Talk:Delta Force/Archive 2

Page naming?
Should the page really be named Delta Force? it seems a bit informal and no other military page's are named after their nicknames, i.e 1st infantry division, shouldn't the page rather be named by the detatchemnts actual name, 1st SFOD-D? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.240.205 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. It's our policy to name articles based on the name most commonly used and easiest to recognize. In this case,

that's "Delta Force". Rklawton (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * hmm, okay seems like a decent reson i guess 58.174.240.205 (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see your "Delta Force" and raise you United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group, which is most well-known as "SEAL Team Six" and is probably better-known overall than Delta as a result of Operation Neptune Spear, which is itself better known as "Operation Geronimo", even though "Geronimo" was merely bin Laden's code name (edit: and even that isn't true—"Geronimo" was the code name for "step G" of the operation—the step that involved the killing of bin Laden). Situations like these are what redirects are for. 70.172.215.165 (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm missing your point, but what does that have to do with this article? This article's title is based on the common name for the subject. Other articles may not do so, but that would be a discussion for that article's talk page, not this one. - SudoGhost 06:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The point is that the policy, like any Wiki policy, isn't hard and fast and oughtn't be. Common sense and a little research dictate both that the Charlie Sheen article should not be "Carlos Estévez" and that the DEVGRU article should not be "SEAL Team Six". The former is a case of the common name being the more correct one despite not being "technically" correct, while the latter is an example of the more common name being less correct than the real one. Why shouldn't we just let the title of DEVGRU be SEAL Team Six if a simple Google count is the only metric we use to determine what an article should be called? The answer is because Wikipedia isn't meant to forge a consensus reality; it's meant to reflect reality. It should acknowledge inaccuracies and correct them, not perpetuate them. It should provide assistance to users by acknowledging the common names of subjects and re-directing them to the correct articles, but it shouldn't use those names itself as if they were appropriate. 70.172.215.165 (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "a simple Google count" isn't what we use to determine the common name, it is what reliable sources use to describe the subject. I took a look through the sources in the article, and most of them clarify the "official name" elsewhere, but they refer to this article's subject as Delta Force, and these sources include government officials.  The sources also say that " Delta Force is an official title commonly used to refer to the unit.", so it cannot be said that this title is somehow an "inaccuracy". - SudoGhost 16:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course they say what its most common name is, just as the article does—they (and it) have to, or people might not make the connection. Nowhere in the article does it mention that "Delta Force" is an official title. In fact, the introduction all but explicitly says that it's an informal name. Which source are you referring to? 70.172.215.165 (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

-- Don't worry Hondo most of the information on this article is complete crap. Utter nonsense. Not that civvy's would know any better. Time to change my IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.135.135 (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Proper name
This is a case where WP:OSE applies in the affirmative. Just as the "DEVGRU / SEAL TEAM SIX / Guys that killed bin Laden" page goes by the unit's formal title; United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group, so should this page. This page's proper title should be "1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta". (with redirects from "1st SFOD-D", "Delta", "Delta Force", "Combat Applications Group", "CAG", "Army Compartmented Elements" and "ACE") From what I understand, the operators of this unit, (and the SOF community as a whole) don't use "Delta Force"... in fact, they hate it. (No, I don't have a source for that). The term has largely been propagated by the media and the entertainment and gaming industries (which Wikipedia is not a part of). This is clearly demonstrated by google counts (speaking of...), there are only about 93,000 hits for "1st SFOD-D", but there is almost 50 million (!) hits for "Delta Force". Why not respect what the actual operators of this unit want and use, and go by the proper name, which we should've be doing in the first place. -  thewolfchild  21:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Move
Anyone object to moving the page to "1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta", with a redirect to "Delta Force" (and the others noted above), so ye all speaketh now. -  thewolfchild  21:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is just a comment and not a !vote but I believe it is "Delta Force" largely due to WP:COMMONNAME. —  - dain   omite    22:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME states the name must be accurate and correct. We don't if that is the case here... has the US Army officially named this unit after a Chuck Norris movie? We do know that it's first, official proper name was 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (sometimes "Delta", for short, as well as possibly being subsequently renamed CAG and then ACE). COMMON also calls for precision, that names "unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". There's a disamb page with a half dozen other Delta Forces on it. 1st SFOD-D is not going to be confused for a movie or a Norwegian Swat team. Furthermore, Common calls for adherence to naming conventions. This is a military article. From what I can see, military articles go by proper names and titles, not popular nicknames. -  thewolfchild  01:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * From commonname... "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." I'm not sure if you checked the page logs but someone already moved Delta Force to 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta in December 2012 and it was reverted citing COMMONNAME. If you choose to go about this suggested name change I suggest Requested moves. —  - dain   omite    02:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME is Delta Force, and is the primary topic for the phrase "Delta Force". It's official name is important to include in the lede (and it is), but is not the criteria by which articles are titled.  Just as an example, Bill Gates is not his birth name or his legal name, and there are other people by that name, but he's what people mean when they say "Bill Gates", and most people refer to him as such.  That's why his article is at that title, and this article is the same situation. - Aoidh (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that's why we have redirects. People looking for "Delta Force", will still find it, but the article will be appropriately titled, like the rest of the military articles here, just as COMMONNAME demands. By the way, as for examples... you don't see the USS Enterprise (CV(N)-6) titled Big 'E', but that was a nick name that it was (and still is) popularly known by. Mike Tyson isn't titled Iron Mike and the Volkswagen Beetle isn't titled VW Bug, but again, these are popular, COMMON NAMES that these subjects go by. The aspects of COMMONNAME you may be referring to are not carved in stone. In many cases, it is more appropriate that the proper confirmed and sourced name be used. This is the case here. -  thewolfchild  05:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between "a common name" and "the most common name", and none of your examples are the latter, whereas this article's current title is. That's why we have WP:COMMONNAME; redirects are useful and allow 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta to redirect here, but that's not cause to move the article from the current title, nor does anything currently written at WP:COMMONNAME. - Aoidh (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * First off, your argument appears to be based on present tense. But whereas it has been years since the WWII aircraft carrier has been referred to much at all, it could be argued that during the 80's and 90's, "Iron Mike" was the common name for Tyson. Considering his notability is based primarily on his status as a boxer in that era, the example stands up quite well. But, again, if you are indeed focused strictly on the present, then "VW Bug" is arguably "the most" common name for that car today. But another, even more fitting example is another military article, and 1st SFOD-D's direct naval counterpart, the Naval Special Warfare Development Group. Really, who calls it that ? This unit existed in relative obscurity until the bin Laden raid. Now it is known primarily as "SEAL Team Six". (And after that, DEVGRU). But, as the convention is with military articles, the proper unit name is used as the page title. Changing the title, would keep the articles consistent. And, as I've pointed out, we haven't confirmed that "Delta Force" is a title ever officially used by that unit, therefore, using "1st Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta", is ensuring that the correct name is used. You commented that "...but that's not cause to move the article from the current title, nor does anything currently written at WP:COMMONNAME". Well, "convention", "consistency" and "correctness" are currently written into WP:COMMONNAME. -  thewolfchild   18:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It is present tense because the sources still exist. You could possibly argue that "VW Bug" is the most common name, but if you feel that's the case you're welcome to bring that up at Talk:Volkswagen Beetle, not here.  You're still using the assumption that arguing "proper over WP:COMMONNAME" means anything, but that's not how Wikipedia articles work.  Articles use WP:COMMONNAME, that is "consistent"; ignoring that policy in inconsistent with how article titles work on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, your argument appears to be based on present tense. But whereas it has been years since the WWII aircraft carrier has been referred to much at all, it could be argued that during the 80's and 90's, "Iron Mike" was the common name for Tyson. Considering his notability is based primarily on his status as a boxer in that era, the example stands up quite well. But, again, if you are indeed focused strictly on the present, then "VW Bug" is arguably "the most" common name for that car today. But another, even more fitting example is another military article, and 1st SFOD-D's direct naval counterpart, the Naval Special Warfare Development Group. Really, who calls it that ? This unit existed in relative obscurity until the bin Laden raid. Now it is known primarily as "SEAL Team Six". (And after that, DEVGRU). But, as the convention is with military articles, the proper unit name is used as the page title. Changing the title, would keep the articles consistent. And, as I've pointed out, we haven't confirmed that "Delta Force" is a title ever officially used by that unit, therefore, using "1st Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta", is ensuring that the correct name is used. You commented that "...but that's not cause to move the article from the current title, nor does anything currently written at WP:COMMONNAME". Well, "convention", "consistency" and "correctness" are currently written into WP:COMMONNAME. -  thewolfchild   03:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you meant to copy the same comment, but if that's the only rationale then there's no cause to move the article from its current title. - Aoidh (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I re-posted because your reply did not make sense, and it appeared you hadn't actually read what I wrote. Indeed, you seem to be avoiding or ignoring most of the points I have made. I have shown multiple reasons to move the page, whereas you keep writing "COMMONNAME, COMMONNAME, COMMONNAME", without it actually supporting your point, or refuting mine. -  thewolfchild   17:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Copy-pasting the exact same comment because you don't like the response you got isn't going to make your comment somehow more relevant the second time. Your argument is based on the assumption that articles on Wikipedia use the official name and that this is how titles are determined; it is not. Wikipedia article use the most common title, not the official one. Most of the time the official name is also the most common name, so that's not an issue. But when they aren't, we use the most commonly used title. That is Wikipedia policy, so when your argument for renaming the article is that it isn't the official name, that doesn't matter because that is not how articles are titled on Wikipedia. Don't confuse my not agreeing with you with avoiding or ignoring you, because that's not the case and it's been explained multiple times now why; because there is a longstanding consensus on Wikipedia written into policy that the most commonly used and recognizable title is used over any official title. - Aoidh (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

(see cont'd)


 * Aoidh is correct, with minor exceptions that don't apply in this case. Rklawton (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Um, no he's not. And what exceptions are you referring to? -  thewolfchild   23:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(cont'd) Aoidh, I re-posted my comment because your reply gave no indication that you either read it at all, or read it and understood it. Maybe that is my fault, perhaps I'm not explaining myself clearly enough. You wrote; "Your argument is based on the assumption that articles on Wikipedia use the official name and that this is how titles are determined; it is not." That, is not my argument.

My argument is that; 1) You're applying COMMONNAME as a hard and fast rule, which it isn't, it's a guideline. Per COMMONNAME;"'These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus.'"

2) The naming of this page is in conflict with several of the guidelines listed at COMMONNAME;

- This title is based on one that was created for a film that heavily fictionalizes 1stSFOD-D, and has since been erroneously applied by the media and others to the actual unit. This is an error that Wikipedia should not be perpetuating. This title in not precise, as per COMMONNAME.
 * Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

- The title "1st Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta" does distinguish it from the other 'Delta Forces' found on WP and is exactly the title the unit was created with (confirmed here and here). Since then, there have been official revisions such as "Combat Applications Group (CAG)" and "Army Compartmented Elements (ACE)", but those are covered in the article, just as "Delta", "D-boys", and "The Unit" are nicknames and covered under "Nicknames". That is where "Delta Force" belongs, with the other nicknames. This title is not concise as per COMMONNAME.
 * Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.

- All other military articles are titled by their proper name. (see United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (SEAL Team Six) and United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program (Top Gun). These are two perfect examples. One is a direct counter-part to the article subject in question, the other is a unit of the U.S. military that is also the name of a movie. Using this current title is inconsistent with COMMONNAME.
 * Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles.

3) Aditionally; a) COMMONNAME states;"'Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.'" - This title is inaccurate as it comes from a movie, and was applied after the fact. There is not one reference that confirms the U.S. Army (or U.S. Gov't for that matter) as referring to 1st SFOD-D as "Delta Force". The fact is, they don't. The current title is ambiguous.

b)COMMONNAME states;"'Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what names are most frequently used.'" -For this, I direct you to our sister site, for usage within another encyclopedia. c)COMMONNAME also has an entire section about neutrality. Again, I believe using a name created to promote a movie, is in violation of this.

In closing, I will ask that if you still disagree that the change should be made, I would ask that you respond on a point-by-point basis with all the points I have presented, instead of just lumping everything together with a singularly generic answer, (such as: "Your argument is this, but COMMONNAME says it isn't). Thanks -  thewolfchild   23:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

sub-section 1

 * The book, Delta Force by the unit's founder Col Beckwith, predates the movie and gave the unit its common name. And you've not presented significant evidence that Delta Force isn't the unit's commonly accepted name. Rklawton (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, thank you for ignoring all the other points I've made. But as for the book, "Delta Force" is a title of a privately published novel, not an official document of the US Army or US Gov't. It's the same principle as the film - advertising. (It sells better than "1st Special Forces Operational detachment - Delta." Was the official name even mentioned in the book? Was it allowed to be?) As for your request that I "presented significant evidence that Delta Force isn't the unit's commonly accepted name", that is putting a reverse onus on me. Actually, it is you that needs to prove that it is an accepted name within US special operations circles and/or the upper echelon of the military, and, (as per COMMONNAME) that the name is correct, for it to be used as the title of the article. As for "commonly accepted name", please re-read part 2 of my post.
 * Also, you still haven't responded to my first reply to you in this thread. -  thewolfchild   03:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. And yes, you want the move. The onus is entirely on you. Rklawton (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Am I to take it that your reply "You're welcome" as confirming your intention to ignore the majority of the points I have made? As for your other comment; "you want the move", well, sure I do, but not so much as a personal preference, but as need to have the correct name, as per wiki-policy, COMMONNAME. There is no reliable sources to confirm that this name is even correct, so, as I've already pointed out, that is a violation of policy, (one of the several). And, on that note, No, the onus is entirely on you to provide reliable sources that warrant the inclusion/use of the name as a page title. It not policy to force others to try and prove a negative, as a means to avoid the guidelines. -  thewolfchild  22:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus
OK, all in favor of moving "Delta Force" to "1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta" please read the thread above and make your wishes known. Rklawton (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I believe most people immediately grasp "Delta Force" and wouldn't have a clue what "1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta" means. We aren't bound to official names that tend to change with every military re-organization. Folks searching for this unit are more likely to search on "Delta Force" than they are "1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta". The organization's founder referred to them as "Delta Force". A Google News search on "Delta Force" turns up (at the moment) 184 results. A Google News search on "1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta" turns up zero results. I chose Google News because it limits searches to media published within the last 30 days thereby eliminating fansites for the movies and books, and it illustrates which term is in current use. A regular search shows more than 4:1 favoring "Delta Force". Either way, it's obvious "Delta Force" is the common name. Rklawton (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * * Right... once again, you ignore every point I made, and instead, jump ahead with a consensus vote. By the way, #redirects invalidate your whole argument. What a joke. -  thewolfchild   07:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The decision of how articles are titled on Wikipedia is based on consensus, and a very large part of that consensus is WP:COMMONNAME (which is a policy, not a guideline). Policies are not hard and fast rules, but that doesn't mean they can be discarded without reason.  The title is overwhelmingly the primary topic for this subject and is concise and precise enough without being too precise.  In short, the current title meets every criteria Wikipedia has when determining an article's title.  The only thing it lacks is that it isn't the official name, and an argument was put forth that this creates inconsistency because some other article do use the official name.  However, those articles use the official name because of WP:COMMONNAME, not in spite of it.  They use the most commonly used name; that it happens to also be the official name is good, but not why those titles were chosen.  The titles are chosen because they are most commonly used, are concise, and recognizable. - Aoidh (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * * Guideline, Policy, whatever. Even if you really do think this conforms to commonname, this is a case where it would need to be ignored, for the sake of consistency and respect due a correct name vs. a made up, lay person name. If anything, it should at least just be "Delta", instead of "Delta force". Furthermore, please confirm you believe "United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group" is the "...most commonly used, are concise, and recognizable..." name, as opposed to "DEVGRU", or "SEAL Team Six", because I find that hard to believe. -  thewolfchild   07:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, such articles use the most common name, and that is consistency; ignoring that would not only create an inconsistent naming scheme but would also lose the benefit of being more easily recognizable, which creates multiple reasons why such a move would be a step in the wrong direction. - Aoidh (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think COMMONNAME gets misapplied a lot of the time, but in this case, the common name is truly the most recognizable and most likely search term. Even among those knowledgeable on the topic, the term is more commonly used. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * * Yes, COMMONNAME does get misapplied a lot, and right here is a perfect example. "Even among those knowledgeable on the topic" will know that "1st Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta" was the first official name for the unit, and is still known today. Anyone else looking will still find it thru #redirects. -  thewolfchild   07:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per COMMONNAME since Delta Force is the most recognizable and prevalent term in english-language sources. —  - dain   omite    12:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * * You oppose?, that surprises me. -  thewolfchild   07:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Abstain, I'm not going to even bother voting. COMMONNAME has no clear application if favour the current name, what-so-ever. All of your arguments are completely negated by redirects, and also, completely contradicted by the DEVGRU page, (among others). So, sure, let's keep "Delta Force". It just sounds so much cooler. Silly me, here I thought WP was an encyclopedia, not a fan-site. -  thewolfchild   07:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If that's all you take from this, then you've lost an opportunity to learn something. I think you spent so much time trying to make your point that you failed to fully appreciate the views of others. Rklawton (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, the irony... -  thewolfchild   00:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"Operator" section
This section is in need of rewite/updating While true that initially the term "operator" was used only to refer to Delta, it has since grown to be used by other special operations forces, and has gained recognition by the pentagon as such. For instance, SEALs used to be required to test within their MOS for promotion, so a SEAL who was trained, initially, as a sonar technician, would have to test as a sonar tech for promotion, NOT as a SEAL. That has since changed, and SEALs are now given SEAL specific MOS ratings, as "Special Warfare Operator _____ Class." Clearly the term "operator" now, officially, refers to SEALs as well. The section should reflect that, or be scrapped as outdated. 208.40.242.41 (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Related Q: If SF Delta members are called Operators, what are non-Delta SF members called?

Phantom in ca (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Operator" has become a generic colloquialism for combat roles in the special operations community. It's modern usage is so broad that the Marine Corps even felt the need, for whatever absurd reason, to call their new special operations MOS Critical Skill Operator. Some guys in the community hate it, others like it but most are rather indifferent. With the manner in which the term is used it doesn't really delineate anything. Aside from the historical note that the term came out of Delta there is no reason to attempt to catalog the term's contemporary meaning as it doesn't have one.TomPointTwo (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinvced that the matter deserves a section in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A CAG Squadron consists of Approximately 50 operators. It is broken into three 16 man Troops; 2 Assault Troops, and 1 Sniper Troop, plus the Squadron HQ. An Assault Troop consists of a four man Head Quarters element, Troop Commander, Troop Sergeant Major, Troop Communications Chief, and Troop Medic, and then 12 Assaulters, which are typically organized into three 4 man teams, or two 6 man team (referred to as "Heavy"), plus any attachments that there might be (i.e. such as CCT). A Sniper Troop, also consists of 16 operators, the same 4 man HQ elements, and then the other 12 Snipers are divided into two 6 man sections, which are further divided into 2 man sniper teams. A sniper team consists of a Sniper and an Observer (who is usually the Team Leader). CAG recruits from ALL of the different service branches (including the Coast Guard) of the Military unlike DEVGRU, which recruits exclusively from within the ranks of the Navy SEALs. They are THREE Operational Squadrons (A,B, and C). It also takes about 2 years to become a full fledged "Operator," after you complete the 6 month OTC, you also have to complete an 18-month probationary/OTJ period, after which you receive the "T" identifier. In addition, CAG Operators also serve as part of Intelligence Support Activity (also known as "The Activity", "Task Force Orange", and the "Army of Northern Virginia"), which conducts SR operations in Sensitive, Denied or Restricted territories, they also do things like Target Acquisition and TTL, using things like Blackbird systems, "Airscan", and other covert SIGINT. There is also a Tier above this, it is referred to as "PM" (Paramilitary). These are the Operators, who are discharged from the military and then are hired by PMCs and then go to work for groups such as SAD/SOG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.118.245 (talk • contribs)

"USASOC patch worn by Delta"
Is there any verification or reliable source that says "Delta" wear that patch?

Also fair use: "In rare instances, the U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) may link to websites that are not government-owned or government-sponsored if these websites provide government information and/or services in a way that is not available on an official government website. USASOC provides these non-government websites as a public service only. USASOC neither endorses nor guarantees in any way the external organizations, services, advice, or products included in these website links. Furthermore, USASOC neither controls nor guarantees the accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness of the information contained in non-government website links". Please provide a reference and also a permission slip given out by the US Federal Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.79.213 (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take your second question first. I think you're asking about the fair use of the image, yes? According to US copyright law all images produced by a federal employee in the performance of their duties is in the public domain. If the federal government created it, there is no copyright. As for the first, Delta doesn't have an official Shoulder Sleeve Insignia patch for a couple reasons. As far as the US Army is officially concerned, the unit doesn't exist. Of course it does exist, everyone knows it exists and everyone in it has to have something on their paperwork and uniform, they don't just fall into an administrative black hole during their tenure in unit. Also, the Army's Shoulder Sleeve Insignia works by parent organization so if you're part of a tactical element that's administratively part of USASOC then you'll wear the USASOC SSI. I'm 99% sure there's a reference for that somewhere in Haney's book or some other well worn place but if you want it taken out until that's found then that's not a big deal for me. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood, however Special Mission Units such as the CIA SAD as well as many other compartmented SCI units have been known to use a front or cover name and unit. Haney's book is very old and the entire Unit has had radical changes pre 9/11. Just like other Special Operations forces around the globe 'Delta' will use whatever cover they deem necessary, on the article it even states that they were attached to the USMC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.79.213 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth the CIA's SAD isn't a Special Mission Unit. "Special Mission Unit" is just a bureaucratic designation used by JSOC for the purposes of funding and tasking, it doesn't really carry any real meaning outside of that world. Guys in SMUs are still in the military, they still have dress uniform regulations, administrative hierarchies and the other mundane organizational stuff that goes along with government work. When a Delta guy gets forced to climb into his pickle suit it still still has to have an SSI. Last I checked that was still the USASOC's patch. Which brings me to the other thing.


 * Most of this article is bogus. More than half is outdated, taken out of context, a half truth or just flat out wrong. Even the name, Delta, is just a common colloquialism. The inevitable reality of dealing with subjects that are based on classified and highly perishable information is you will never achieve a broad degree of specific truth. Only verifiability. If some guy wrote it in a book and that guy is deemed to be a subject matter expert or a reliable source by the criteria set forth here then it gets pushed into the article. It's not a fixable dilemma. If you know it's wrong you can't prove it. If you can prove it then it's probably already be in the article. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP editor is missing the point here. Nobody is saying that Delta might not wear other patches to protect identities etc. Of course that happens and of course theiy're allowed to do it. However, the SSI they are assigned is the one in the picture. For example, when they have to take their official file photos, they wear a class A uniform, complete with SSI. If you look at the file photos of Randy Shugart and Gary Gordon used in their Wikipedia articles, you'll see both Delta operators wearing that ASOC SSI. I'm restoring it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, I actually didn't want to give any examples of actual Special Mission Units because some are SCI and examples just help create Wikipedia pages that are not needed, OPSEC has been compromised one time to many. I can see that they would wear it on Class A, however could you at least include a piece to say that the patch is not only worn by Delta? Also what happened to all the other talk on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.166.54 (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would we say it isn't only worn by Delta? Nobody said it was. It is clearly identified as the USASOC patch, not the Delta patch. The C stand for command, not a single unit. As for the other, outdated talk, those were archived and the link is at the top of the page. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Because I have seen people talk online about Delta and say it is the official patch, maybe thats for the simple wiki page though. haha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.40.52 (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We can't prevent people from making incorrect assumptions. The patch is clearly, correctly labeled. It is the official patch for Delta....and others USASOC units.Niteshift36 (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Green
Stanley A. McChrystal's memoir, My Share of the Task consistently refers to "Green" and never mentions "Delta Force." Is "Green" another name for "Delta Force?" On page 93 he says
 * Although I had served in special operations for much of the previous eighteen years, I was from the Rangers and had never served in either of the other units&mdash;“Green” (the Army's elite commando unit) and “Blue” (the Navy SEAL special mission unit)&mdash;considered the crown jewels of the command and of TF 714.

"Blue" sounds like the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group (SEAL Team Six). The Special Mission Unit article needs some TLC but it identifies four Special Mission Units, with one of them being "1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (1st SFOD-D), or Delta Force."

In the introduction of his book McChrystal state that he sometimes used pseudonyms to shield operational details from the general public. Is "Green" a standard military term or is that one of McChrystal's pseudonyms? McChrystal used "Green" hundreds of times in the book. I don't think he ever used "Blue" other than on page 93. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 19:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't "green" simply refer to Special Forces, commonly called green berets? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sean Naylor reports in "Not a Good Day to Die" that, in the context of JSOC ops, the JSOC units are sometimes designated by color code :
 * Task Force Green = Delta
 * Task Force Blue = SEAL Team 6
 * Task Force White = 24th STS
 * Task Force Red = Rangers
 * Task Force Brown = 160th SOAR
 * Task Force Orange = the former Intelligence Support Activity

Task Force Green/Blue, depending on context, may be either an alias for a unit ("a Blue guy" = a SEAL Team 6 operator) or the unit detachment deployed in theater (Task Force Blue was the name of the ST-6 detachment in Afghanistan).

Previously, in Panama (1989) and Haiti (1993), some of these names had already been used for components of a large JSOTF which included JSOC and non-JSOC special units. Task Force White in Panama was then a "white" (non-classified) Navy SOF detachment, while TF Blue was a SEAL Team 6 detachment. Rob1bureau (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Regular SEAL Teams are classified under "Vanilla", "Blue" is always ST6, and "Green" is always Delta. And to the person asking why Green isn't referred to for Special Forces, it's because SF has no place on the JSOC Task Forces, hence no color designation. - d375 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.195.186 (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Moved operations to it's own page and created entry al-Liby capture.
Operations section was taking up over 2/3rds of the page and looked really bulky imho. I have created it's own page. I have not edited anything from the original section (other than my al-Liby contribution). I assume no one should have much problem with this, if someone does feel free to let me know. Also, at the end of my day so if someone could do a quick once over to make sure everything looks good it'd be much appreciated. Cheers, Sulfurboy (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons photo
Since the Nick refuses to discuss the issue here, I'll start the discussion for him. The image is currently in the Commons and has a license. Just because it is your personal opinion that the license isn't correct doesn't mean you get to declare it as fact and everyone has to accept it. Do you have any evidence that the license is incorrect? Why do you refuse to nominate it for deletion? That would instantly solve this issue. There is a current license displayed. It's up to you to either nominate it or show evidence that the license is incorrect (something I've done before). Until then, I have returned it in good faith. It would be nice if you'd assume a little on your end. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As the US military almost never releases images of Delta force, and no source is provided for the image uploaded to Commons there's no reason to assume that this is actually a public domain image, and lots of reasons to assume that its a copyright violation (and quite possibly a fake). Per WP:COPYLINK we don't link to images on Commons which can be reasonably assumed to be copyright violations. I also noted an example of a recent WP:AN discussion on your talk page where there was clear consensus in regards to this principle (Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262). Given that you want to use the image, can you please explain the grounds on which you believe that the image is actually genuine and PD? - the onus is actually on you to establish this if you think it's OK to use given that this isn't currently established by the details in the Commons record. I have in fact nominated the image for deletion, so I'm not sure why you're claiming that I'm refusing to do this. Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That discussion you keep linking is mainly you talking and a couple of people finally chiming in. Hardly the big stick you're acting like it was. Why do I say you refused? Well, because your removal was contested and you just edit warred. You finally nominated it, so this should be over soon. Right now, the contributor asserts it is PD. We AGF and follow the process. The process is to nominate it, allow discussion and then delete it if that is the result. I'm glad that you've finally decided to follow the process. You'll have your way in a few days. So relax. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any particular grounds for thinking it's actually PD? Taking the say-so of someone on Commons who's uploaded lots of images which have been deleted as being copyright violations isn't a tenable reasons for keeping a dubious image in an article given that the policy is to remove links to content which can be reasonably be assumed to be copyright violations (see also WP:DCV), and your understanding of process here isn't correct (what you rudely dismiss as "mainly you talking and a couple of people finally chiming in" was a discussion among experienced editors on this very topic...). Can you please provide a link to a policy or guideline which supports your contention that the norm is to leave questionable Commons images in articles until they are removed from Commons? Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

− ::*So rudely dismiss? Look Nick, I'm sorry that your feelings are hurt because someone doesn't just bow to your little admin icon and let you do what you please. I'm sure it would be easier for you if nobody expected you to use the process, but well, here we are. I see an image that CURRENTLY has a license asserted. There is nothing preventing use. In a few days, it will probably be deleted. I'm not sure why you feel the need to disregard showing some good faith towards the uploader, nor am I sure why you feel this need to shortcut the process. Let the deletion process handle it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I asked before, can you please provide a link to a guideline or policy which supports your position, or evidence that the image can in fact be reasonably assumed to be PD? It is my understanding, supported by the links I've provided, that the rule is to pre-emptively remove images such as this, and as such your position is not correct. Nick-D (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Niteshift36 - I tried to find anything which backs up the claim that the source of this image is US Army and I couldn't find anything via Google Image search at least [https://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbs=sbi:AMhZZivSwQR3c7gdvQtb-m2OqZo7NBPoff8d9ejeJanblTe0o9ikrWRFAtDEkn51ZbS2bRWCqBkbxJsC8c4qDLwagF_1G772gvDTdZNiQnFu6EzFR7jgWJ4LcbtNoxY2ioQfUCILo9O2f0DIRuaPDmseGfppul0-AdnoJdgD2EyDsYtvqYihiBwQFNUdEmMPwa5zGhGKRRwG0nC4X5U7PY0THMru4lCpPIapDGCgMBe31oqSEvWd8N8Ff3dNvyCJUC4DAV1ihQuORBUNkixsalVhcQDOwo28K6zx5pvjk7peuEJenYGw2tH8IMN0sfcCdF-VG4gHAuTvi1Lzp40mUQj-Phf0Ev6oURaZUBcvz48Ms0pOjKLDQ10KrGaXjP2bO0qSwaBQIllHCu8ptVqT4iU4EI1RUUWftWDI5rEp15YRTBgCvI9sgd8fNW91-rjvJtfezKGiavOq6Pj4nio7WBhme-MIZAK1oezzkuOR5MofiosjjzxLWuTC3MT1YcBDi4l1NEjmYvQRnwu4oJe7f_18mi4uoGrV7DahYoDxWJwZcyR956QEi0ejHFnllmphqvs9OKXTWXjy46rgmr8OMZ4ebHSqjspr85R_1GMwwjBHzxcE7Zas4SeE70U8w80WesrtywaclgKSRMhSu6yvO-MIplo969XDAX7ESaQP4GNbpf69rd7iWnhI_1pi1NN9j5GfFwiGNIuXkNgbAggTY5Dyp7ERZhtupG_1kFfUzQ9fDoueSh1obW2lP64CXotx_1ZmlenCg6OMk9ZaOFSXpxwu1FhWXTNG3ytg2m2kyeBAhZyq0S3QZ5-N7tHAy6jO7d-8sNR0Cg3wXBNrCSSFHImeb5WuKZv3VnSK81uIDrpsJ9hB7L7oYsIBo7GJYnLI_1FmHabTZjLxgfrSYH637zff6EwPtLzCG8yyJUtSXGfq4WiCMbgllDNaSULWpU8Q80IkpR7X2JkU5SWr2OjIrIO8VvgOyVFiEq-Fj7hnziXsySIXL-VXF2xDejlS6YwTyNoRP1abQBDeUest2Q-sT7b2Q4PBBYP8C2r5htmTJMS2QpXmTzL8DzoC7DGDNEqMmvOOxMH4sPaXkv2gQu4wGQfPAL0YZ9V8_1PA31da5Bfi-tyci6nnkbfEWQCUKOyhAs-V4PKBYC9v-mMsAgWMEcWE0cmls-EH-ian_1HTzl4BXgt3_1hwGIf41SoYCagwlmtPm7xm9i8sj8go9L0tkTm7R3EqSIP4tYmVuF-MqR3Fonr2xgsjFH6m6LTbOItGLzSzANvGc0YzGdk4JxeIlevaInzbLiSOVfipGEmNTBdycNk_10gPGsGzGaZ7u2UzYaYklAieX0Wb_1LOtl0h7_1k2fA-fDAu2z-0vMHoQTT9zeXPJgiaE_1E4XsxLPyClme5Iqe35ipkCEqDW1KZcyvh00EDDEUqYPSa9IO2xmCBRydQl_1OvVTfRHmXzQ7sANry3ddqMSv_1z13-r6bKafQOp7e&ei=yKibU6rpE8PNkwWahYDABg&start=20&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=620]. It does seem to be used on a large number of SF-related websites but nothing official so I think the uploader's claim is quite reasonably called into question. Nick has outlined several other reasons above to be dubious about it as well. Regardless, your comment above "In a few days, it will probably be deleted" would seem to indicate to me that you also suspect it doesn't meet the grade. Why then are you insisting on keeping it? Would seem to be more about trying to enforce some perceived process (which I note you have so far failed to provide any policy basis for) or to grind some axe for the sake of it when the ultimate outcome is going to be the same anyway. Surely we all have far better things to do than debate this? If we can all see there is a problem with the image licencing why not just remove it from the article and be done with it? Wikipedia and Commons are completely separate so what they decide to do is up to them but that doesn't mean we should use suspect images just because they are made available by a project which has been shown to be devoid of standards at any rate. Anotherclown (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As no evidence has been put forward here or at Commons to demonstrate why the photo is legit and PD (or at least can be reasonably assumed to be such), and no policy/guideline has been referred to here to justify retaining the image in the article in lieu of this evidence, I'd just removed it per the policies/guidelines I've linked to above. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Delta Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040117090928/http://www.carson.army.mil:80/pao/MountaineerArchive/2003%20Archive/01-16-03.pdf to http://www.carson.army.mil/pao/MountaineerArchive/2003%20Archive/01-16-03.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090611002659/http://us2.newsmemory.com:80/ee/paraglide/default.php to http://us2.newsmemory.com/ee/paraglide/default.php

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

E Squadron
, &  - (not sure if all three of you are the same person or not, but...) - Re; this edit. You can't just add content based on something you read in a novel. All content must have a reliable source added in support. Additionally, while Strike Back may be based on some of Chris Ryan's experiences in the military, it is also considered fiction. You also can't re-add content without first discussing it, per WP:BRD. Just find another, more proper, source and you can re-add your edit. Cheers - the WOLF  child  01:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. At first glance, I'm not even convinced that the Seaspray article is sourced well enough to establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * First of, I meant Relentless Strike, not Strike Back, my mistake and second of all, well since you want me to discuss it, here I am. The reason I decided to add some more info was because someone else who clearly read Relentless Strike added some info to it and so I thought I'll contribute. Sean Naylor is a pretty credible guy and it has many details on operations that already happened before and still plenty of details about JSOC that I've never heard of before, doesn't mean it's fiction. Read the book, E Squadron superseded SEASPRAY and G Squadron superseded the Funny Platoon. --BlackScorpio91 (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said "Relentless Strike" was fiction, I said that about "Strike Back", and like you said... that was your mistake. You keep telling people to "go read the book", but that's not how Wikipedia sourcing works. If feels the source is questionable, you guys may have to take the matter to WP:RSN. And if he feels there is a problem with the SEASPRAY article, there are also different avenues to pursue for that as well, to either improve the article or delete it. But that discussion should take place on the SEASPRAY talk page. Cheers. -  the WOLF  child  02:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Training section outdated?
The first bullet point claims Delta trains to " shoot without aiming". Is there a recent source which backs this up? I'm sure this was the protocol at the time the author was in the unit, but techniques change with time. As far as I know, modern techniques do NOT encourage shooting without acquiring a sight picture, which is easier and quicker now with modern sights (EOTechs and Aimpoints.) c Ө de1+6 TP  14:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The technique is still taught by individuals and organizations, I don't think you are going to find any recent references for quite some time. In any case the article makes it clear things do change and the information may not be up to date. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Delta Force. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040117090928/http://www.carson.army.mil/pao/MountaineerArchive/2003%20Archive/01-16-03.pdf to http://www.carson.army.mil/pao/MountaineerArchive/2003%20Archive/01-16-03.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120714204202/http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=45180 to http://www.defense.gov/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Captains (O-3) and Majors (O-4) serving in 1st SFOD-D
My name is Urloiu Radu. I'm still not yet very familiar with the rules and tools Wikipedia operates that's why I'm imitating the others when it comes to edit a text.

I have seen my post I made a day yesterday on the topic of 1st SFOD-D reverted. It was about the rank of the officers who command troops in the Unit. In the last 15 years I've read almost anything published by former operators of Delta and everything I could find about the unit on the Internet. Captains are also entitled to command Troops. Well, it's a fact that most Troop commanders are rather majors (O-4) than captains (O-3). It is also true that the few captains who obtain this position are on the last portion of their time in rank, but they still have the right. I shall cite advance some situations which support my case:

1. LTG (O-9) Austin Scott Miller who now commands JSOC led a 1st SFOD-D Troop between may 1993-June 1996. He started this stint as a Captain, a rank the held since May 1987 and was promoted to Major no earlier than December 1994. It results that he commanded his troop as a Captain for no less than 1 year and 7 months. The timeline of his career can be found in a pdf document Biobook 2010-2 Final Version which details the careers of some National Defense University Graduates from 2010.

2. The so-called Captain "John B." from Sean Naylor's ' Not a Good Day to Die', the commander of the northern AFO during Anaconda Operation. In the same book is mentioned the fact that "A captain in Delta might have eight years in the Army". Since promotion to Major comes around 11 years of commissioned service, it means that a Captain in the Delta will have the opportunity to command a Troop.

3. Lieutenant General Bennet Sacolick was commissioned trough OCS Class 03-82 (June 1982). He served than, during his lieutenant years, as Rifle Platoon Leader, later Support Platoon Leader, HHC, Executive Officer, B Company, and Motor Officer, 4th Battalion, 325th Infantry Regiment (Airborne Combat Team), United States Army Southern European Task Force, Italy. As a captain he passed SFAS and SFDOQC and was a SFOD-A commander in A Company and C Company, 3d Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Davis, Panama, and El Salvador and OPERATION JUST CAUSE, Panama.

In 1990 he went through Delta Selection and Operator Training Course. He was an Assistant Operations Officer, and Troop Commander, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment Delta (Airborne), Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATION RESTORE HOPE, Somalia and OPERATION DESERT STORM, Saudi Arabia, that is between 1990/1991-1993.

Since the average commissioned service before being promoted to Major is 11 years and Sacolick was commissioned in June 1982, it results he could not be promoted to the grade of Major (O-4) before 1993. It happened in September or October 1993, when he was in Somalia (http://www.fayobserver.com/military/the-man-who-commanded-delta-force-and-a-new-breed/article_55d2dd63-7dea-5563-896c-4a8dc1fcd5d6.html).

So, by the time he served as a Troop Commander in Desert Storm and Restore Hope, he was a Captain (O-3). Fresh Captains in the Delta spend a few months to a year as assistant operations officer before being given a Troop to command. Sacolick took Troop command no later than 1991. He would serve, most likely, while a Major (O-4), as Troop Commander, Deputy Operations Officerand while a Lieutenant Colonel (O-5) as Squadron Commander, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment Delta (Airborne), Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATION JOINT ENDEAVOR, Bosnia (1993-2000?).

Before commanding 1st SFOD-D (2003-2005) he served (2000-2002) as Chief, Current Operations, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan. I’ve got this information from a pdf document (it seems that is no longer available) called Baseball Cards 2013 OCS (edited by Maneuver Center of Excellence from Fort Benning) which details the careers of some officers commissioned through the Officer Candidate School.

4. Colonel (R.) John Alexander served between May 1984 -December 2008. Commissioned through the ROTC from the University of Colorado as an armor officer, he served, while a lieutenant as a tank platoon leader, scout platoon leader and company executive officer in 2-34 Armor and then 2-77 Armor after unit re-designation at Fort Carson, Colorado.

After attending from the Armor Officer Advanced Course he attended the Special Forces Officer Qualification Course at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina and was assigned to the 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne) at Fort Lewis, Washington. He commanded two A- Detachments for special reconnaissance and underwater operations. In 1991 he was selected for the Unit, so only after 7 years of commissioned service. Colonel Alexander served for nearly a decade in various Delta operational command and staff positions including assault squadron commander, Delta operations officer, Delta deputy operations officer, assault squadron operations officer, and assault and sniper troop commands during multiple tours of duty including combat tours in multiple theaters of operation. Even if as a freshman in Delta his first assignment was that of squadron operations officer, which would not last more than a year, it would result that he spent plenty of time as a Troop commander still a Captain. The information I found on John Alexander are from http://ocrglobal.com/leadership/john-alexander/, his Linkedin profile and from an older page site of a private company.

I hope I didn't seem you arrogant, I wasn't intended not even for a second. I'm sorry for my language clumsiness; I'm not an English native speaker.
 * You're focused on the exception. The command billet is most likely slotted for an 0-4. Just because the army puts a person into a slot doesn't make it that notable. For example, almost the entire time I was in the army, my duty position was in one slotted for a person at least one pay grade higher. It's kind of normal and not that notable. There are hundreds of E-4's serving as team leaders or even squad leaders because there isn't an E-5 available. And so on. In the ned, what you've done in this response is called original research. We don't make the deductions that you made, instead we show what the reliable sources say. You need only come up with some reliable sources that say the slot if for an O-3 or O-4. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at the sources used in the section dedicated to the Organization and structure section. There is no other source than Sean Naylor’s book Relentless Strike: The Secret History of Joint Special Operations Command. When talking about Captain John B. in the Delta, it was from also from a Sean Naylor’s book, Not a Good Day to Die: The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda.

As for Austin Miller, I found the document detailing his career until 2010. It can be found at this address: http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndu.edu%2Fcapstone%2FdocUploaded%2FBiobook%25202010-2%2520Final%2520Version%2520.pdf I remember a previous version of the Delta Force topic of Wikipedia which mentioned also the former commanders of the 1st SFOD-D, including Austin S. Miller. That’s how I’ve found this paper. It was issued by the National Defense University, so that’s nothing more reliable as far as it goes for information on the peoples serving with the Unit.

I’ve also found the document relating to Bennet Sacolick’s career: https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/199th/ocs/content/pdf/Baseball%20Cards%202013%20OCS%20HoF.pdf As it’s published by Fort Benning on army.mil. is as official and reliable as much as it can be.

Now I come down to what’s ordinary and what’s exception. I’m very well aware that situation you’ve mentioned occurs frequently - Corporals serving as team leaders when not enough Sergeants are available. However I’ve read Corporal is a rank you won’t find see very often in the Army nowadays. It’s maybe because team leaders are Sergeants and there is no job left for a Corporal. On the other hand the E-4 serving in a no-leadership position, the Specialist, is the most low-ranking enlisted one would meet. I remember a meeting with the members of a 2nd Cavalry Regiment’s squadron who visited Romania 2 or 3 years ago. I’ve seen a lot of Specialists but no Corporal. It also comes down to the situation when the CO of a unit is actually a rank higher then the usual one. For example, company commanders in the 75th Ranger Regiment are sometimes Majors (O-4).

But with regard to the Delta, I’ve found a few official documents which clearly state that there are command positions in the Unit for Captains.

1.Special Warfare. The Professional Bulletin of the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, PB 80–94–1 January 1994 Vol. 7, No. 1, page 51, on the topic Delta seeks recruits: ''Officers can command at the captain, major and lieutenant-colonel levels and serve as executive and operations officers. There are also a wide variety of staff positions at DoD, JCS, DA, USASOC, USSOCOM.''

2.Special Warfare. The Professional Bulletin of the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, PB 80–95–4 October 1995 Vol. 8, No. 4, page 43, on the topic SF officers should considerSFOD-D assignments:

''Special Forces Operational Detachment-D, although not an SF unit, is a uniquely trained, highly responsive, low-profile special-operations unit with many SF officer authorizations. Chapter 14 of DA Pam 600-3, Officer Professional Development, dated June 8, 1995, discusses the integration of SFODD service into the SF officer’s career life cycle. It may be summarized as follows: A non-SF branch member may be accessed into SF after being accessed into SFOD-D. He must complete the SFOD-D Assessment and Selection and the SFOD-D Operators Training Course. If the officer elects to transfer to the SF Branch, SFOD-D troop-commander service will fulfill SF captain branch qualification. SFAS is waiverable, but the officer must complete SFDOQC to branch-transfer. A qualified SF Branch officer who volunteers for SFOD-D must attend the SFOD-D Assessment and Selection and the SFOD-D Operators Training Course. SF branch-qualifying positions in SFOD-D are squadron operations officer (major); SFOD-D deputy commander (lieutenant colonel); and squadron commander (lieutenant colonel — an “additional qualification,” per DA Pam 600-3). SF officers are encouraged to seek SFOD-D assignments but to balance assignments between “black” and “white” SOF. A combination of assignments can enhance an officer’s professional qualifications and career opportunities, especially for command selection. Officers who spend most of their careers either in SFOD-D or in SF groups are unlikely to be “best-qualified” for DA selection as a commander in the other type of unit. For more information contact MAJ Dan Adelstein, Branch 18 Manager, SOPO, at DSN 239-2415/9002 or commercial (910) 432-2415/9002.''

3.Chapter 15 Special Forces Branch http://dop.rta.mi.th/Career%20management/Chapter15.htm If the officer elects to branch transfer to Special Forces, 1st SFOD-D troop commander duty will constitute Special Forces branch qualification at the grades of captain and major.

When it comes about command billets those papers also mention Captains apart from those which address the staff officer positions in the Unit or other organizations. It comes as a logical conclusion that since Captains are also allowed to attend selection in the Delta and command positions for them are available that they are allowed to serve and more, actually served as Troop Commanders in the Unit. The selection&training wing of the Delta cannot know before selection who will make who won’t so once captains will be accepted in the unit there is no reason not to put them in command of a Troop. Since information on 1st SFOD-D is very scarce no one (I figure out not even former or actual members of the Unit) could ever tell exceptions from regular in terms of operators careers. The examples quoted above say the fact that after 2 years as SFOD-A commanders, Special Force Captains admitted in the Unit have enough time in grade ahead to serve at hold command positions while in this rank. I admit that most likely those who command Delta Troops are Majors. But most doesn’t mean everybody. If only 1 or 2 who command the 12 troops of the 4 operative squadrons at a time in the Delta are Captains and the rest are Majors it means O-3s have the right to command. Since official recruiting announcements states that command positions are available at the captain level in the unit and some also official papers which details the career of some former officers of the unit it results that captains held Troop commands. This we know for sure, everything else is supposition. Again, sorry for not so good command of the English Language and my too strong accents.
 * Once again, you're engaging in original research. Please actually reach that. When your reasoning included phrases like "It comes as a logical conclusion...", you're probably doing original research. As for your whole "corporals are rare" thing..... I said E-4. Both corporals and specialists are E-4's. Lastly, nobody is saying that an O-3 can't be in one of those slots. I'm saying that's not what the billet is. If it's slotted for an O-4, then that's what we say. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I know that both Specialists and Corporals are E-4; just like Master Sergeants and First Sergeants are both E-8, just like Sergeant Majors, Command Sergeant Majors and the Sergeant Major of the Army are E-9.

OK, I give up. I've read about original researsch and I don't know how come that sources like those coming from army.mil and JFKSWCS are not reliable and do not corroborate. But what's the source which states that Troop command is just a Major (O-4) billet? I've been doing research on this topic for 15 years and never found this. If possible, I would really like to know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radu Urloiu (talk • contribs) 10:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then if you know they're both E-4's, why did you spend time telling me about the difference? And, specialists absolutely can and do fill leadership roles. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Because (my bad) I was convinced that Specialists fill no leadership role, while Corporals do. I've read it somewhere (don't remember where and when). As I've told you, it came as a surprise that among the soldiers of that 2nd Cavalry Regiment squadron there was no Corporal. At least, I didn't see any. There were soldiers of every other rank: from the Lieutenant Colonel (the CO) and a Major (the XO, as he told me) down to Private E-2, but no Corporal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radu Urloiu (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Corporals are non-commissioned officers, while Specialists are not. Both can and do fill leadership roles. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ranks within teams
I made an edit here using the IP address 99.203.0.44 (which coincidentally has two edits that were NOT made by me!) that Delta Force teams are populated with "operators" ranking from E-5 to E-8. But because I didn't provide a necessary source, it was reverted, and I was redirected me to this talk page to propose my edit. I believe there is ample evidence to support the notion that teams within the unit do have E-8s (be it a US Army Master Sergeant or the equivalent from another branch of service) who are not team leaders, but team members. The reason why this seems to be the case is that two operators KIA, Master Sergeants George Fernandez|bio and Jared Van Aalst|bio. Fernandez joined the unit in 2002 (the year before he was killed), according to his official USASOC biography, whereas Van Aalst was killed approximately two years after joining the unit in 2008. In neither case would that have constituted enough time to rise to the position of team leader, thus the two men must have been what are known as "team members", as Fernandez's biography states. Additionally, the Delta Force article states, citing an official Army recruitment notice, that new recruits must be between the ranks of E-4 to E-8, which means that one can join a new team as an E-8 (here is the original source ). From my point of view, this seems to be fairly convincing evidence that personnel with the rank of E-8 can be team members. TorquayFancy (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first hypothesis appears to be WP:OR. But the second part of your comment; the Delta Force article states, citing an official Army recruitment notice, that new recruits must be between the ranks of E-4 to E-8 would probably be sufficient, but it seems the attached source is a dead link. Can you find a current/working link to support that statement? If so, the change should be ok. - the WOLF  child  16:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * These are the most official sources I have thus far been able to locate. One is a recruitment notice for 1st SFOD-D from the official retention Facebook page of the 3rd BCT, 187th INF RGT, 101 ABN DIV|recruitment notice, and the other two are recruitment notices 2009 recruitment notice 2011 recruitment notice from the Fort Campbell Courier, the official newspaper of Fort Campbell.  Both state that potential applicants may be as high ranking as E-8.  There appear to be various recruitment notices around the web, although for the life of me I cannot find the original source in the Paraglide that so many articles appear to cite.  TorquayFancy (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the "Fort Campbell Courier" is a sufficient source, but the links you've listed in your comment above don't work (at least, not for me). - the WOLF  child  01:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the format I used may have been wrong. Here is the whole URL: http://fortcampbellcourier.com/news/news_briefs/article_ce036aa4-3558-11e0-811c-001cc4c002e0.html TorquayFancy (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that source should be ok. I also see what you did wrong when listing them above (added an unneeded pipe), and I've fixed them. Go ahead and make your changes again, with that source added, it should be ok. Cheers - the WOLF  child  20:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Unit name(s)
Most of what Tomandandy said then deleted seems right to me, the problem is sourcing it. The journalist who first reported that ACE was the new cover name for Delta (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/delta-force-gets-a-name-change/64310/) later said that ACE is some kind of intelligence/support unit working often for JSOC (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00DNL3686/ref=rdr_kindle_ext_tmb -- no preview). Rob1bureau (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I take it you're referring to ? It's difficult to address comments that are no longer here, but I did post a comment to their user talk page asking them to consider reposting their concerns about the article here, (but with some of needless commentary omitted). We'll see if they do or not. - wolf  16:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the unnecessary commentary. Some info is factually incorrect on the page and some info is missing. I'm not sure it's a good idea I repost what I've deleted as I feel putting certain info in this manner about a classified unit on the internet wouldn't be quite fair to the current and former members of The Unit... Or perhaps because it seems to me that it's just not worth it considering tight rules about sourcing (even though there're many pages on this wiki that have a lot of info without a source). Rob1bureau, everything I said is right, except the command level part which I was mistaken a bit; troop commander can be a captain, just very rare. It was more common in the early days, but now, pretty much, a MAJ commands a troop and a LTC commands a squadron. Tomandandy (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, well... people do say that from time to time. Complain that info some SOF or intel-related articles are "classified", or they even try to delete them. Nothing in this article, or in your now-deleted comment is even remotely SCI. Beyond that, information is (or supposed to be) supported by reliable, publically accessible sources. Any info that is added without sourcing, is either someone's genuine attempt to improve the article with their personal knowledge (which if is classified, they aren't going to add) or has been added by some spec-op wanna-be adding everything he's learned from playing Call of Duty. Anyway, if you'd like to improve the article, please do, but ensure that your additions are properly supported. If you need help with refs, just ask, either here or at the help desk. Thanks -  wolf  16:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't attempted to delete info like that neither have I exactly complained or stated that anything in my "now-deleted" comment or on this article is even remotely TS/SCI. I'm not playing OPSEC officer around. Not that you were pointing fingers implicitly or assuming subtly, just saying. By the way, from Call of Duty or whatever, I doubt you can "learn" any actual TO&E and related. Tomandandy (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I love how we're throwing around TS, SCI, TS/SCI like it's some actual standard as if mere "secret" or even "confidential" aren't real classifications that matter. The fact is, even if it's merely FOUO, if we can't verify it via reliable sources, it doesn't get added. Period. Personal knowledge doesn't matter. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is basically my point. Maybe it didnt come across right. I am not pointing, directly or subtly, to and claiming they've done anything wrong, rather the multitude of users that post such useless edits to these types of pages. I actually requested that Tomandandy repost their concerns here (, see here) as they appeared legitimate (minus the snarky comments), and either fix the article if they can or ask for help if they can't. I would not have done that had I thought they were just a kid using video game knowledge. Wikipedia needs people with specific subject knowledge, but we also need them to support their content. If Tomandandy can improve this and any other related articles, great. If not, then I suppose it's best that we all just move on. Cheers -  wolf  17:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In addition to the "ACE" cover name which had been corrected as not applying to Delta since 2012 (see my message above), I have found some references if you are interested : The Commandos by Douglas Waller also reports that delta squadrons are commanded by lt-cols and troops by "a captain or major" (p. 214 - hardcover edition). It also gives camp Dawson as the site of selection & assessment (p. 217). This book has an interesting chapter and apparently well-informed about Delta, though a bit dated by now. Rob1bureau (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ranks of squadron/troop commanders
In addendum to a post I made above some months ago with the username TorquayFancy (which unfortunately I cannot access now), I think it would appropriate to address the question of officer ranks within the unit. An edit was recently made that suggested that squadrons are commanded by (0-4) Majors, while troops are typical led by an (0-3) Captain. Not only was the edit not supplemented by a source, but available data would suggest that squadrons are in fact commanded by (0-5) Lieutenant Colonels while (0-4) Majors command assault/recce/support troops. Sean Naylor provides numerous examples of this in Relentless Strike (pp. 73, 122, 201, 222, 476, all of which describe a squadron being led by an 0-5), and an 0-4 commanding a troop (pp. 199 and 476...and 448 describes an 0-4 leading a troop in ST6, 1st SFOD-D's sister unit).

Perhaps Thewolfchild or another editor or who has a lot more experience than myself can provide feedback on this?

Chubbles525 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What kind of feedback are you seeking? If it's about the rank structure of Delta, one seemingly knowledgeable editor posted info about that, but apparently doesn't have the sources to support adding it. You have info, and apparently a source to support it, but haven't added it. Everybody wants the page fixed, but wants someone else to do it. Welcome to Wikipedia. - wolf  17:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I had posted a source which is quite clear about this, it's the last message before this section. Rob1bureau (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, saw that. - wolf  22:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

ACE
perhaps you could note this somewhere in the article, since numerous sources state that Army Compartmented Elememt is an alternative name for Delta, as opposed to some other unit, (and also note the other unit on the JSOC page if your sources support it). - wolf  18:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, that works. - wolf  19:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes
As per statement made by the thewolfchild, explanations are required in regards to changes (corrections) I made.

Team size in Delta is not 12 members because that doesn't make sense. Besides, there's numerous photographic evidence spanning decades showing individual teams of Delta operators in various places, however, literary is not abundant, but it can be provided.

There's also a lot of unsourced "content" on many pages with all kinds of claims and on this page, yet somehow Thewolfchild is persisent in keeping content sourced with poor or unreliable sources used to cite misleading information, case in point – the part that there're 12 guys on a team which is really not true.

Instead of further counter-productive reverts, Thewolfchild, explain why do you insist on explanations for changes on particular parts or contents of the page, and not on every change or unsourced part or content? Doc Toniday (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First, it would be best to keep the focus on WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS. To complain about "thewolfchild this" and "thewolfchild that", is needlessly personalizing this and creating a combative atmosphere. I just happen to be the one that noticed and reverted your edit first, but, as I've shown on mutiple occasions, I am also willing to discuss issues with you and try to help you along as you learn your way on this project. Now that said, let's also try keep the focus on this article, and your edits. To try and argue over any and all alledegly unsourced content on this page and, go further out and debate other articles here as well, is counter-productive and simply not how things are done. As for your edit, you removed sourced content without provding sufficient reasoning (in your last edit, and no reasoning at all in the edit before that). Along with the removal, you made changes/additions without citing any reliable sources. This is required of virtually all edits to content. So again, if you could explain the changes you made, and state which sources you have a issue with and why, and also provide more solid sources for your changes, that would be a good start to this discussion and go a long way to finding a reslotion. - w o lf  22:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I see you've since made another revert, without even bothering to reply here (or even add a summary). With few exceptions (none which apply here), once a talk page discussion regarding a content dispute has started, no further edits should be made to the disputed content until the discussion has resolved. Another problem is that your edit added "refs" that are just images. Pictures of guys standing around in tac gear do not support anything, they could be airsofters for anyone knows, (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). As such, I've taken the page back to WP:QUO, and I would strongly encourage you to stop editing this page and start working toward a resolution here on the talk page. Thank you - w o lf  01:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Obviously there's no point in discussing anything because of your reiterative attitude and avoiding of answering my question in a manner of typing "helpful" suggestions. The claim that my edits were refs that were just images is a lie, unless you noticed there was also S. Naylor's Relentless Strike book cited along with the photos. How is it that photos of dudes standing in kit don't support anything, but old news journal article links (that won't even load on my end at least) with incorrect info about SMU do? With that typed, the team (and troop and squadron) size can be calculated with simple math, none of which support that "each team consists of 12 soldiers". Here, even a former Delta officer has non-explicitly listed the sizes of the sub-units and one former here even mentions it (at the time), but I suppose that that kind of source isn't appropriate for wiki. Nevertheless, like I already typed, I cited a book (which is something that seems you choose to ignore) along with the pics. Doc Toniday (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Once again you're focusing more on me than the content, and not really making an effort at at collegial discussion. Let's focus on content, and specifically the sources you're presenting;
 * I don't see how those pictures you added can be considered reliable refs;
 * There is no information with them, as in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and you also need to consult the WP:IMAGEPOLICY.
 * Linkedin is also a questionable source, see WP:LINKEDIN.
 * Youtube is often not considered a reliable source, see WP:YOUTUBE
 * As for the book you cited by Naylor, can you provide the quote from the book, along with the page number, that you are relying on to support your edits?

Along with this, I would again ask that you read WP:V WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH... these are very important policies and guidlines, as they pertain to this discussion. I would also encourage you to read WP:ONUS and lastly WP:AGF. In a nutshell, you need to know how you can and can't source content, that the onus is on you to ensure any content changes you make are sourced, and finally, to try and have a little good faith in your fellow editors.

In this case, have some faith that I am trying to help you. I know it can be difficult when you're new and still learning all these rules, but coming in with a hostile attitude is not going to help anything; not you and not this article. It's not as if I'm just sitting here calling you a useless jerk or something. There are problems with your edits, there are problems with your approach to collaborating, and despite all that, I am legitimately trying to help you, and bring you up to speed on the rules that apply here, and trying to help you bring your info and sourcing up to standards. Anyway, let me know about that quote and we'll go from there, ok? - w o lf  08:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my responses sometimes come off as fiery. In Naylor's book, it's on Chapter 14: "This time, Juliet’s five operators would not be on foot.".
 * Also, in Pete Blaber's The Mission, the Men and Me, it's mentioned multiple times:
 * Intro chapter: "At the apex, the five operators split up and joined each of the five tanks..."
 * Ch. 7: "My team consisted of five men"
 * Ch. 16: "Master Sergeant Kris K. led a team that totaled five men."
 * Ch. 17: "Juliet team (five men) would infiltrate from the north and occupy the high ground on the east side of the valley (see Map 5)."
 * Perhaps this should be satisfactory. Doc Toniday (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Doc Toniday, you are roughly right about the team size, but you are stretching anecdotal evidence to get there. Now, if you want a source describing the general table of organization of a Delta troop (also including the correct number of teams per troop), I suggest you go look at Day of the Rangers by Leigh Neville p. 34. Rob1bureau (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Intro : "Before Bill could pass the message, a group of five Delta Force operators moved forward in a half-crouched sprint. At the apex, the five operators split up and joined each of the five tanks." -> there were five because each tank needed one, not because they were a 5-man team.
 * Ch. 7 : some pages before : "We divided ourselves into teams of four to five men" for the purpose of the exercise. So not necessarily indicative of operational team size.
 * Ch 16/17 : you are talking about Juliet team of Delta recon troop B3, which was actually a three-operator team, beefed up in the field by a Air Force combat controller and a SIGINT operator. So indicative that as far as Delta is concerned, it was a three-man team (and India team was a two-man one !).


 * Yes, none of the listed quotes can really be a good confirmation, but at least it's something. Back in the early GWOT days recce teams did tend to be smaller (not surprising since Delta is always undermanned) and slots/positions on recce teams aren't entry level. Thank you for the suggestion and a bit of acknowledgement. Apparently it's not easy find a good source for such things. Doc Toniday (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, that is typical for most articles about classified subjects such as spec ops, intel agencies, etc., ...just about anything that is secret by nature. - w o lf  20:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)
in your most recent edit (changing the number of operators per team from 12 to "4-6"), you cited page 34 of the book: Day Of The Rangers: The Battle Of Mogadishu 25 Years On, by Leigh Neville. Here is the content from page 34 regarding Delta's staffing numbers;

I know that recommended this book, but it documents a battle that took place 30 years ago, and the staffing numbers, as well as support and equipment for both Delta and the 75th were purposefully limited for that operation. While it gives a basic breakdown of Delta's organizational structure, (as Rob1bureau mentioned), it does not seem to be current. Do you have any others sources that support these numbers and both standard and current? - w o lf  18:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Question: Is the answer here to punt? Is it to acknowledge that the sources of the world sometimes conflict with each other and that Delta itself isn't chatty about it? Or that teams can take many sizes, shapes and structures depending on mission requirements, so the answer to "team size" is always a fluid one? Just a thought. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Niteshift36, team sizes do take different shapes. But if I'm not mistaken, with a saber squadron on a regular combat deployment, usually an entire troop goes on an op (which means all the four teams with 4–6 guys). The other deployed sqdn. can send 2-man elements on other zones, like during 2012 Benghazi attack Ryan Halbruner and Jolly Tate came in as a duo, during 2015 Bamako hotel attack Kyle Morgan and his fellow operator were there by themselves as operators, and there was another Delta duo during 2016 Ouagadougou attacks. Mission dictates, but even in the latter cases, that doesn't mean that those guys aren't assigned to a team that's standardly larger than just 2. Doc Toniday (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought you were gonna ask about this, but now that really seems sort of like pushing it. Just because it was nearly 3 decades ago doesn't mean that it's not current. Unless there is specific criteria on why exactly does something like, say, a team size information on this page need sources that also temporally support it over multiple periods, I don't believe it's necessary to ask or request any more or additional sources for it just like it wasn't asked or needed previously for all other parts of the page that can be questionable when it comes to timeframe. Some of it might have not changed or changed significantly, and some of it definitely might have. To answer your question – I don't have any other officially published literary sources. Maybe the The Day of the Rangers source for now can suffice. Doc Toniday (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I know that sourcing can be difficult to find, as I mentioned above, but there are sources out there, such as The National Interest, which in 2020 noted that Delta had initially used "'", and also noted that: "'". Another source, How Stuff Works noted, sometime after 2006, in an article about Delta that: "". So, again, I don't think we should be ascerting that the teams are specifcally made up of "4-6" operators, when obviously they're larger than that, but also split up into even smaller numbers when needed. I think that further changes are needed. - w o lf  21:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article in The National Interest states how things were when they were being made or planned in 1978 – that was 44 years ago (and you previously questioned the timeframe of a source). Delta doesn't have detachments. The 12-man ODAs are specific only Green Berets – I don't think you don't understand that Delta and SF are two different organizations.
 * How Stuff Works article, and generally articles on such pages, are not typed by SMEs, but by relatively uninformed journalists or journalist-like authors which tend to overemphasize and misunderstand certain things (for example, just like it was when 2011 Afghanistan Boeing Chinook shootdown (Gold Sqdn.) happened and they typed that SEALs who participated in OBL raid (Red Sqdn.) were on that bird). Just because those authors posted their claims regarding teams in the form they did regarding Delta, doesn't mean they're true – which they're not. They're also unaware that "20-man teams" are actually troops and they're using the word teams incorrectly.
 * From the photo evidence (that can't be used as a source) and direct word from the former D'Boys (Paul Howe, Brad Thomas, Kevin Holland, Keith Pellegrini, Bob Keller), teams standardly aren't larger than 4–6 and obviously are not larger than that. The size can also can be calculated given the number of members in the squadron. Random pages and articles shouldn't overrule subject evidence. Doc Toniday (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, Eric Haney's 2002 Inside Delta Force: "The smallest unit was the four-man team.". Doc Toniday (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oy. Obviously I wasn't hiding anything as I included a link to the article, so you're big "Ah-ha!" moment... not so much. And everything you said is meaningless unless you can support it with sources. The point was that a) sources are varied and difficult to come to by, b) that the number of operators per team, per troop varies, and c) the part you edited still needs to be changed. You just contradicted yourself with your recent comment about "Eric Haney blah blah blah...". It doesn't matter what you think you know, even if you were in Delta yourself, or your dad was, or your uncle's best freind's mailman's dog-walker's cousin was. Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth, we can only add content that is clearly supported by reliable sourcing, (and not cobbled-together by various questionable sources and personal opinion). Niteshift was right about punting this, and this has dragged-on long enough, so if you want to post a suggested re-write here, then great... we'll discuss it and hopefully wrap this up. Otherwise, I'm changing that section about the numbers. - w o lf  13:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have previously listed "sources" that according to wiki cannot be taken as refs. I'm aware Haney was in The Unit a long time ago (the number he put still fits in the size range), but despite that you still asked for a more recent work (book published in '02 in this case). Of course the numbers vary, but they are standardized, that's also clear with the operators' call sign patches on which the number does not go above 6 (because 6 is the maximum number of dudes on a team) – e.g., the newest Charlie Team (or any other team) member is never gonna have a callsign for example "YC12" (Y meaning B Sqdn., C meaning C Team and 12 meaning 12th member by seniority on a team) – yes, I know that that can't also be taken as a ref. If by wiki, the sources you listed are considered valid, cite them – but the team size will still be then incorrect. You still haven't mentioned the reasons why do you feel it's necessary to support team size with refs in regards to timeframe, but not other parts of the page. Unless your response to that too is that that's now how things are done (from your view), you don't have to bother answering. Doc Toniday (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Soo, no proposed edit then? - w o lf  15:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)