletion spree. --noclador (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

References should be duplicated onto each Wiki page. Add it next to the unit at hand and there is no problem. References should be clearly marked, not hidden away (Archangel1 (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).

Ok - and why don't you help and do that? deleting work done by other editors - especially referenced edits - is extremly counterproductive. If you want to help than help a) organize the reference and b) find some yourself. I have added the references always as close as possible to the units - ist that wrong? also some units like the Australian SAS are some of the most famous and SF units in the world! they don't need any reference! all other SF units are modeld after their example. --noclador (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Archangel, I would suggest that you look for sources before removing content, and only remove cited content if you've got a very good reason for doing so. While this article was long-overdue for a clean up, your most recent edits are not helpful. For instance, it would have been very easy to find a reference which states that the Australian SAS is a SF unit, and I provided you with a reference for Australian commandos being SF a few hours ago on your talk page - why didn't you add this rather than delete the 1st Commando Regiment and 4RAR? Nick Dowling (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The reasons items are deleted is that THERE ARE NO REFERENCES!!!! Find your unit, find a reference, add it on the page. Do not add swathe upon swathe of units and then add to it one by one. Simple. (Archangel1 (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).

All units need REFERENCES! The two most well known SF units in the world the British Special Air Service and the US Delta Force have them so I'm sure these lesser known ones can follow suit (Archangel1 (talk) 12:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).

Your message on my talkpage is rude and counterproductive. I added over 90 references to all units on the list yesterday and that wasn't enough - you still continue to delete units on a whim. You are not helping to improve the article; if you want to improve the article find some references and if you do not like the current reference format than improve the format! --noclador (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not added anything which is rude to your talkpage! I'm mearly being direct. I do not see why people get their knickers in a twist over having issues pointed out to them which are laid down in Wiki guidelines. If you are going to add a source, check that it work and states the fact you need. If you add a ref which points out that a unit is a Spec Op unit I will put it on the Spec Op page. If the link is dead, it is deleted. Simple. I appreciate that time is spenting adding these items but they must be valid (Archangel1 (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).

The links I add do all work, I were on them yesterday and if you then proceed to delete units like the 1er Régiment Parachutiste d'Infanterie de Marine which has a working reference link to the French Army homepage I feel lightly slighted. But to see what you wrote on my talkpage: "Stop adding items with no references. It is breech of Wiki policy. If you continue, you'll be reported to a moderator and blocked. Final Warning" makes me really angry! Nobody has (added as many references) to the article as I did! Also threating to report me for supposedly breaking a policy which in fact I was overfull-filing and to give me a final warning smacks of conceit and is preposterous. --noclador (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Archangel1 you are going WAY to far. I'm taking this up with an admin to prevent from doing any more editions. You don't improve this article - you simpply delete the work of others (myself included). Therefor you shouldn't be allowed to edit anymore. Yosy (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. This list have been totally ruined. From looking at the past and looking at it now. The article has been reduced. Seriously iam thinking of reverting all the changes. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have my full support mate. Before the list was much more complete, yes. The only good thing was that we seperated the military units from the police units. And instead of deleting un-referenced units why not look for some references? Yosy (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I already sent a message to Roger Davies, head of the MilHistWP (of which I'm a member of) to prevent Archangel1 of doing more edits. Yosy (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

fwiw I rather agree with the principle, this list had absolutely no QA applied and was bloated with mediocre infantry units with fancy titles and a grat issue of black masking tape over the eyes. Whilst there is a lot of national pride associated with handing out the label, littering the list with fanboy cruft does a disservice to those who have achieved the recognition.

Whilst I don't believe that Archangel1 has taken the best approach to rationalising the list he has been generally going in the right direction.

Notwithstanding all of that, in the absence of any clear criteria for inclusion I would support the move to delete this list. It bears no encyclopedic value.

ALR (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article

This article has now been put up deletion. This has happened due to large number of inherent problems with an article of this nature. Lack of references, international variations in the term "Special Forces", etc, are contributing factors which lead me to believe that this artcle has no future (Archangel1 (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)).

What the heck are you talking about?. The article have been reduced to pile of crap thanks to you. Where are the information regarding Indian special forces and various other countries?. There were 99 countries and now there is just 25 countries. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Please stop it otherwise this page will be protected and/or serially-reverting editors will be blocked. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

if people are constructive

If people are constructive and work together great and good articles are the result - even regarding Special Force units articles with lists! just have a look at the German article about Special Forces de:Spezialeinheitwhich became a Good article on July 26th 2008. Wholesale deletions, refusal to let the article be expanded and a hostility to anyone who dares to try to improve the article are disruptive and destructive. I added around 90 references yesterday which were all the deleted. Units are being thrown out, because they do not have their own article, but as they are properly sourced should normally be allowed to stay. Famous and well known Special Force units like the Australian SAS are removed from the article even if Nick Dowling has referenced them. That the list is now a mess is attributable to a single editor who wishes to delete said list and article against the wishes and the work of a large group of editors. I spent my evening yesterday trying to improve the article, but today my edits were reverted and I was threatened rudely on my talkpage with a block for "adding items with no references"[2] when in fact I spent hours trying to find and add references, which then were deleted or reverted by user:Archangel1 on a whim i.e. claiming a link does not work, when in fact it does. In short - this article needs improving and I'm willing to participate in this endeavor, but only if user:Archangel1 contributes in constructive ways. If he is unwilling to do so I suggest he moves on and if he insists on aforementioned disruptive style I suggest to block him from editing the articles in questions and let others do the necessary work without hindrance. --noclador (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I second this motion. I spent loads of time putting together the israeli SF on this list, only to constantly see it deleted - not to mention what happened to other countries SF. Yosy (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you looked at the top of the page, you would see the other pages on Wiki for all the non-SF units which were added. If people responded to discussion on the talkpage and rectified the problems at hand, then they would not be deleted. If people used references that were valid, then they would not be deleted. The fact that an addition maybe familiar to the editor does not mean it is familiar to the viewer.

Do not forget that Wiki is an online encyclopedia/reference tool and so you must expect the viewer to lack any knowledge on the subject matter. Dead links are of no use and there was a number added, something which is normaaly missed as people do not check. These are required by Wiki policy so all those that moan about them should consider weather they are upto the job of being here.

It is all well and good to place 90 additions on to Wiki, but if they do not fit the criteria or lack references then they should not be on the page (Archangel1 (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).

I added only known SF units - I actually removed many units (third world mostly) that are SF only by name or are really some SOF units. I did not add 90 units, but I added 90 references, which were/are all working! I accessed them less then 12 hours before you declared them to be not working. And as usual you a rude and impolite: "consider weather they are upto the job of being here" Well, we are up to the job and willing to contribute - maybe you should consider to do the same. --noclador (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Using the {{dead link}} tag or {{cn}} tag would be more constructive than deleting the material, especially if the ref has been recently added. You could also do a Google search of consult a reference book and find a reference yourself rather than just delete material. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that helps, since I tried to have this deleted 18 months ago there has been quite a lot of use of tags to request citations, with little effort to contribute anything meaningful until very recently. Few of the references since provided meet the needs of verifiability.

ALR (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the basic issue is that there are no clearly defined criteria for legitimate description of SF, further confused by the USian usage of the term to describe only US Army SF, relegating all else to the peculiar category of Special Operations (which includes media handlers and civil/ military relations)

In the absence of a clear definition this article merely becomes a magnet for all kinds of garbage, based on self descriptions (which in a purist sense do not meet the needs of WP:V, being self-published). Most of the other pages which discuss the topic cannot be described as reliable either by the criteria in WP:V or by the normal methods used by research analysts in the real world (that is a criticism of WP:V).

For anyone using WP as a reference source, caveat emptor. Pages are free to be edited by anyone; informed, knowledgeable or not, and as such the reliability of any page at any point in time cannot be assured. That said I would contend that in general list articles have little encyclopedic value, and in this instance, given the lack of a firm foundation for inclusion this article does not contribute effectively to the information bank.

ALR (talk) 10:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Australias Incident Response Regiment

The Incident Response Regiment (IRR) is not a Special Forces unit. Special Forces "conduct specialized operations such as reconnaissance, unconventional warfare, and counter-terrorism actions." The IRR is a NBC Defense Regiment - like Italy's 7º Reggimento Difesa NBC “Cremona”, Germany ABC-Abwehr Rgt. 750 or the US Armys Chemical Brigades - none of these units is a SF unit. After September 11th Canada, the US and Australia added NBC Defense capabilities to their Special Force commands to be prepared for a possible WMD attack, but the units in question (Canada: NBC Defence Company, US 56th & 801st Chemical Reconnaissance Detachment), but the men in this units do not pass the Special Forces training and do not participate in combat operations.
Australian Army News says about IRR: "CO IRR Lt-Col Craig Petrie said the IRR was ready to respond to incidents involving chemical, biological, radiological and explosive threats and other hazardous situations. “The IRR comprises of soldiers and scientists,” he said. “With about 300 personnel when fully manned, the IRR will be able to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or explosive incidents both domestically and in support of Australian forces deployed overseas in a high threat environment."
The Australian Department of Defense says about IRR: "Role: To deploy at short notice to assist in the detection of weapons of mass destruction associated with materials that may have been discovered by the SAS... The IRR includes intelligence, signals, medical, nursing, ordnance, transport, electrical and mechanical engineers, scientists and catering officers. The regiment is defensive and protective by design and has no offensive capability."
As said above the IRR is thus not even a Special Operations Unit and does therefore not belong on the List of Special Forces units. Special Forces are units which

• have above average selection processes
• have above average training regimes
• have above average mission capabilities
• have above average mission risks
  

The IRR fails on all four counts and must therefore be removed from the List. --noclador (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We're back to the how do you define SF debate again and from the pretty lax approach that appears to have been accepted then it could conceivably be included because it's under SF command. That said, I would agree that an NBC Defence outfit doesn't meet what I would define as SF.

ALR (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A lax approach is deadly to such a list as this. Vigorous and stringent rules need to be defined, if not this list will be swamped soon with all kinds of run of the mill units that style themselves SF. Maybe we should define the rules first and vet any new additions accordingly? --noclador (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the reference I've provided (which is to a report published by a well respected and government-funded think-tank) states that the IRR is part of the Australian Army's special forces units. Elements of the IRR have formed part of the Australian special forces task groups deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq where they served alongside members of the SAS and 4RAR. The big problem with this article in the last couple of weeks is that editors have been applying their personal definitions of what 'special forces' are and aren't rather than limit themselves to what the references say. IMO, developing rules for including entries here which over-rule reliable sources is too close to original research. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research, just logic :-) Lets assume Australian Special Forces discover Osama- who will be sent in to apprehend him: SAS or IRR?? NBC Defense units are few in every Army, but somehow they need to be attached to a higher command too - in Australia it has been attached to the Special Operations Command, in Italy to the Artillery Brigade, in Germany to the Army Support Brigade, in France to the Engineer Brigade, in Spain to the Land Forces HQ,... as you can see the association is random. Also as the sole purpose of SF units is combat operations a unit with "no offensive capability" (as stated by the Australian Arm itself), no SF training and with civilians in its ranks does not belong to this list. EOD. --noclador (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't say that I agree with you completely, but I concede that the IRR is more an engineering/counter NBC outfit than a combat outfit and was a bit out of place on this list at present. The IRR sits with SOC as it forms a key part of Australia's counter-terrorism capability ([3] and [4]) so its place in the Army's order of battle is anything but random - the IRR is meant to be able to rapidly deploy alongside the counter-terrorism tactical assault groups and SF combat units. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in all what you say and as you pointed out the IRR is no Combat outfit; I think the minimum requirement to be on this list must be that a unit is an active combat outfit and trained, equipped and ready to kill enemies it encounters. --noclador (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What reference supports that classification of 'special forces'? (I tend to agree with it, but I'm no expert on the topic). Lots of SF units try to avoid combat during thier missions (for instance, the British Special Reconnaissance Regiment and the Australian SASR when operating it its primary reconaissance role). Nick Dowling (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Special Reconnaissance Regiment will indeed avoid combat in its reconnaissance role - but if a SRS team is discovered by enemy forces the team will quickly and silently dispose of anyone aware of their presence - be they military or civilian. AS for a referenced definition of Special Forces: NATO has a classified list of requirements as to which qualifications/training/equipment/preparation a unit must have to qualify as a NATO-SF unit; alas as it is classified we will not get our hands on it. --noclador (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Then what's a good published source? Nick Dowling (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Although several NATO documents use the term Special Forces, the NATO-Russia Glossary of Contemporary Political and Military Terms doesn't contain any definition for Special Forces. It does have a definition for Special Operations Forces and Special Operations Force. http://www.nato.int/docu/glossary/eng/15-main.pdf

special-operations forces - Strategic formations and units of the armed forces, whose role is to conduct sabotage, reconnaissance, subversive and other special operations on the territory of foreign countries. In wartime they may also be assigned tasks such as intelligence-gathering, the seizure or destruction of key installations, the conduct of psychological operations or the organization of insurgencies in the enemy’s rear area. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have separate special-operations forces brigades, battalions and companies which are integrated with the intelligence assets of military districts, fronts, fleets, armies or corps.

special-operations force - Designated special groups of selected servicemen which provide NATO with unique capabilities of special reconnaissance, direct action and military assistance in order to undertake difficult, dangerous and sometimes politically sensitive missions for the theatre commander. Out (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Image copyright problem with Image:GOCAC.jpg

The image Image:GOCAC.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:TurkishNavySeal.png
• File:Turkish National Police logo.png
• File:Turkish Gendarmerie.jpg
• File:SOG flag.jpg
• File:SBS badge.gif
• File:PASKAU Logo.JPG
• File:PASKAL Logo.jpg
• File:Kkbrove yeni.png
• File:Grup Gerak Khas Insignia.JPG
• File:Central Readiness Force insignia.png
• File:Badge aad.png
• File:1st Airborne Brigade Patch.JPG
• File:1CdoRegt badge.svg
• Image:Shoulder Emblem KCT.jpg
• Image:SBS badge.gif
• Image:Mando de Operaciones Especiales.jpg
• Image:Logo-Indonesian Navy.jpg
• Image:Kopassus logo.Gif
• Image:IrishArmyRangersShoulderFlash.png
• Image:Hæren.png
• Image:Hjemmeværnet.png
• Image:GOE XIX Maderal Oleaga.JPG
• Image:GOE IV Tercio del Ampurdan.jpg
• Image:GOE III Valencia.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If these images are to removed for some stupid reason, please remove all of them otherwise it makes an already poor piece look even worse (Archangel1 (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)).

Japan does not have special forces

Under Article 9, Japan can not obtain or train special military units without US approvals, also Japan's self defense forces are not special unit!--Korsentry 06:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Delete this article

Does anybody else think that this page is the most bogus article on Wiki or is it just me? There are too many TV tough guys adding their own units on here to give themselves a moral boost. An utter waste of time! (Archangel1 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)).

Articles like this need strict referencing, but that's no reason to delete it. If you disagree, there's nothing stopping you from nominating the article for deletion, though such a nomination is pretty unlikely to be successful. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Swiss Army Grenadiers

The Swiss Army Grenadiers are considered special forces. How come they are not listed as such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom991 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is shit

Are you kidding me, It looks like there is nothing special about specila forces. Evey unit in the world seems to be included in this page.

I mean the 11th Recon Intelligence squadron are you kidding me? don't they fly the Predator drones?

Special Forces should be the top dogs of their respective Military force.

• Delta
• Green berets
• SEAL

these are logical, CIA units could be considered civilian SF.

• Rangers
• PJs
• etc

could be considered SF support units. --140.212.162.80 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC) ceezmad I am not logged on sorry!

I completely agree with this assessment. There is a difference between what might be called "elite regular forces" (like US Army Rangers) and true "special operations forces" (like Green Berets or Spetznaz). The list is totally lopsided because for some countries, every possible unit under the sun is named, whereas for others, only the most elite are named.

It just seems that in "list articles" like this, lots of armchair generals come out to provide their particular spin on reality. To all editors: if you are familiar with a particular country's armed services, please look over that country's entries here to see if they make sense. We're looking for true special forces.67.68.47.109 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Article about military units

Since this article is supposed to be a list of military units only, I suggest we go ahead and delete all the police units since there is a seperate article for those. --Der rikkk (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Still happening. Murry1975 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Rob (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Military very specialised units like SPAG

The reason I broke them out was because of units like the Submarine Parachure Assistance Group, or the 11th Reconnaissance Squadron mention in the talk, that are not combat units. The section at the bottom is the beginning of a proto separate article page. Thus I've reverted your edits. Please let's start a discussion about this, centered on the talkpage, especially if you disagree with my actions. Hopefully at least its clear why these units are separated out. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure those units meet the criteria of special operations forces. SPAG are just a parachute and diving capable assistant force. By this, there no more elite then 2 Parachute Regiment or Northern Diving Group, for example. If there are non-combat units that meet the special operations force criteria, then I would prefer not to have them separate from the main list; although I'm not really bothered either way. – Rob (talk | contribs) 00:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is why it would be good to have a discussion about them. My rule so far has been only to remove units that are clearly not in scope - like 2 PARA - or that cannot be referenced. Thus I'm keeping a bunch of very highly trained specialised units that work with real special forces (the JSOC units and things like SPAG). But it's good to discuss this, which is why I'm copying this entire discussion to the talk page . Buckshot06 (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have time to look into these units right now. I wasn't aware SPAG work with special forces, however I don't think submarine assistance, no matter how elite, is within the scope of special operations. – Rob (talk | contribs) 01:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

All the arguments on this page go back to the lack of a precise definition of 'special forces unit.' Until we find or create one, we're stuck with this constant potential disagreement... Buckshot06 (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

British units

@GhostlyLegend: @Rob984: I think that it would now be a good time to discuss which UK units should be included here. I'd suggest including only units which official or professional-quality independent references (not the tabloid media) call "special forces". Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I would concur, that limits it to those units within DSF Operational Command.

GhostlyLegend (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Why? This is a list of forces which conduct special operations, not a list of forces that come under a special operations directorate. Rob984 (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Nick-D, there are no official sources for Pathfinders or Brigade Patrol Troop due to their nature. There are other sources however:

Pathfinder – A Special Forces Mission Behind Enemy Lines by David Blakeley

The Royal Marines: From Sea Soldiers to a Special Force by Julian Thompson

The Pathfinders don't even officially exist, so obviously they're not part of a MOD directorate.

Rob984 (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

According to 16 Air Assault's website, Pathfinders "specialize in air insertion, most notably through the parachute techniques" from fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. "All personnel are also fully conversant, and regularly practiced in Special Forces procedures." [5] Rob984 (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

So I think I'd start by referring to the MoD Joint Doctrine Publication 03-5, Special Forces Operations, which places the conduct of SF operations within the wider UK multi-agency approach. This makes clear that SF Operations are directed by Dir SF either through the allocation of SF units to the Operational Command of the Joint Force Commander by DSF or as a discrete operation under the OPCOM of DSF in his operational role. The JDP makes clear that the provider services retain Full Command of their respective units that are allocated to OPCOM DSF.

The reason I draw out the distinction is the issue of Full Command, OPCOM and OPCON is key -

All Brigades have a recce force, and all of them put the members of their recce force through some form of fairly rigorous cadre. The distinction for 16AAB is that members will have been through P Company, and 3Cdo is that all members will already have been through Cdo course, and many of the RM members will be Recce Operators. The Brigade Recce Forces are OPCON the Bde Commander and are employed in support of his objectives.

I'd perhaps turn the question around, would we consider the Brigade Recce Force for say 1 Mech or 7 Armoured, to be potentially listed here as SF units?

GhostlyLegend (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, JDP 3-05 is quite explicit around what units are considered SF in the UK -

Generalist SF Units - 22 SAS and SBS

Specialist SF - SRR

Support to SF - SFSG

SF Enablers - 18 Sigs, SF Air Component

Reserve component - SBS(R) and 63(v) Sigs Sqn

It also identifies that some units may have received [i]relevant training[/i] to allow conventional units to work with elements of the UK SF Group

GhostlyLegend (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that publication available online? Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It's available through academic institutions with higher degree courses in security and intelligence studies; KCL, Cranfield etc/ Of course there are limitations inasmuch as it's a primary source that needs to be used in conjunction with other UK doctrine publications to be properly contextualised and understood.

GhostlyLegend (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, so what? Special forces aren't what a state designates as 'special forces'. They are forces which conduct special operations. Unless you can find a source which claims special forces are forces designated by their respective governments as 'special forces', then I fail to see how your point is relevant.

We could consider the Brigade Recce Force for say 1 Mech or 7 Armoured special forces if a reliable source describes them as special forces.

Rob984 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that defines what SOF activities might be described as, or characterised by? Perhaps a doctrine publication, or possibly a Masters of Doctoral work? Reviewing the talk page, of this and the SF page, it's pretty clear that no such definition has ever been made available, hence the protracted debate around what units to include, and in this instance exclude.

GhostlyLegend (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I can't. And again, so what? Rob984 (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately there is an online source that talks extensively about the characteristics of Special Operations, the US equivalent of the doctrine that I've mentioned upthread. It's very similar, as one would expect of forces that work very closely together, although the US do include in Special Operations three main areas that the UK wouldn't; CIMIC, Information Operations and CSAR. Notwithstanding that it's a fairly useful document.

http://www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/jp-doctrine/jp3_05(03).pdf

So in the context of this discussion (in the loosest possible sense) both documents help us understand how conventional and special forces assets relate to cone another. In the absence of any reliable sources that support the assertion that Brigade Recce are SF, and indeed the existence of a reliable, if limited distribution, source that explicitly identifies the UK SF Group and doesn't include them, we have to rely on that understanding.

It may be that I've completely misunderstood the intent of WP:Verify, but it looks like the burden should be on you to demonstrate that these Brigade Recce Forces are actually SF. From my reading of the policy, given the existence of a source that explicitly identifies the UK SF Group it would take a very strong source to contradict that MoD doctrine. If I'm misreading that then I'd be grateful if you could illustrate how the policy should be interpreted. So we have a source that says the following units are elements of the UK Special Forces Group -

22 SAS, SBS, SRR

18 Sigs, SFSG, JSFAW

63(v)Sig Sqn, SBS(R)

Personally I'm ambivalent about listing the reserve sub-units in this article as they tend to operate on the basis of individual augumentation anyway.

So at the moment we're short of reliable sources to support the assertion that Brigade Recce Forces are SF, and from reading the doctrine it would appear that they don't really conform with the concepts of employment. Ao how might we comply with the policy on verifiability?

GhostlyLegend (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth the UK official definition of "special forces" is quite clear:

“special forces” means those units of the armed forces of the Crown the maintenance of whose capabilities is the responsibility of the Director of Special Forces or which are for the time being subject to the operational command of that Director.</quote>

See http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/information-access-rights/foi/foi-exemption-s26.pdf and elsewhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.25.180 (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful. And again, so what? Rob984 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

GhostlyLegend, editors are not suppose to 'demonstrate' anything. We use reliable sources to verify content. There are reliable sources that claim Brigade Patrol Troop and Pathfinder Platoon are special forces. That you have sources which do not claim these are special forces, does not imply they are not special forces. That would be your conclusion. Non of the sources you have provided claim that Brigade Patrol Troop and Pathfinder Platoon are not special forces. Only your conclusions claim this.
86.4.25.180, please stop re-adding original research to the article. It is fine to contend sourced information, but it is not okay to contend the exclusion of original research. This is an exception to the 3RR.
Rob984 (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

So I'll ask the question again. Where are your sources, and please make them actually real sources not news articles. There is a reliable source that identifies which units belong to the UKSF Group, and they're not listed there. I clearly haven't understood the burden of evidence and source quality points in the Verifiability page that I linked to above, so please feel free to explain how it works in this example?

GhostlyLegend (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Pathfinder – A Special Forces Mission Behind Enemy Lines by David Blakeley

The Royal Marines: From Sea Soldiers to a Special Force by Julian Thompson

A unit being part of the UKSF does not make it a special force. That is your conclusion.

Rob984 (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

So we don't appear to be in dispute over whether the force elements that are part of the UK Special Forces Group are SF or not. And we've got a statement around Special Forces being those force elements under the OPCOM of DSF. That would imply that force elements that are not under OPCOM DSF are not SF. So those soures that you're citing as evidence are either contradicting HMG policy, or stating that for the activities in question the units were under OPCOM DSF.

To deal with the book by Major General Thompson ([Julian_Thompson_(Royal_Marines_officer)]), formerly Cdr 3 Cdo Bde, it's a history of the Royal Marines as a whole. By your logic we should be including the Corps in its entirety here, rather than identifying it rightly as a Maritime Infantry and Commando force. Clearly the SBS as a force element within the Corps is part of UKSF. I'm not sure your argument stacks up. I'd also observe that the book was written in 2001, so it's not really current given that DSF has restructured since then.

To deal with Captain Blakely, and I'll concede that I haven't read the book, it's not clear whether hes claiming that the patrol he write about was under the direction of the Joint Special Operations Task Force Commander, or under the direction of the 16AAB. In practice it would appear that they were under the command of Cdr 16AAB as they were acting in support of the USMC advance, so an operational asset rather than a strategic asset. Essentially we've got Blakely claiming that his unit were SF, but nothing to corroborate that and evidence to dispute it. I'd also note that what he describes is a Brigade Recce Force operation, given that it included Air Assault Engineers. Thatmay be related to editorial licence as the BRF contains Engineers amongst a range of other skills.

So I'm unconvinced by either of these sources, although concede that there may be something that corroborates the latter, and I wouldn't include news articles that essentially promote the book.

GhostlyLegend (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Freedom of information guidance is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARY. It's still your conclusion that 'force elements that are not under OPCOM DSF are not SF'. Please understand that your conclusions have no standing here.

You yourself provided a source, JDP 3-05, that claimed 22 SAS and the SBS are 'Generalist SF Units', and the SRR is 'Specialist SF', while the SFSG is only 'Support to SF', and 18 Sigs and SF Air Component are 'SF Enablers'. That implies that only 22 SAS, the SBS and the SRR are special forces.

This BBC article describes SFSG as a special force.

Please provide a reliable secondary source that claims 18 Sigs and JSFAW are special forces.

Rob984 (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll acknowledge that there are some significant risks with primary sources. Making sense of them requires a solid understanding of the subject and reading them in conjunction with a wider range of primary sources. In this sense the JDP is one of a number of doctrine documents; British Military Doctrine, Future Capabilities of Conflict, single service doctrine, CIS doctrine etc. But given the dearth of reliable secondary sources we're left having to make sense of those. Unfortunately there are so many breathless, excitable nonsense sites around that it's near impossible to get access to anything sensible.

The JDP refers to the UK SF Group, and it goes into some detail about what each force element does. So we're left with the question of whether this article should list all elements of the UKSF Group or only a subset? With respect to SAS and SBS they're described as having capabilities across the range of SF tasking, SRR is a niche capability and wouldn't be employed in some of the tasks that the SAS and SBS can conduct. SFSG has a clue in the name, the doctrine goes into what that means in some depth. They're configured and trained to support the three principal groups, predominantly Force Protection and Cordon/ Search, but they're also capable of undertaking some Special Operations tasks independently. In that sense they do much more than the previous arrangement where support to SF operations was by the role battalion. Clearly a secondary source such as a news media outlet is going to simplify thigns down, the subtlety of core, support and enabler is going to bulk out a fluff article too much and people won't read it. They can't even identify whether an aircraft is RN or RAF, or whether someone wearing MTP is Army, RN, RM or RAF!

The two enablers are just that, they're part of the SF Group and configured to enable the conduct of special operations, as defined in the doctrine. I guess there is a debate around whether we should only list the three principal SF units, or should we list all elements of the Group?

GhostlyLegend (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And now, the Army Reserve elements

Lachlan Quinn has added the two Army Reserve units recently removed from UKSF Group and transferred to 1 ISTAR Bde as patrols Battalions; 21 and 23 SAS. I've invited him to participate in this discussion on his talk page, but he's declined to do so. [6]

Where the Brigade Recce Forces are pretty clear cut, these two are somewhat more complicated, and given the recency of their transfer there is nothing documented either way.

The two units are not part of the UKSF Group, however members will have gone through SF selection to the point of badging. We don't yet know if new members will continue to go through the reserve SF selection course or revert to something similar to the HAC training. It's also not clear whether members of these two will continue to be used as Individual Augmentees within the UKSF Group, although that wouldn't imply that the unit remains SF or not.

I'm open to persuasion either way, although my inclination would be to remove them from this list as they're moving to an ISTAR patrols role, rather than an SF role, following their transfer to 1 ISTAR Bde.

GhostlyLegend (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to sit back and see what you and other editors decide upon. Your conclusions about the reliability and interpretation of sources are in breach of WP:NOR, not that you seem to care much? And you can't choose your own criteria for the inclusion of reliably sources material. See WP:NPOV: 'Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic'. The BBC is regarded as a good reliable secondary source. Rob984 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not a black and white world where we can say that one source is [i]true[/i] and another [i]is not true[/i], they have varying degrees of accuracy. On the one hand we have a primary source, stating MoD policy. That's a statement of fact. If you disagree with that statement then I'd ask you to provide something that directly contradicts it.

There is a risk around using a primary source, as it needs some understanding of the subject, which is one of the reasons that a secondary source would be preferred, some expertise should, in theory, be applied by the author of the secondary source that mitigates the need for the less informed to understand the meaning of the document.

On the other hand we have one source that states something different from, whilst not directly contradicting the primary source, with respect to SFSG, it doesn't represet a subtlety in the primary source. What does that mean to the lay reader, someone without an understanding of the subject? It could mean that the author of the secondary source has some other material available, or it could be that the author has simplified it, because the subtlety is not material to the narrative that the author is writing. We don't know, so we could err on the side of caution and reflect the primary source, or we could assume that the primary source is wrong and the author of the secondary source is correct, or thirdly we could take the same view as the author of the seocndary source and take the position that the subtlety isn't relevant in this context. In this case that third would perhaps be to reflect the subtlety in the article about the UKSF Group, and the SFSG article but not here which is an aggregation.

Or, in the other example we have an author of a tertiary source who states something that is not substantiated in the available primary source. This is even higher risk to us as editors, as there is nothing independent of that tertiary source that corroborates the authors assertion.

Essentially I would disagree with your interpretation of neutrality. It's not uncritically taking a source that supports the individuals assertion and treating it as [i]true[/i], ignoring it's obvious weaknesses, but reflecting the contradictory nature of the sources. We coudld do that by presenting an assessment of the various sources, but that in itself would appear to be contrary to the guidelines, or we could take a slightly risk averse approach and say that without independent coroboration the tertiary source is probably not valid, therefore not list it.s

So those two points deal with the issues upthread, how do we reflect the nature of a unit that is within the UKSF Group but is not considered as a generalist SF unit by the higher authority that controls it, and how do we reflect a sub-unit that is not part of the UKSF Group and does not conduct operations in a manner consistent with MoD doctrine.

It doesn't help with what's undoubtedly a more complex issue relating to two units that were, until recently, elements of the UKSF Group, but are now not. We could take the position that two primary sources, taken together, evidence that these units should no longer be considered as SF. We could take a position that their former position, and recency of the change means that they could be employed as SF, although I think that's straying into the OR that you are so possessed by. Again a slightly risk averse position with respect to the available sources would suggest that we remove them from this list. A compromise position could be that we list them, identifying that until recently they were part of the UKSF Group, but have been re-roled.

Unfortunately, given the dearth of information around we do need to have a rather less superficial consideration than many articles can get away with.

GhostlyLegend (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

So given the stated lack of intent in engaging with the debate I've gone ahead and made the changes making clear that the elements of the UKSF Group are the UKSF force elements.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2014

India has more special forces, they are - National Security Guards (NSG), Special Protection Group (SPG), Special Frontier Force (SFF), Force One and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB)

Thank you.

109.157.133.10 (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I have added the SFF. The others are police forces, not military. Stickee (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Tunisian Special Forces

no one remove Tunisian Special Forces this article is about ALL Special Forces in the world so Tunisian Special Forces must be in this list

I've removed them, because (a) this article is about *MILITARY* special forces, so National Guard and police would go at List of police special units, and (b) EVERY entry, EVERY unit, must have a reliable reference. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

so National Guard and police are not accepted so i will add *Army* and *Navy* only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malek21khelifi (talk • contribs) 14:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Youtube etc is simply not acceptable for serving as the sole reference for about four units. Please review WP:Reliable Sources before attempting to add any entry again. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

if you want official web site sorry our special forces don't have web site and defiance ministry site don't have info about his regiments so what type of reference you want if you just research this in Google " Tunisia GFS " you will find lot of pic and videos but no official web site comment added by Malek21khelifi (talk 20:03 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Buckshot linked WP:Reliable Sources, I suggest you read it, as from your comment above you havent. Murry1975 (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

i read it and i understand that the most reliable are not related to types and names of Special Forces because the WP:Reliable Sources is in general ( all types of topic in Wikipedia ) but military .. specially for nation like Tunisia ( don't go to wars ) .. will never find Reliable Source talk about all the units and there names added by Malek21khelifi (talk 1:02 31 December 2014

Well if they fail sourcing they cant be included then. Murry1975 (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Just do some google searches, Malek21khelifi: this took me about 25 seconds of searching. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

the police and presidential guard and the national guard you will find lot topic about them but the army and navy Special Forces you will need lot of time added by Malek21khelifi (talk 12:09 31 December 2014 (UTC)

after time of google searches i don't find only this blog article with unreliable source and this forum and this another forum article written by my brother and i didn't do search in Arabic yet Malek21khelifi (talk 12:47 31 December 2014 (UTC)

National Gendarmerie Intervention Group

The National Gendarmerie Intervention Group is both military and police, and so belongs in this article and List of special police units. Rob984 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument, but for now, I have re-removed the entries you have added because they do not have references. Kindly add references the next time. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Dutch SOF 3 January 2015

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Netherlands

Netherlands Army

• Korps Commandotroepen (KCT)

Netherlands Navy

• Maritime Special Operations Forces (NLMARSOF)

Please add the Netherlands to the list. I saw it had been removed because there were no proper sources. - Korps Commandotroepen: http://www.defensie.nl/onderwerpen/kct . This is a link to the official website of the Dutch Ministry of Defence, describing the Korps Commandotroepen thus confirming the legitimacy of the Wikipedia link that had been removed. - Dutch Marine Corps; Unit Interventie Mariniers/NLMARSOF. http://www.defensie.nl/organisatie/marine/inhoud/eenheden/korps-mariniers . This links to a page of the Ministry of Defence containing information about the Dutch Marine Corps, including NLMARSOF. Ecktezebby (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015

the dutch army has also the luchtmobiele brigade it is a task of the air force

84.29.157.7 (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: assuming that you're talking about the 11th Airmobile Brigade (Netherlands), then the article says "Specially trained units are also able to assist Special Forces". Presumably, if they are assisting the special forces then they are not themselves a special forces unit. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thailand and Norway

Thailand

Royal Thai Army

• 1st Special Warfare Division

Royal Thai Navy

• Royal Thai Navy SEALs

Royal Thai Marine Corps

• 1st Reconnaissance Battalion

Royal Thai Air Force

• Special Operations Regiment
• Royal Thai Air Force Commando Company

Norway

Royal Norwegian Army

• Hærens Jegerkommando

Royal Norwegian Navy

• Marinejegerkommandoen
• Minedykkerkommandoen

Ministry_of_Defence_(Norway)

• Forsvarets Spesialkommando

KuronoX (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)==

where is iran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.226.103.246 (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Military Special Forces Units (Japan)

moved from User talk:Buckshot06

"Central Readiness Force" is the special operations command of japanese SF units combined of: Special Forces Group, 1st Helicopter Brigade, 1st Airborne Brigade, 101st NBC Protection Unit. It is similar to U.S Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).

The "1st Helicopter Brigade" is the special aviation unit supporting special operation units of CRF. It is similar to U.S 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment .

The "Central Readiness Regiment" is a regiment ground combat unit of CRF, the main mission of which is to carry out operations on battlefields abroad as an advance force. As of now it is deployed in (DAPE base) in Djibouti, Horn of Africa, first overseas permanent military base of JSDF.

The "1st Airborne Brigade" is specializing in Airborne Assault operations. It is the oldest SF unit of JSDF before the special forces group (SFGp) and Special Boarding unit (SBU).

The "Western Army Infantry Regiment" is combined of japanese Ranger troopers and amphibious specialized units, its counter part is U.S. 1st Marine Expeditionary Unit (1st MEU) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keijhae (talk • contribs) 03:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

We will need reliable sources for all of these assertions. I follow military units and formations pretty closely, and I've never seen a single comparison between CRF and HQ JSOC. The 1st Avn Bde will need, again, reliable sources before it can be accepted as a special operations aviation formation, as opposed to a convention aviation brigade. Regarding the CRR, I suggest you add that data, about its functions, with references, to the Central Readiness Force page, then we can discuss the issue. I spent a good amount of time examining both the English and Japanese (through GTranslate) unit pages earlier and couldn't get any clearer picture except disaster relief tasking (through the Djibouti deployments were clear, but not what they were doing). The 1st Abn Bde belongs at List of paratrooper forces and the WAIR, like the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, belongs at List of marine forces. Hope this clarifies my position. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

As noted on my talk page, Time magazine and this specialist book say that the CRF is mainly a conventional-type unit which has SF elements. It appears that the CRF is essentially a rapid deployment force. Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well we all know that the modern japanese military JSDF has not been in a engagement war (because of its strict engagement policy), so we can assume that as of now there is only a humanitarian aid disaster response , and other defensive roles like anti-piracy operations tasked in it. But im basing in its formations which is for Japan it is a special operations command of its forces, but as of now doing conventional operations because of the japanese article 9 pacifist constitution. Yes CRF is a rapid reaction deployment force.Keijhae ([[User talk:Keijhae|talk] — Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Recently updated (2015) about the SDF base in Djibouti, Horn of Africa. In which the CRR of CRF is deployed.

Japan to reinforce SDF anti-piracy base in Djibouti for broader Middle East responses

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

A Self-Defense Force P-3C maritime surveillance aircraft and light armored vehicle stationed at the SDF anti-piracy base in Djibouti (Yusuke Fukui) The mission of a Self-Defense Forces base for anti-piracy operations in Djibouti is expected to be bolstered to include the dispatch of patrol aircraft and the rescue of Japanese civilians in Middle East emergencies, Defense Ministry sources said.

The ministry is considering increasing the duties assigned to the base in East Africa and making it the operational center for SDF troops in the region on the assumption that Japan will continue utilizing it on a long-term basis.

“Based on the government’s principle of ‘proactive pacifism,’ it is a natural matter of course to develop a strategy to utilize more of the SDF's lone foreign operational base,” said a senior Defense Ministry official. “From the perspectives of cooperation with the U.S. military and NATO forces and sharing terrorism-related information with these forces, it will be to Japan’s benefit to increase functions of the base.”

The plans include mobilizing light armored vehicles at the base to rescue Japanese citizens by land routes, expanding parking aprons to transport Japanese nationals by government aircraft and SDF transport planes, and sending surveillance aircraft in emergency situations, sources said.

The Defense Ministry plans to map out details of the project in conjunction with Diet deliberations on the national security framework and earmark construction and other necessary expenses in the fiscal 2016 budget.

The ministry has allocated 30 million yen ($256,100) for research expenses in the budget draft for fiscal 2015 to conduct studies on how the United States, Britain and France are utilizing their outlying bases. It will also study the construction and maintenance costs of the reinforced base in Djibouti.

The ministry sources said the strengthened Djibouti base will be Japan’s de-facto “outlying base,” and is in line with efforts by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s administration to enhance the role of the SDF in international efforts.

Japan opened the anti-piracy base in Djibouti in June 2011 on a 12-hectare plot it rents from the largely Islamic country adjoining Djibouti-Ambouli International Airport.

It has built a command headquarters, boarding facilities, parking apron for three P-3C maritime surveillance aircraft and a hangar to accommodate an airplane at a cost of 4.7 billion yen.

Based on the anti-piracy law, the Maritime Self-Defense Force’s air unit that operates two surveillance aircraft, comprising about 110 members, is stationed at the base on a four-month rotational basis to ensure the safe passage of passenger and commercial ships through the treacherous Gulf of Aden off Somalia.

About 70 Ground Self-Defense Force troops tasked with guarding the base are also stationed there.

High-ranking Defense Ministry and SDF officials said that they are considering allowing SDF troops to use the base for disaster relief and U.N. peacekeeping activities, in addition to anti-piracy missions.

The base is also projected to accommodate SDF troops that are dispatched from Japan in the event of emergencies and terrorism activity, and also serve as a logistics hub to transport goods to Africa and the Middle East in the event of such a need.

The government plans to stipulate the Djibouti base’s extended functions through amending the Self-Defense Forces Law and other legislation as part of its ongoing effort to review the legal framework for national security.

In addition to the SDF base, Djibouti hosts the only U.S. military base in Africa and a French base, along with troops of NATO member countries. Keijhae ([[User talk:Keijhae|talk] — Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Just for the information, the ground troops (Central Readiness Regiment) deployed in JSDF base in Djibouti, Horn of Africa are under the command of CRF. So what i posted is a relevant about reinforcing the CRR ground troops of CRF in Djibouti. All the ground troops in Djibouti are CRR under of CRF. The others are JASDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keijhae (talk • contribs) 10:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I have again removed the additional text at Central Readiness Force because there is no WP:Reference. Look Keijhae, it's reasonably likely that the troops at Djibouti are CRF. But until you find us a reference - which can be in Japanese, that wouldn't be a problem - that says 'the ground troops at Djibouti are CRR (or CRF)' your statements will be removed. Regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not give me your email address and i'll send you photos of CRR in Djibouti (DAPE base), Look Buckshot06, not all japanese military info can be find in google. Now if you have a french or american military friend based in Djibouti, you can ask them too, they are the only (french,american) aside from japanese that have permanent military base in Djibouti Horn of Africa. All japanese ground troops in Djibouti (DAPE base) are CRR tasked for the security of the base. The others are JASDF personel. Also about the 1st helicopter brigade, it is not just a normal helicopter team like you think, it is tasked to provide aviation support to all special operations units of JGSDF.Keijhae ([[User talk:Keijhae|talk] 04:34, 14 February 2015

My e-mail address can be accessed through the Email this user function on the left-hand side of this talkpage. But you do not appear to understand one of the five key WP:PILLARS of Wikipedia - WP:Verifiability. What you would be doing in sending me pictures is WP:Original Research. Please, read both these sets of rules, understand that what you are saying may be true, but we can't add it until you give use references, and stop wasting peoples' time. Otherwise I am going to have to seriously consider referring you to AN/I. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually not all in wikipedia have "references", why dont you work to it instead of focusing in japanese military which you know only little. Also i dont see "references" in the roles of other countries military. If you dont want to waste your time stop revising and asking references, and dont blackmail me, dont be such a rude. Say what you want to say but i'll never reply again to a rude person. Keijhae (talk 010:34, 14 February 2015

Thankyou for your comments Keijhae. WP:REFERENCEs are *vital* to wikipedia, and *anything* can be removed for lack of them. Armed forces all around the world are, yes, a big subject, but I would invite you to examine Russian Ground Forces, Armed Forces of Liberia, 50th Armored Division (United States), and Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, all articles I've had long association with, and to check the number of references there. As an administrator, I have the fortunate or unfortunate task of 'holding the mop', which involves, among other things, trying to ensure articles do have reference. I should say I'm not focusing on the Japanese armed forces - right now I'm looking at NATO, the RAF, the U.S. Air Force in Europe, and some other stuff, as my contributions will show. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

References

why the delete?

i thought i referenced the units, especially the korean onesSyriaWarLato (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message SyriaWarLato. Unfortunately Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself. You must get a WP:Reliable Source which is not from wikipedia. Re-reading the WP:Reliable Source guideline may be helpful so you know what to look for in future. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to remove the units again. Force Recon is marginal as well, and despite my views, we will need very high quality references that specifically state it is a SOF or SF unit before it can be readded. Happy to continue discussing, because most of the units you've added do belong in the list - we just have to be careful about sources. Kind regards and happy editing, Buckshot06 (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I added a new reference for the rok special forces brigades. Couldn't find one for all the Force Recon Companies though, or the ROK Marine Recon, which is presumably based on US Force Recon SyriaWarLato (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

U.S. military sources will not do for Force Recon. Independent, specific, high-quality, reliable sources will be required. I'm copying this to the talk page; it's better that this discussion continue there. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

is this [7] a realiable source for Force Recon?SyriaWarLato (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Does FSB Spetsnaz qualify as a military special force?

...or is it part of the police special forces? Mariner2222 (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2015

In the cathegory Czech Republic replace 102nd Recon Battalion wih 43rd Airborne Battalion [43. výsadkový prapor]. The first unit is not a commando type unit, it is a regular recon battalion for general purpose recon (including UAVs). The 43rd Airborne Battalion is on the other hand the primary kinetic commando unit of the Czech Army. From the year 1999 it has been retooled from regular airborne battalion into commando type unit (change of mission, structure and weaponry).

https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/43._v%C3%BDsadkov%C3%BD_prapor

Ivo Zelinka (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2015

Please Add Pakistan Air Force in the list under the Pakistan Heading, Pakistan Air Force also has a commando Wing Which is known as Special Services Wing, SSW. Following are the references Abdullahtariq007 (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the references with your suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2015

I want a Correction, Under Pakistan heading and subheading Pakistan Air force is written, The special forces refered are Special Services Wing. (SSN) is written infront of that, Actually it should be (SSW) instead of SSN. Kind Regards, M. Abdullah Tariq Abdullahtariq007 (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Sorry, my mistake - Arjayay (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2015

Change country name from Belarus to Bangladesh. Thank you. 43.230.122.47 (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for pointing that out - it has been wrong for some time - Arjayay (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Finnish border guard special units

Buckshot06 removed the Finnish Border Guard special units from th list, noting that they are not sufficiently military. I would like to comtest this. The Finnish Border Guard is a military organisation, with police powers, so you might say that it is a gendarmerie. (All personnel use military ranks and are under military discipline and liable for military justice.) Yet, it has both law enforcement and national defence duties. Especially, the special border jaeger units are, according to public information, trained for special operations against a conventional or special forces enemy but only secondarily for border guard duties. Thus, I would like to add at least the special border jaegers back. (The readiness detachments are, indeed, police units which have been used also for riot control, so they don't belong to this article.)

What do you say, Buckshot06? MPorciusCato (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please provide reliable sources which say that these units are "military" forces? If not, they might fit best in the List of special law enforcement units article. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

What would you prefer? The fact that the Border Guard is a military organisation is readily demonstrable from the relevant statute law. The military nature of the duties of its reservist units needs a bit more digging. Perhaps the most important factor is that such units are active only if there is a serious crisis of military nature. If you look at the official page on the topic, you can find out that the training is claimed to include "special operations tactics, weapons and marksmanship training, deployment methods training, border guard training, very advanced woodsmanship and survival training and close combat training". The page on border guard conscript training in general states: "Defence of the realm has always been an important task for the Border Guard, done in cooperation with the Defence Forces. The border jaeger companies of the Lapland and North Karelia border guard detachments and the special border jaeger company of the Border and Coast Guard School in South Karelia train conscripts to be guerillas and reconnaissance personnel to the reserve of the Border Guard. Also the basics of the border guarding during emergency conditions are trained." I think that this shows rather well the military nature of the duties. Guerilla warfare is not really a law enforcement function.--MPorciusCato (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

LIke the Coast Guard, the Border Guard transitions to the control of the MOD in wartime. Thus I think we can go with the half-compromise and readd the special border jaegers. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Buckshot06. BTW, I'd like to nitpick. The Border Guard does not transition to "control of the MOD" in the wartime. It becomes part of the FDF, fully or partially. This would mean that the Border Guard units thus transferred become army or navy formations and their personnel loses any law enforcement faculties they previously held. However, they don't go under MOD control, because the FDF is not under MOD control. Instead, it is under the direct command of the president. The MOD has control only on financial matters and for the formation or disbanding of brigade-level units. MPorciusCato (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Lithuania

Lithuanian Army

• Lithuanian Special Operations Force
  • Special Purpose Service
  • Vytautas the Great Jaeger Battalion
  • Combat Divers Service
  • Special Operations Element

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2015

Add the norwegian Forsvarets Spesialkommando https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsvarets_Spesialkommando Dorsen78 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done - I added Marinejegerkommandoen as well - Arjayay (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Add Gurkhas?

I would add the Gurkha Reserve unit for Brunei SF, Indian Gorkha Rifles, and British Gurkha rifles. They are all special forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I8910 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Brunei Gurkha Reserve Unit is, as far as I know, not actually part of the Brunei armed forces - sort of a royal guard of sorts. The others are conventional infantry battalions. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Name change

45th Detached Guards Special Purpose Brigade / Russia, please do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.126.226 (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Czech 601. special forces group

I think it would be better representative of czech special forces becouse 102. batallion just can't be listed as special, they are just one of the best in our armed forces but not special at all. Of course not mentioning that if you google "czech special forces" you will find that we don't have any other special forces unit than 601. special forces group TrollDelegate (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of military special forces units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080621163949/http://www.sfg.be:80/en/index.htm to http://www.sfg.be/en/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080617235354/http://www.grom.wp.mil.pl:80/home.htm to http://www.grom.wp.mil.pl/home.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of military special forces units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081105144117/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/LAND-FORCES/Special-Forces/Para.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Special-Forces/Para.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080415114107/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/LAND-FORCES/index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=197&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26 to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=197&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080415114149/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com:80/LAND-FORCES/index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=85&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26 to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=85&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of military special forces units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081226160323/http://www.difesa.it:80/approfondimenti/festa-repubblica/2giugno08/rivista-militare/sfilamento-reparti/compagnia+g.i.s.+(cc).htm to http://www.difesa.it/approfondimenti/festa-repubblica/2giugno08/rivista-militare/sfilamento-reparti/compagnia+g.i.s.+(cc).htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Singapore special forces?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Force_(Singapore) Inc mplete (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of military special forces units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfg.be/en/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130923015650/http://www.bdaopesp.eb.mil.br/ to http://www.bdaopesp.eb.mil.br/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.difesa.it/approfondimenti/festa-repubblica/2giugno08/rivista-militare/sfilamento-reparti/compagnia%2Bg.i.s.%2B%28cc%29.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090408033753/http://www.presamil.ro/OM/2004/20/pag%2014.htm to http://www.presamil.ro/OM/2004/20/pag%2014.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Arméns Jägarbataljon (Sweden): special forces or not?

Arméns Jägarbataljon is an elite light infantry unit tasked with combat behind enemy lines. This may sound like special forces but the fact of the matter is that they neither have the scope, depth or requirements of the special forces. Calling them special forces is as valid as calling the Royal Marine Commandos and the Parachute Regiment special forces in the UK, or calling the 82nd Airborne special forces in the US. The Swedish special forces often recruit from this unit nowadays, and back in the old system the wash-outs from special forces training often ended up in the unit. It is not special forces. --Hejligan (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and that is what the talk page is for. However, we don't try to force our opinion onto an article by edit-warring. I realize you have limited experience here, but per WP:BRD, you Boldly removed content, you were then Reverted, which is followed by Discussion, not continued reverts. The article, and this item in particular, needs to remain as is, until a resolution is found here on the talk page. Resolution can be by agreement, consensus or decided by a reliable source. Clearly an agreement is not imminent. Now when I used the term 'opinion', that was because you had not provided any reliable sources to support your position. Unless a reliable source is provided to decide the issue either way, it will have to be decided by consensus On that note, someone, the first editor, added that item because they believed it was suited to this list. There was an extensive review of this list earlier this month, by a second, (and experienced) editor, and while several entries were removed as unsuitable, the entry in question here remained. You then removed it, the first time, and were reverted by yet a third editor. You removed it again and were reverted by a fourth editor, (me). So thus far, at least four (4) editors have reviewed this entry and are of the opinion that it is suitable for inclusion on the list. With four editors for inclusion and only you against, I would suggest a consensus in forming. But, I think we should leave this section open for awhile to see if anyone else wishes to comment. (The section heading should be re-worded to be more neutral though). Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 17:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I do apologise for my lack of knowledge and experience of Wikipedia. Because of my insider knowledge of Swedish special forces I reacted quite negatively to Arméns Jägarbataljon being defined a special forces, and since the addition had no citation I presumed that it had no right being there. Providing citations to prove which Swedish units are special forces or not is difficult as the term special forces is a recent term in the Swedish military vocabulary which administratively exclusively refer to the tier-one/special mission unit Särskilda Operationsgruppen and its support units (one should not confuse it with old Swedish term: "special unit" which refered to something different). In Sweden the term: "jägare" (literally meaning: "hunter" but often translated as: "ranger") is traditionally used to refer to all units ranging from elite infantry to special mission units. Therefore the Swedish system has no sharp definitional difference between the conventional special forces (Kustjägarna, Fallskärmsjägarna) and the elite light infantry (Arméns Jägarbataljon and other units) that one could easily cite for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. Therefore we must look at secondary evidence. For example, Kustjägarna and Fallskärmsjägarna are in most foreign sources refered to as special operation units, while Arméns Jägarbataljon is not, indeed even on Wikipedia the articles about Kustjägarna and Fallskärmsjägarna refer to them as special forces while Arméns Jägarabataljon's does not. Another secondary evidence is that in the old system Kustjägarna and Fallskärmsjägarna were all volunteer units while the predecessor of Arméns Jägarbataljon was not. In fact the ones who failed the training of Kustjägarna and Fallskärmsjägarna could often end up in the predecessor of Arméns Jägarbataljon. In the modern system Arméns Jägarbataljon is a unit which one can begin training for directly after the basic training. Kustjägarna and Fallsärmsjägarna require the candidate to have spent a certain amount of time within the military before they can even apply, this naturally means that many people who have aspirations in the special forces have Arméns Jägarbataljon as their original unit, effectively making it a unit which the special forces often recruit from. If this article wishes the definition of special forces in Sweden to include all units with jägarrequirements there are far more Swedish units which could be in the article. This includes Flygbasjägarna which are the elite air force infantry, Amfibieskytte which is the elite marine infantry, 31:a Luftburna Bataljonen which is elite air assault infantry. None of these are special forces, but neither is Arméns Jägarbataljon. They are non-special forces jägar units, elite infantry, like the British Parachute Regiment, Royal Marine Commandos, or like the US Airborne units. I hope that with this writing you have come to at least understand my point of view. Hejligan (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Rationalizing or personal experience is no substitute for a source. Provide a source that says that it is not, and this will be over in seconds in your favor. Garuda28 (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Is not rationalising exactly what you are doing when you are calling Arméns Jägarbataljon special forces? There is literally no source that says that it is special forces. Proving a negative is and should never be a requirement. Merely operating behind enemy lines is not the definition of special forces, operating behind enemy lines is for example also within the domain of light infantry. In fact even normal Swedish infantry units receive training to do that, as the Swedish doctrine has traditionally emphasised a decentralished guerilla-type of warfare called the: "free war". As I said, the Swedish military only defines the special mission unit Särskilda Operatationsgruppen and its nine supporting units as special forces, therefore it is probably impossible to provide an official source that proves that any other Swedish unit would be special forces. This is of course unfair since Sweden has units that would be defined as special forces from an objective point of view, such as Kustjägarna and Fallskärmsjägarna. Therefore there HAS to be rationalising when deciding which units to place on the list, as you have indeed done when allowing Arméns Jägarbataljon to stay on the list. However, when it comes to Kustjägarna and Fallskärmsjägarna you can find international sources referring to them as special forces, with Arméns Jägarbataljon you can apparently not. ""Swedish Coastal Rangers - Kustjägarna". special-ops.org. 2012-10-30. Retrieved 2014-02-24." Is a source which refer to Kustjägarna as special forces. "Special Forces in International Operations - Challenge for the Future", Magnus Norell & Karin Ströberg, 2001 Archived 7 August 2007 at the Wayback Ma" is a source which refers to both Kustjägarna and Fallskärmsjägarna as special forces, where is the source that refer to Arméns Jägarbataljon as special forces? Please do not ask me to prove a negative, the burden of proof that Arméns Jägarbataljon would be special forces is on you. This list seems completely arbitrary anyway, you do not allow the UK Pathfinders or the US Marine Force Recon on the list (which are both special forces and even have sources) but you allow Arméns Jägarbataljon on it (which is not special forces and does not have any sources indicating that it would be). Make up your mind at the standard you want to put. Hejligan (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Hejlligan, even by some of your own arguments, "Special forces" can in some aspects be considered a subjective term, the definition of which can vary from country to country. You mentioned "Tier One" for example. In the US, they have special forces that are not Tier One, eg; DevGru vs SEAL Teams and 1stSFOD-Delta vs. Green Berets. You mentioned something about going straight into a unit from recruitment, well that is possible with the SEALs. You mentioned something about full time vs part time or volunteer, in the US they have Reserve/NG units such as SFG-19 and SFG-20. Further, there is mention here of whether or not reliable sources have been provided to decide this one way or another, but that is not always necessary. In this case, this entry is supported by a link to a parent article. The description in that article describes the unit as "elite" and lists roles that go beyond what regular forces are typically called upon for. Lastly, like you said, perhaps you are too close to this and are allowing intimate knowledge and personal feelings to affect your editing. You're not alone in this, there are articles here that the subject/content of which close are close to me in various ways, and I have found it best to just steer clear of them. As for this article, I along with some other editors are satisfied that this unit is suitable enough for inclusion on this list. Thank you for your efforts and contributions however, and happy editing. - ^theWOLFchild 19:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: I see you added a lengthy addition to your last post while I was typing out a response (hence multiple edit conflicts). I think I've addressed your comments about sourcing (negative or otherwise), but I would like to add that if there are other units that are not listed here, but you feel they should be and have a source or main article in support, then by all means, please add them. This list is incomplete and can use more additions. Cheers! - ^theWOLFchild 19:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

In that case I can only accept your authority to make the decisions on the article while vehemently disagreeing with that decision and leave the discussion at that for the meanwhile. Thank you for taking your time to review my concerns. Hejligan (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, hey... I'm not an "authority" here, I'm just an editor like you. Like I explained above, editing is usually black and white, it's supported and stays or it's not and goes. But sometimes there are gray areas that aren't addressed by sourcing alone and that's where the talk pages come in, with discussion and hopefully consensus. Disagreement is frequent here on this project, but it usually gets worked out. Sometimes it's ugly, but I'm glad that it was more collaborative here. happy editing - ^theWOLFchild 19:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

By: "your" I meant it in the plural way, I meant the authority of the consensus, not you specifically! Happy editing to you too and sorry for my previous edit warring, I just saw something I consider wrong and did not understand that a consensus had been reached, so I only saw the person reverting my edits to have as much authority as I do! Hejligan (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

JSOC (USA)

JSOC is composed of units from different branches of the military. As it stands now, those units are listed but there is nothing to identify which branch they're from. I made changes to identify/differentiate them, but a user reverted it as "unnecessary". So, I'm seeking input from others on this. This user is relatively new but already has a history of being uncooperative, refusing to engage with others and discuss edits, so I don't know what to expect here. (I'm not interested in any drama) Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 19:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Full agreement with your changes. I think it’s needed to differentiate them. I think that the U.S. could be optional, but the branches are needed to differentiate. Garuda28 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried doing a different way, to still id the unit/branches, but avoid having "US xyz" in front of every entry. We'll see how that goes. - ^theWOLFchild 23:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of military special forces units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://nso.nato.int/nso/zPublic/ap/aap6/AAP-6.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hjv.dk/ssr
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924130946/http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/wcm/20f2ae804718c5dcb3dfb3786bf3619b/Opas+variusmiespalvelus+englanninkielinen+2015+22012015.pdf?MOD=AJPERES to http://www.puolustusvoimat.fi/wcm/20f2ae804718c5dcb3dfb3786bf3619b/Opas+variusmiespalvelus+englanninkielinen+2015+22012015.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121026094141/http://home.comcast.net/~djyae/site/?%2Fblog%2Fview%2F4%2F to http://home.comcast.net/~djyae/site/?%2Fblog%2Fview%2F4%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080817194153/http://www.military.ie/army/ranger/index.htm to http://www.military.ie/army/ranger/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120216080804/http://cca.analisidifesa.it/downloads/8542322026_it.pdf to http://cca.analisidifesa.it/downloads/8542322026_it.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526133151/http://www.esercito.difesa.it/root/unita_Sez/unita_ftrpar_9_colmo_voglio.asp to http://www.esercito.difesa.it/root/unita_Sez/unita_ftrpar_9_colmo_voglio.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018153059/http://specialoperations.com/Foreign/Philippines/710th.htm to http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Philippines/710th.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070225110901/http://www.ejercito.mde.es/organizacion/moe/index.html to http://www.ejercito.mde.es/organizacion/moe/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106094740/http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/Forband-och-formagor/Specialforband/Nyheter/Forsvarsmaktens-nya-specialforband/ to http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/sv/Forband-och-formagor/Specialforband/Nyheter/Forsvarsmaktens-nya-specialforband/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140404231109/https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/UKRANIANMILITARYDISPOSITIONS_RUSIBRIEFING.pdf to https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/UKRANIANMILITARYDISPOSITIONS_RUSIBRIEFING.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130214222055/http://www.socom.mil/News/Documents/USSOCOM_Fact_Book_2013.pdf to http://www.socom.mil/News/Documents/USSOCOM_Fact_Book_2013.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.socom.mil/Docs/factbook-2009.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)