Talk:5th Special Forces Group (United States)/Archive 1

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

Cleanup message

Bot identified the article as needed cleanup and put the relevant maintenance tags. Please fix the identified problems. If you think the maintenance tags were put in error then just revert the bot's edits. If you have any questions please contact the bot owner.

Yours truly AlexNewArtBot 14:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit war between CWO5thGroupVet & Parsecboy and Gscshoyru

Please discuss here the disputed addition of CWO5thGroupVet about the mission. Do NOT re-add the section without any discussion. It will be considered simple vandalism and reported. This edit war has to stop.--Fogeltje 08:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The text was copy-pasted directly from the website. This is not allowed under any circumstances, public domain or not. The information can be used to write new text, but still must be properly cited. There's no room for plagiarism on Wikipedia. Parsecboy 11:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

FromCWO5th GroupVet's talk page

CWO5thGroupVet is adding this from his Talk page:

September 2007 Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to 5th Special Forces Group (United States). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. I realize what you're doing might be in good faith... but we don't copy/paste text here. Period. Ok? Thanks! Gscshoyru 01:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


CWO5thGroupVet: I appreciate your concerns and realize that what you are doing is in good faith, but... I think you need to read the statement on the web page cited and see what is written: "Information presented on the USASOC Homepage is considered public information and may be distributed or copied for non-commercial purposes. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." (This request has been submitted.) Also Wikipedia states clearly..."Works produced by civilian and military employees of the United States federal government in the scope of their employment are public domain by statute in the United States (though they may be protected by copyright outside of the U.S.)" --CWO5thGroupVet 01:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)stephen--CWO5thGroupVet 01:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, we don't copy/paste text here. Alright? You can re-write the content, maybe, but in addition to the fact that you're just copy/pasting text, I'm pretty sure that the text has a couple of POV violations, (On an everyday basis, Soldiers of the Group are deployed around the world, living up to their motto – De Oppresso Liber. “To Free the Oppressed.”) and their own homepage really doesn't count as a reliable source (see WP:RS and WP:V). So, besides the copyvio issue, there's a whole other bunch of problems with why we don't copy/paste, ok? If you want to find reliable sources that support some of the content, please feel free to put in the stuff that's verifable, and WP:CITE it. OK? Gscshoyru 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


CWO5thGroupVet: OK? I submit the above statement as a "Reliable" source I served from 87 to 99 and things have not changed much as far as our operations tempo...verify it yourself go to the USASOC command page and look at the magazine that is printed monthly...ok? I just got off the phone with members of the unit and they say the same thing...I think you really are out of your depth on this subject. My last duties was to update the unit history and submit a report to the USA Center of Military History. The statements concerning the mission is all over the internet and can easily be found in the military publications through the FOIA. Get off your high horse dude ok?

Let's look at your source (see WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. This page is a guideline, not a policy:" guideline not a policy which word do you not understand? Anyway here is the official Army site: http://www.goarmy.com/special_forces/

and the wikipedia site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Special_Forces --CWO5thGroupVet 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)CWO5thGroupVet--CWO5thGroupVet 03:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Keep reading that little box at the top. I don't think this falls under the occasional exception part. And you're not a reliable source either, by the way. However, in WP:V, which is policy, the section on self-published sources refutes this as well. And that still doesn't go beyond the fact that copy/pasting text is really, really bad. If you want to add parts of this to the article, that are verifiable, re-write them in a more encyclopedic tone, and cite them. OK? Gscshoyru 03:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


CWO5thGroupVet: Just because you, and I quote "don't think" dosen't give you the right to act like a Wiki-demigod... Well for your information and using your own logic what I wrote needs to be included and you should not remove it.

...you still do not get it do you? Show me with your own referance that what was added is incorrect. You are being a difficult person with some kind of personal agenda. Well so do I, but it is only based on historical information. You are not the reliable source! I think we need to get an arbitratior to settle this. --CWO5thGroupVet 03:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)CWO5thGroupVet--CWO5thGroupVet 03:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it. Besides the minor POV issues, and the fact that it's a copy/paste... wikipedia is not about what is true, but what is verifable. That's the way it tries to be. So you need to show something is true in order to add it. And as for arbitration -- move this to hte talk page of the article (the conversation) and see what people have to say. Oh, and one more thing, which does in fact apply to me as well --


CWO5thGroupVet: Let's look at what is policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. (I challenge you to verify and post your PROOF instead of just assuming you KNOW that the information I provided is not verifiable...you have an agenda and it is not useful for the content of this page.)Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

Are you saying right out that the offical Army website is not a reliable source? If so that is a political decision and has no place or moral standing in this situation. Besides I qoute "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." So since it is on thier site it is verifiable and in no way does it have to be proven TRUE according to Wikipedia. --CWO5thGroupVet 12:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)CWO5thGroupVet--CWO5thGroupVet 12:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 5th Special Forces Group (United States). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 03:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your involvement in edit-war on 5th Special Forces Group (United States) I have removed your addition for now since it is highly disputed, as user have some problems regarding several wikiguidelines. I have created a heading in the article's talk page to discuss your addition to gain consensus on what can be added and what not. Do NOT re-add your text but participate in a discussion. Simply re-adding your text will be considered vandalism an reported. I see that you already started discussing here, but I think it would be helpful to do so at the articles talkpage so other editors can voice their opinions also. Please cease this senseless edit warring. Thank you.--Fogeltje 08:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CWO5thGroupVet"

This page was last modified 08:59, September 13, 2007. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

CWO5th's reply

Sep 15 2007 CWO5th GroupVet states:

Here are my contentions with the other editors and the administrators:

What are the root concerns with adding the "Missions" information? Give it to me straight and without the wishy washy "I think or I don't think...etc."

Gscshoyru claims the following:

A. Do not add Copyrighted material

My position: "Information presented on the USASOC Homepage is considered public information and may be distributed or copied for non-commercial purposes. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." (This request for byline can be seen in the reference.)

Also Wikipedia states clearly..."Works produced by civilian and military employees of the United States federal government in the scope of their employment are public domain by statute in the United States (though they may be protected by copyright outside of the U.S.)"

B. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences...but we don't copy/paste text here. Period. Ok?

My position: A list of "missions' hardly constitutes real copyrighted or creative thought... it's just a list. There is no real reason to reword a list of stated facts or intent.

I do appreciate your last comment but the law and the policies and the guidelines give some indication that copy and paste is permitted- in certain instances and is quite in evidence throughout the whole of the wikipedia. So why are you being so harsh on me? (As I look at the original entry of the article I can find those same words on at least five different sites. Why am I being singled out?)

If you look at the article in whole you will find other sentences that probably meet the same condition you are accusing me of and these other will need to be removed as well. The careful selection you choose to make your point is not very professional.

C. I'm pretty sure that the text has a couple of POV violations...(see WP:RS and WP:V)...If you want to find reliable sources that support some of the content, please feel free to put in the stuff that's verifiable, and WP:CITE it.

My position: Let's look at what is policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.”Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. (If you looked at the reference you would have had the minimum verifiability requirement of this site. Even if there was no refinance it states any reader should be able to check...so that implies that the reader should check on his own outside of the context of the article.) Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

The bottom line is that I did meet all the standards stated as policy and guidelines, but for some reason you state that I did not...now it boils down to you as an established editor telling me that I am wrong...which really is not the case at all.

I will give you that I stated I was a reliable source and you mentioned the self published and I was wrong to include those arguments as proof or as a valid argument...sorry.


Conclusion. Your involvement in edit-war on 5th Special Forces Group (United States) I have removed your addition for now since it is highly disputed, as user have some problems regarding several wiki guidelines. I have created a heading in the article's talk page to discuss your addition to gain consensus on what can be added and what not. Do NOT re-add your text but participate in a discussion. Simply re-adding your text will be considered vandalism and reported. I see that you already started discussing here, but I think it would be helpful to do so at the articles talk page so other editors can voice their opinions also. Please cease this senseless edit waring. Thank you.--Fogeltje 08:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My position: I am new to the wiki concept and am at a disadvantage on the procedures and policies. But just because I know the policies and know how to get attention from an administrator does not justify my position.

I ask the higher ups and others why do the other editors have to be so high minded and bend the rules to meet their needs?

Why can another editor make claims that are not entirely true and then alienate another party?

If I would known the system I would have been the good guy reporting the other editor and then he would have been the "vandal".

As you can see by reading the rest of what is written you will see that I do have a vested interest in helping with this site. I served in this unit for over 13 years and was then and now interested in preserving its history. A casual reading will find that there are few "editorials or embellished comments" (whether they were mine or others contributions) but most of what is included on this site is just facts and dates.

I was told I violated different policies and I took the time to read articles on those subjects and learned that I was wrong sometimes and was right sometimes. But I never twisted the rules to suit my point of view.

I was told as I read that this was a consensus work designed to be used and maintained by as many contributors as possible...where does the elitism displayed by a few fall into that scheme of things? At no point was I approached by a third party and rules and guidelines were discussed all I get was a few elite users telling me I was wrong as statements of fact.

My conclusion is that I am disappointed that a few, who know the system, and have friends among administrators can get what they want and others suffer the result. If this was not so why didn't these same administrators try to educate me or have a neutral action aimed at useful resolutions?

Where is the discussion that this block was susposed to generate???

I'll respond to your points in the same format you stated them:
A. Whether the information is copyrighted or not, direct quotation without citing where it came from is plagiarism, and is not tolerated on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if it's a list, a few sentences, or 12 pages of text; plagiarism is plagiarism, plain and simple.
B. Same as above; if you're finding text that is a direct copy of what is on this article, you're likely viewing a mirror. Dozens of online reference websites more or less just mirror Wikipedia articles, which is fine and legal, because they state so at the bottom of the page.
C. Your comment about "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not thruth" is irrelevant when it comes to POV issues. Articles must remain neutral. They cannot make claims that support one side over another.
If you feel like you're being victimized by "elitist" editors, I apologize. My only intent on this, and any other article, is to help improve Wikipedia. My suggestion for this article is to take the text from the soc.mil website, and rewrite it, preferably using other sources as well, and properly cite it. Parsecboy 15:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Disband date?

According to the unit history section, the 5SFG was first disbanded in France on 06 JAN 1945, which would have been right in the middle of WWII, not after. Should this date be in 1946, or was the unit really disbanded during the war? 70.182.54.125 (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, new sections go at the bottom of the talk page. As for your question, the Official History page states the date in 1945. Hope that helps. Parsecboy (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Since when is January 6th, 1945 the middle of WWII? Last I checked, the Euro war ended on May 7th, 1945. It's perfectly understandable for them to disband during this time. They felt as though they didn't need them at that point in time (And they didn't). Zellthemedic (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


FROM THE US ARMY'S CENTER FOR MILITARY HISTORY: Constituted 5 July 1942 in the Army of the United States as Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 1st Battalion, Third Regiment, 1st Special Service Force, a combined Canadian-American organization Activated 9 July 1942 at Fort William Henry Harrison, Montana, Disbanded 6 January 1945 in France. Reconstituted 15 April 1960 in the Regular Army; concurrently consolidated with Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 5th Ranger Infantry Battalion (activated 1 September 1943), and consolidated unit redesignated as Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 5th Special Forces Group, 1st Special Forces,(Organic elements constituted 8 September 1961) Group activated 21 September 1961 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. I stand corrected;Meyerj (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This article states "During the Vietnam war the 5th Special Forces Group was a new invention." So how is something new in 1961, 62 or 65 depending how you interpret their birth, if it is originally constituted in 1942? In this case I don't agree with the way the US Army established the unit history and honors, but then again they don't ever ask for my input. Meyerj (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

THE 3-STRIPE INSIGNIA?

WHY DOES THAT INSIGNIA LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE (ARVN) FLAG?

THE 3-STRIPE INSIGNIA?

WHY DOES THAT INSIGNIA LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE (ARVN) FLAG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.169.85 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Special Forces community in the US Army likes to claim its origins back to the 1st Special Service Force (FSSF) of WWII, a joint organization of His Royal Majesties Canadian Forces and US Forces. This unit was a light infantry (meaning without armored vehicles or with limited motor vehicle) brigade (a task organized organization, in this case made up of more than one Regiment)trained for dismounted (on foot) cold regions and mountainous conventional infantry tactical missions and not for intelligence collection, subversion, clandestine operations or training indigenous peoples for counter insurgency operations. Additionally, some like to claim that they are an outgrowth of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) of WWII which eventually became the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), whose war mission was primarily clandestine (subversion) and intelligence collection. (I believe) U.S. Special Forces were an attempt to keep up with the joneses, i.e. the British Special Air Service developed during WII. The SF community today would prefer not to be linked to the CIA which directed much of the use of SF in the early years (pre 1968) of the Viet Nam War. There is some claim that the origins of their beret goes back to the Tam worn by many of the Pre American Revolutionary War British rangers employed to fight the French during the French and Indian War (1754–1763), some of whose members continued to support the Loyalist side and some supported and fought for the colonist side during the revolution. Note the continued relationships with forces of Great Brittan. There are claims that the Fifth Special Forces Group (Airborne) is a descendent of one of the subordinate elements of the FSSF. That is reaching, like saying they are descendent from George Washington’s scouts at Valley Forge. In actuality they were formed in North Carolina and began sending small elements to the Republic of Viet Nam to conduct missions previously performed by the 1st SF Group out of Okinawa. Because the organization was headquartered in Viet Nam from 1965 to 1971, they applied the crimson and gold striping of the RVN to their beret flash; which they proudly wore until a new generation of Special Operators came along. Because they are still an active unit in the US Army and because they wish to separate themselves from the unsuccessful Viet Nam War, they officially dropped the diagonal stripes in 1985 in favor of an all black flash which suposedly was the original appearance in 1960 when they were formed. Meyerj (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the information concerning dates, changes, etc. of the flash need to be re-examined. From a recent article by a military historian (and former member of 5th) LTC Baldwin [1]

Mike Nomad (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Some content should be transfered to the article on US Special Forces

The majority of the honors and awards area should be transfered to the article on US SF. This article should only address information about the 5th SFG(A). SOG was a Joint Chiefs of Staff organization and admin resposability was dumped on the 5th SFG by Military Assistance Command - Vietnam at the earliest moment possible. Actual control and assignment authority of SOG remained at JCS.

The numbers addressing award totals include all awards recomended to higher HQ or approved by SF units (that is 7th Group, 5th Group, SOG and 1st Group and some of those recipiants were not Special Forces. Meyerj (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 5th Special Forces Group (United States). 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:

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) 05:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC) archiving

  1. ^ http://soldiersystems.net/2016/04/04/terry-baldwin-5th-group-reflashing-ceremony/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:5th_Special_Forces_Group_(United_States)/Archive_1&oldid=817445587"