Talk:Special Mission Unit/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

(no heading)

Isn't US Army Rangers and Special Forces considered Tier 1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.119.172 (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No.174.26.205.141 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Tier 1 units are British SAS, Australian SASR, U.S Delta and DEVGRU and maybe 1 or 2 others . — Preceding unsigned comment added by SOTGMichael (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

USMC SMU

Anyone have any more info on this unit?

http://www.prim.osd.mil/Documents/FAS%20Reports/FAS245.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.108.180 (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 

    MARSOC MSOR under command of JSOC.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.205.141 (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not a Unit, it is a status for pay purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_Recon A Ranger Battalion is not Tier 1, nor is a Force Recon Company. But they are the pool that Delta and SAD recruit from. 108.241.120.20 (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Confirmation?

10 important questions to try and save this article;

  • Can anyone confirm what a "Special Mission Unit (SMU)" is?
  • Can anyone confirm if this is specific to the U.S. only?
  • Can anyone confirm how many SMU's the U.S has?
  • Can anyone confirm what U.S. military/intelligence units are considered SMU's?
  • Can anyone confirm if SMU's are divided into "Tiers"? (ie: "Tier-One, Tier-Two, etc.)
  • Can anyone confirm which SMU's belong to which Tier?
  • Can anyone confirm if other countries have SMU's?
  • Can anyone confirm if they are specifically called SMU's in those counties? (or are they just 'equivalent'?)
  • Can anyone confirm if the layout of other counties SMU's (and possibly Tiers) compares to the U.S. and how?
  • Most importantly, can anyone here attempting to answer any of these questions, provide reliable sources to support their answers?

Thanks - thewolfchild 19:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I think some of those questions are good and some of them don't necessarily apply. In my opinion, if there are reliable sources stating XYZ is a "Special Mission(s) Unit" then it should be included here since it is verifiable. For instance, Delta Force, 160th SOAR, DEVGRU and the 24th STS are all referred to individually in various media articles as SMUs (see refs in article for support) whereas I don't think the U.S. Government has ever came out and said "these exact units are our SMUs and we have this many" they just leave things vague like in 1998 when the U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Walter Slocombe, stated "We have designated Special Mission Units (SMUs) that are specifically manned, equipped and trained to deal with a wide variety of transnational threats"[1][2] However, the Australian military stated that SASR is a "Special Missions Unit"[3]. I just wished they defined what an SMU is to them. As far as I'm aware I don't believe any other broad generalization like "all u.s. spec ops are SMUs" has been made and I haven't come across any material that implies that non-JSOC units as SMUs either. Again going back to only listing units that are verifiable through reliable sources and removing unverifiable/RS-lacking material. This isn't an area to list XYZ as "tier one" or "tier two" etc without any references at all. However, if there are some reliable sources out there that verifies "these units are tier one, these units are tier two" and defines what tier one and tier two are and how they are related to SMUs then that's a different story. Because even right now there's nothing on the SMU article that implies Tier 1, Tier 2 or even their correlation as/to SMUs. Sorry for the long reply but I hope this makes sense. — -dainomite   20:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you think this article should even exist? - Considering the following;
  • The (US) units listed here are already listed out, in more detail, within the JSOC article.
  • Does the size merit it's own article?
  • For over 2 years there has been a request for "expert" contributors... none seem to have come forward.
  • For over 2 years there has been a request for a "more worldly view". All the content here is US based, with one dubious, brief exception - Australia.
  • For over two years, there has been a request for more and better sources, none have been added.
  • For over two years, there has been a request for the article to be improved (lead, layout, etc.) - hasn't happened
  • Do we even have a clear definition of what a "Special Mission Unit" is? While there are references to this term, is it as an official title? or as a descriptor? These sources could simply be referring to these JSOC units as "Special Mission Units" because that's what they are... what else would you call them? "Regular Mission Units" ? (If there was an article that discussed the sailors that clean the hulls of ships, and it referred to them as the "Barnacle Cleaning Unit", does that mean an actual unit with that title exists within the USN?)
  • Is there an official source from the USN, or the US Gov't, that states these teams are officially designated as "Special Mission Units" ?
  • Are some of the sources here even reliable? One seems to be an official looking fansite, while the other, is a subscription site, meaning it's references aren't accessible, unless you sign and pay.
  • Furthermore, the leads and infoboxes of the 1st SFOD-D and DEVGRU refer to these units as being "Tier One" units, yet there is no further mention of "Tier One" in these articles, and to make things worse, "Tier One" links to this article, and there is no mention of "Tier One" here at all. (and, unfortunately, I can't add what I know because I can't find proper sources for it... which is no surprise, 'cuz nobody talks about this stuff officially)
  • Does linking to this article mean all the units listed are "Tier One" ?
  • The article for USAISA only mentions "supporting top-tier units" and "working with Tier 1 Spec Ops Forces". There is no further mention of, or linking to, "Tier One". The only mention of "Special Mission Unit" is the link to this page, down in the portal at the bottom of the article.
  • The article for 160th SOAR does not contain any references to "Special Mission Unit" or "Tier One".
  • The article for 24th STS does not contain any references to "Special Mission Unit" or "Tier One".
  • Now, sadly enough, "Special Mission Unit" is only mentioned once in the JSOC article, and it links here. There is no valid, detailed, official, sourced description of what a "Special Mission Unit" is. And, "Tier One" is only mentioned a few times, in the same paragraph, in the JSOC page - it is not linked and it does not have any cites (just a "cite needed" request).
  • This stub serves no purpose. It's minimal, poorly sourced and poorly laid out content is already covered in another related article. It has had multiple requests for improvement for over 2 years, with none forthcoming. No one with any expertise, and the sources to back it up, is willing or able to come forward in aid of this page. I am going to make the corrections needed on the other related pages that are linked here. And... if you (or anyone else) can't think of a reason not to, I am going to nom this for deletion. - thewolfchild 21:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you think this article should even exist? - Considering the following;
  • The (US) units listed here are already listed out, in more detail, within the JSOC article.
  • Ok, there's still the aspect of SMU being used globally, i.e. by Australia. However since it's listed out in good detail at the JSOC article (and presumably sourced) then we could use that to expand this article imo. — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Does the size merit it's own article?
  • There are plenty of military related stubs out there, I don't see why this one should be deleted just because no one has put forth effort into greatly expanding the article. Sometimes articles sit for years as stubs before a knowledgeable / interested person/group invests time into the article to expand it appropriately. — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • For over 2 years there has been a request for "expert" contributors... none seem to have come forward.
  • It is difficult finding an expert willing to come here and expand on a topic that governments don't acknowledge or release a lot of information on. — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • For over 2 years there has been a request for a "more worldly view". All the content here is US based, with one dubious, brief exception - Australia.
  • Again, it requires someone knowledgeable or willing to seek knowledge to expand upon this. I am not one of them, I have NO clue about non-US SOF. User:SOTGMichael is from Australia so if he could find more info somehow about how to expand the Australia section that would be awesome. However, with his often — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • For over two years, there has been a request for more and better sources, none have been added.
  • False, since I started contributing to this article I've added most of the references on the article. For comparison sake here is what the article looked like before I started contributing. Is it relatively the same? Yes, however, unreferenced/cited material has been removed and most things remaining have refs now. Could there be better sources, of course. — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • For over two years, there has been a request for the article to be improved (lead, layout, etc.) - hasn't happened
  • Again, it takes someone willing to expand / do the work. Is an article being tagged for lack of action a reason for an AfD? No. — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Do we even have a clear definition of what a "Special Mission Unit" is? While there are references to this term, is it as an official title? or as a descriptor? These sources could simply be referring to these JSOC units as "Special Mission Units" because that's what they are... what else would you call them? "Regular Mission Units" ? (If there was an article that discussed the sailors that clean the hulls of ships, and it referred to them as the "Barnacle Cleaning Unit", does that mean an actual unit with that title exists within the USN?)
  • I touched on this in my reply to your initial message. — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there an official source from the USN, or the US Gov't, that states these teams are officially designated as "Special Mission Units" ?
  • I touched on this in my reply to your initial message. — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Are some of the sources here even reliable? One seems to be an official looking fansite, while the other, is a subscription site, meaning it's references aren't accessible, unless you sign and pay.
  • Which references specifically are you referring to. — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, the leads and infoboxes of the 1st SFOD-D and DEVGRU refer to these units as being "Tier One" units, yet there is no further mention of "Tier One" in these articles, and to make things worse, "Tier One" links to this article, and there is no mention of "Tier One" here at all. (and, unfortunately, I can't add what I know because I can't find proper sources for it... which is no surprise, 'cuz nobody talks about this stuff officially)
  • I went and deleted the tier one bits a few days ago since they are fluff and literally mean nothing. Did I know "Tier One" redirects here? Nope, but if you want to take it to WP:RFD be my guest. — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Does linking to this article mean all the units listed are "Tier One" ?
  • I'm confused by this statement, where does this come from? Tier One isn't mentioned once in this article. — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The article for USAISA only mentions "supporting top-tier units" and "working with Tier 1 Spec Ops Forces". There is no further mention of, or linking to, "Tier One". The only mention of "Special Mission Unit" is the link to this page, down in the portal at the bottom of the article.
  • Does the ISA article require it to be mentioned? — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The article for 160th SOAR does not contain any references to "Special Mission Unit" or "Tier One".
  • Does the 160th SOAR article require it to be mentioned? — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The article for 24th STS does not contain any references to "Special Mission Unit" or "Tier One".
  • Does the 24th STS article require it to be mentioned? — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Now, sadly enough, "Special Mission Unit" is only mentioned once in the JSOC article, and it links here. There is no valid, detailed, official, sourced description of what a "Special Mission Unit" is. And, "Tier One" is only mentioned a few times, in the same paragraph, in the JSOC page - it is not linked and it does not have any cites (just a "cite needed" request).
  • I'm confused, should it be mentioned a lot on the JSOC article? I don't see how it being only mentioned once is a problem. The rest of your sentenced I've answered elsewhere. — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This stub serves no purpose. It's minimal, poorly sourced and poorly laid out content is already covered in another related article. It has had multiple requests for improvement for over 2 years, with none forthcoming. No one with any expertise, and the sources to back it up, is willing or able to come forward in aid of this page. I am going to make the corrections needed on the other related pages that are linked here. And... if you (or anyone else) can't think of a reason not to, I am going to nom this for deletion. - thewolfchild 21:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I feel like since SOTGMichael reverted your one attempt at expanding the article you are taking out your aggression on this article with this combative approach. You did a 180 from attempting to expand the article to now threatening an AfD. With you stating that the article serves no purpose etc then why put this much effort into all of this? I am however going to mention this article and talk page conversation at WT:MILHIST and past contributors of the article to generate more input from anyone willing to provide ideas and input on the future of this article whether that be AfD or expanding, etc. — -dainomite   22:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
You are out of line laying accusations like that at me, on an open talk page no less. The reason I have created such a lengthy post was to fully explain my position on the value of this page, my previous edit attempt, and why I think this page needs to be dealt with more effectively. I am not "taking out any aggression" here. If I was really that bent about Mr. Michael, I would have simply had him blocked for blatant incivility. But I didn't. I don't go crying to ANI every time "my feelings are hurt" and I don't "take aggression" out on articles. All of my comments are metered and supported. I defy you to point out one comment in my that post that is made in anger, or directs any hostility at SOTGMike.
Quite frankly, I'm a little surprised that despite the content and meaning of my post, and the comment SOTGRudeboy directed at me ("undid bullshit by uneducated user"), you have made no issue of that conduct, and instead decided to level some hefty criticism at me.
That being said, I don't really know what you expect to find at MILHIST. At best, if even one, official, verifiable source can confirm that these (US) units are officially designated as "Special Mission Units", they are still a part of JSOC and really only warrant a section there at most. But if you read that article, they are already covered, and in more detail than this page, which is supposed to be the defining page. So, other than that, you really need to go much further than just the US. Are "Special Mission Units" something found within the militaries of other nations? Like "Special Operations Forces", or "Police", or "EMS". These articles cover the international aspects of these types of organizations. All you have here is "Australian SASR" - a very brief blurb, with a dubious source at that.
Speaking of sources... You asked; "Which references specifically are you referring to [?]" Well, sofrep.com is cited twice, out 7 refs. This site site appears to have some pretty good info, it's chief editor is a SEAL and has a BLP here, but... the site is a paid subscription site. How does one access this source? And beyond that, does this site pass the "wiki-reliability test" ?. Then there's a another site - americanspecialops.com. What is this site? There is no editorial info available. I doubt is passes reliability and to me, it looks like a fan-site, albeit a very well crafted one.
How about a clear ref from a major media outlet, or even better, a gov't website? Or even if one of the (many) SOF guys writing all about what they do over there, wrote something useful that could explain what an SMU is, even that would help.
But as you, an others, have already said, this is the kind of stuff that doesn't get spoken of or written about, and it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to fully flesh out this article, with plenty of proper sources.
Unlike the "plenty of other military stubs out there", where they are waiting for someone to come along and build the article with info and sources that are available, that is unlikely to happen here, because the sources just are not available. - thewolfchild 23:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
My comment regarding "your aggression" as I put it was made because after your initial edit, expanding and improving the article was reverted by SOTGMichael instead of going back and re-adding your material with refs (I assume you had some, otherwise why would you expand without refs?) you went the opposite way and trimmed a few non-ref'd material and are now suggesting an AfD. Most users I've come across don't suggest AfDs after attempting to expand an article. I did offer my opinion to you regarding his edit summary in an email. Regarding my WP:CANVAS at WP:MILHIST it was just to get more involvement in this discussion than the three of us, I don't expect any particular thing from it other than additional input from non-involved wikipedians, regardless of their opinion, stance or otherwise. — -dainomite   00:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, being called a jerk once is bad enough. Being called a jerk twice...
I think we're done here. - thewolfchild 01:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Just let it go, its all secret, you will never get the answers your looking for, just let it go. SOTGMichael (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "Just let it go, its all secret, you will never get the answers your looking for, just let it go." - SOTGMichael.
    Thanks, Mike! That's is my point exactly. The mere scraps that are here are already more thoroughly covered in other articles. So why keep this stub? Well, Mr. 'omite thinks it can be built up into a full-fledged article. (Maybe even GA status!) But that won't happen, because just as Mikey has so eloquently pointed out - we will never find what we need, to do so. This is all this page will ever be, and it is just not good enough for Wikipedia standards. (Hey, I hope I'm wrong. I even tried fixing it myself. But it can't be done. Right now, it's a disservice to people coming here wanting to learn about SOF, and needs to be addressed). - thewolfchild 23:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, regarding some points :

  • Can anyone confirm what a "Special Mission Unit (SMU)" is? Special Mission Unit is defined in DoD document Joint Publication 3-05.1 as "special mission unit — A generic term to represent a group of operations and support personnel from designated organizations that is task-organized to perform highly classified activities. Also called SMU." Also present in the DoD Dictionary. That's vague, it's only a definition, but it formally exists.
  • Can anyone confirm if this is specific to the U.S. only? Well, the definition above is a US military one. Of course, other countries may use the same term, with their own definitions or (probably) without strict definition of the term.
  • Can anyone confirm if SMU's are divided into "Tiers"? / Can anyone confirm which SMU's belong to which Tier? (ie: "Tier-One, Tier-Two, etc.) As far as I know, the "Tier" thing is totally unofficial. Usually, "Tier 1" means JSOC units (SMUs) and "Tier 2" means other US SOF units.
  • Other interesting points : JSOC units are often called SMUs, but at least one non-JSOC unit (Detachment A, Berlin Brigade, which existed until 1984) is also called a SMU (see colonel Warner Dahlgren Farr bio in DoD publications like [4])
  • A source which could be of interest regarding SMUs is John M. Collins, Special Operations Forces: An Assessment, p. 69-71. Collins is well regarded, and the book can be fully seen online : [5]. Sadly, he doesn't explicitly links SMUs to JSOC.

Hope it helps Rob1bureau (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm, if a special mission unit is a "group of operations and support personnel from designated organizations that is task-organized to perform highly classified activities" that would seem to exclude the standing organizations listed in the article. Instead, the task forces organized for things like Operation Eagle Claw would be what the US DOD means by a SMU. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
More facts that go to the point that SMU is more of a descriptor, than a formal or official designation. My understanding is that while DevGru and Delta are considered 'Tier One' (as well as SAD/SOG), this is to simply recognize them as just that... "Top Tier", (as no other units exist that are considered above them in capability), and not an official designation, hence the reason no sources can be found. As these are considered "Top-Tier" or "Tier-One", the next step down, or "Second Tier / Tier Two", are the other JSOC units, such as SF, 75th Ranger, 160 SOAR, SEALs, MARSOC, AF PJ's and 24 STS. When these units are tasked with DevGru or Delta in a supporting role for a specific mission or task force, they are all referred to as "Special Mission Units". (as I tried to clarify with my edit, before I realized I didn't have proper cites). But, these are descriptors and simply part of military vernacular. There are no officially listed "Tier One" units or "Special Mission Units". That's why the SMU description on the JSOC page will suffice and this stub is not needed. - thewolfchild 18:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

Does anyone else have anything to add in support of keeping thus stub? Otherwise, since the information in this stub in found, in better context, within the JSOC article, this stub serves no purpose and I suggest it be deleted. - thewolfchild 01:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

-Or-
This page could be blanked and turned into a re-direct to Jsoc#Special_Mission_Units.

Either/or is fine with me. - thewolfchild 00:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

New info?

Daino, I see now why you haven't bothered responding to any of the comments posted here since your last post, as you have apparently been busy researching material to try an save this stub. But all I see so far, is poorly written, largely un-sourced info, and fluff, all in an attempt to 'fatten up' the page. But I ask you, what is the difference between these edits and my own edit that couldn't remain due to a lack of sourcing? I am assuming you consider this a 'work-in-progress' and will be continuing to try to improve what you have added here. In the meantime, I don't think you should be adding info you do not have a source for, and especially re-adding info that was already removed for lack of sourcing, and still does not have a source. That need's to go, if a source cannot be found. I shouldn't have to tell you this, is Wikipedia 101. Will you be improving additions such as; "Special mission units are tasked with "special missions"...",? (which is tantamount to writing "Potato peelers are peelers that peel potatoes"). And more importantly, will you be finding more reputable media sources? Wash. Post and NY times are great, but SOFREP is hardly considered a media source (which is the only cite you have for the 160 SOAR right now).

Anyways, don't get me wrong, I applaud your effort. If you can find enough well written, properly sourced info to keep this stub going, or even turn it into a full-fledged article, than good for you. But you have a long way to go. - thewolfchild 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been responding because I'm tired of talking to you to be honest. I don't come to Wikipedia to argue with people and that's all that our conversations seem to be. I almost didn't want to respond to you here because of it. Thats why I no longer comment on the delta force/aircraft carrier talk pages and haven't responded here for some time. I don't like the constant back-and-forth. It literally makes me want to take a wikibreak because you're so combative about everything and not willing to collaborate together to better something and instead would rather go for an AfD to delete the content. Also, regarding my recent edit and your edit, I added references supporting everything I added. Also, untagging half the things you tagged because they are referenced or i reworded them or i swapped out a {{cn}} for {{Better source}}. Instead of tagging them you could help develop the article by rewording them yourself or researching and adding to the article if you're a good content writer because I suck at content writing if you couldn't tell . Also, refs are not required in the lede per WP:LEAD since it should introduce no new material that isn't already covered by the rest of the article. Regarding a history section I'm thinking about for instance grabbing some media articles that talk about special mission units and the death of Osama Bin Laden for example, I know there are some articles that directly pin the term Special Mission Unit with his death. This would also satisfy a WP:LEAD criteria for establishing notability in the lede as well as add more accurate, verifiable information on the page itself from sources independent of the subject that are reliable. Regards, — -dainomite   16:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Israel

Israel allegedly has 'Special Mission Unit's', SMU is not a direct term, it is merely like someone saying 'Special Operations Forces or 'Special Forces'. You may change it as necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDI1480 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Special_Mission_Unit/Archive_1&oldid=1136232131"