Talk:List of United States Navy SEALs/Archive 1

Non-notables
Cade Courtley and Stew Smith are marginally notable at best. They may become sufficiently notable in the future to warrant inclusion, but as it stands Courtley is on a less than well known, if that, television show and Smith is a personal trainer who has gotten a small amount of press. Google searches for both bring back a relatively minimal amount of hits for both as compared to other people with more established notability. 99.169.250.133 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have suggestions for notability standards? As a minimum, I recommend the individual be notable enough to first have an article on Wikipedia. This is the minimum standard I've seen in other articles. Rklawton (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so it's been a few months and the list continues to attract non-notables and people and people without any sources at all. That's not how we do things here at Wikipedia. We have have standards for notability and reliable sources. Going forward, please only add name of SEALs with articles here on Wikipedia. Rklawton (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is the best way to limit the list to notable SEALs. If they are notable then an an article should be written first.  I removed an entry that had no article.   GB  fan  03:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. The best way to limit the list to notable SEALs is to provide verifiable third party references to that fact. Requiring a Wikipedia article first is ridiculous - Wikipedia can't verify itself, and most other lists have no such requirement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.59.29.34 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you don't understand. A biographical article about a notable SEAL wouldn't last two minutes if it didn't have verifiable third-party references. The recommendation above is based on this assumption. Rklawton (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we open a discussion on this and get a consensus on how to determine if someone is notable enough to be listed here. One criteria that doesn't leave any question as to whether they should be listed is to only have entries where the article is already written. GB fan (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we start deleting red-links with no cited source? Rklawton (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura
I removed Jesse Ventura since his article says that his office (Minnesota Governor's) confirmed he was not a SEAL, and the entry itself said that it was important to note that he was not a SEAL. If he was not a SEAL, there is no reason to add him to a page of SEALs.  GB fan  03:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Agreed. V7-sport (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

He was not a SEAL at the time that he was in the Navy. The unit he was a part of was consolidated into the SEALs in 1983, ten years after he left the Navy. Is there any reliable source that those personnel who were UDT prior to the consolidation in 1983 are considered SEALs?  GB fan  06:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Conversation from Editor Assistance
This conversation copied from Editor assistance/Requests Bigger digger (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether James George Janos aka Jesse Ventura should be included in the SEAL list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Navy_SEALs

My background: I have worked with Governor Jesse Ventura and I am colleagues from US Navy SEAL's from the 70's up until today. I have attended BUD/S graduations (family who are SEALs) and spent a fare amount of time at NavSpecWar in Coronado as a guest. I do not claim to be a SEAL. I have nothing but admiration for these fine men and nothing for disdain that pretend to be part of their community.

Reason that people remove Ventura: Personal, they dislike him and his showboating, ego, grandstanding, politics, theories on 9/11, conspiracy theories AND accomplishments above most others. One thing is for certain, people either love Governor Ventura or they hate him, much like another SEAL, Richard Marcinko (who no one disputes is a SEAL), neither seem to have people on the fence.

Mutually Agreed Points: Ventura graduated with BUD/S class 58 and from there he was assigned to a UDT Team.

The selection and training program for both SEAL and UDT was the same, Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training.

It is also agreed that UDTs both were a precursor program and concurrent program to the SEALs.

At that time, sailors would go from SEAL to UDT Teams and vice versa as well as command officers going from one unit to the other.

Ventura was in UDT during the Vietnam era, though he did not go to Vietnam and his assignments were elsewhere.

Ventura does not claim to be a 1970’s / Vietnam era SEAL, but a UDT.

Point in Question: Whether James George Janos aka Jesse Ventura should be included in the SEAL list and the answer lies in that the US Department of the Navy has long since merged both programs and as such stated that those serving as naval commandos/Frogmen, UDTs prior to the SEALs creation, and UDTs concurrent and after creation of the SEALs are ALL entitled to be designated to wear the trident insignia and use the term SEAL in connection with themselves.

Moreover, Ventura (BUD/S 58) was a distinguished guest at the BUD/S Class 258 graduation (his bicentennial class as it was referred to) at NavSpecWar in Coronado, California. As a Head of State guest of honor (being a Governor, Ventura is a Head of State and therefore must be saluted by the military, including Admirals, the same as US Presidents and Medal of Honor recipients) and was addressed as and considered by those in attendance including flag officers, team-mates and other UDTs and SEALs as a “SEAL.”

While at the SEAL base and the BUD/S graduation, if Ventura claimed to be something other than what he was (what is now collectively referred to as “SEAL”), wouldn’t have the Department of the Navy, Naval Special Warfare (who’s historical library is housed there at its entrance, routinely referred to for outing false SEALs), Navy SEAL BUD/S instructors and command or Naval Flag officers and Admirals questioned his assertion?

There were no accusations because his detractors’ claims are baseless and unfounded and I would argue are not in the abovementioned position that would actually be in such a position to make such claims or challenges.

They are, most likely, people who like to argue on Wikipedia about technical facts that they nothing about, are not members of the SEAL community at all or SEALS that would arguably be defined as “jealous” of his success and iconoclastic persona. Ventura does not claim to be a 1970’s/ Vietnam era SEAL, but a UDT. It is the Department of the Navy that has melded those two into one, and thus he is now collectively entitled to wear the Trident and be referred to as a “SEAL” or Frogman.” --76.173.247.200 (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)--76.173.247.200 (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC) --76.173.247.200 (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * He was not in the SEALs and his office has specifically denied that he was in the SEALs. "Governor Ventura's office confirmed that Ventura was never a member of the elite Navy SEALs..." There it is, verified. Jesse Ventura was in UDT 12 and served as a frogman in the Philippines. You can either produce some information that he was on a SEAL team or accept his own word that he was in UDT 12. This all came out when he was governor of Minnesota and he had to admit that he was never on a SEAL team and never in combat (after stating that he was and had been affected by agent orange in Vietnam...)
 * If you want to add him to a list create a list of notable UDT frogmen, but he has admitted that he was not a SEAL. V7-sport (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

Response: You are both correct and incorrect. It is similar to statehood and years of acceptance to the union. He was not called or claimed (beyond the collective merger) that he was a "SEAL" during Vietnam or in the 1970's. Those have been since merged for the purposes of title.

It is similar to saying someone from Alaska or Hawaii in 1925 was or is an American. While they were not then, they are now called "Americans." Or Jim Bowie, he was technically not born in an American state and was yet a resident or birth of 5 or more states and territories through merger, annexation and lack of state delineations.

By your facetious note, Cahill, considered on of the great SEALs, was NOT a SEAL either. You cannot have it both ways, when Cahill did it, there were no SEALs and being a Frog or a precursor is not a SEAL by your standard.

We would then have to suggest to Wikipedia, by your own "rules of inclusion" that Cahill be removed at your instigation (explain that on your next trip to BUD/S).

No, Ventura was not a SEAL during the 1970’s, nor was he called one then, but he belonged to a unit that is now considered to be “SEALs”, similar to the Alaska Hawaii annexation analogy.

I suggest that you call Coronado Monday and get their official opinion of what he is able to be called and you will find yourself erroneous in your assertions. --76.173.247.200 (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, the SEALs existed for 7 and a half years before he was in the UDT and the UDT existed for 8 years after he was out of the USN, to declare that he was a seal because the UDT was the "precursors" of the SEALs is ludicrous because had he wanted to be a genuine SEAL he could have filed the paperwork and been brought in with either the additional training or on a waiver. And the UDT were dissolved into the SDVTs not the just the SEALs, some frogs became NDU and ND but regardless; the SEALs were around for 8 years before he went into the Navy. You just admitted that "No, Ventura was not a SEAL during the 1970’s, nor was he called one then"... You want to call him something he wasn't on the flimsy pretext that some UDT became SEALs 8 years after he was out of the service.
 * I don't need to call "Coronado". I am a former Officer in the USN and am familiar with the honor code. More to the point here, I am familiar with Verifiability and have provided a link from a reliable source where it is acknowledged that he was not a SEAL but a frogman in UDT 12, something you don't even dispute. Venturas name should be removed from the list as he was a UDT Frogman, not a SEAL. V7-sport (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

I did not state that he was a SEAL because UDT being a precursor, I simply stated that by your criteria, others should also be removed such as Cahill who no one disputes. In fact, let me ask you this before I go on, should Cahill thus be removed? If not, why does Cahill or anyone get the nod when Ventura does not? I appreciate your Naval service, but the Department of the Navy is the one who states they have the right to be collectively referred to as “SEALs” and thus your complaint should be with the Navy, not Ventura. Or, you should put an asterisk next to his entry and state that some people do not believe he should be included here for X, Y and Z reasons rather than to pretend he does not exist. Wikipedia is a historical reference and you want to revise history and remove him and pretend there was no Ventura. It’s akin to griping about the Alaskans and Hawaiians now being called Americans or women and blacks now having the vote, they didn’t, but now they do and you have to accept it. You are arguing a technicality (not called that then) when a technicality (all called that inclusively now per USN) is what includes him. Incidentally, I appreciate your formal debate and handling it in this manner and this forum, for that, you should be commended. --76.173.247.200 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish to remove Cahill have at it. (Although he actually WAS a precursor to the SEALs in that the SEALs didn't exist when he was a Frog.) Yes, Wikipedia is a historical reference which operates on a set of rules and parameters foremost is Verifiability. Not only can you not verify that Ventura served on a SEAL team or as a SEAL, it is verifiable that he did not because he has confirmed that he didn't. Please, let me repeat that: Not only can you not verify that Ventura served on a SEAL team or as a SEAL but it is verifiable that he did not because -he has confirmed that he didn't-. Just because (as you assert and I dispute) one thing was eventually replaced with another (IE your Alaskans and Hawaiians analogy) doesn't mean that that original thing didn't exist. Besides which; Our personal opinions are irrelevant. If I were to state that I firmly believe that it is dishonorable to claim to be something that you weren't and use that to give yourself some kind of unearned legitimacy based on the sacrifices of others that wouldn't be reason to exclude him. The fact that it has been proven, admitted and documented that he was not a SEAL is what is  relevant to Wikipedia.  V7-sport (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
 * Suggest that you sort this out on the article talk page, raise an RfC if necessary. There is absolutely no point in continuing here as we don't make judgements, just point people towards achieving consensus. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for the time to elapse so I am not reverting 3 in 24 hours. Since I have sources to back what I have written and he doesn't I don't think it is a matter of consensus as the facts aren't really in dispute. Thanks though. V7-sport (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

from Wikipedia Underwater Demolition Team The SEALs expanded their numbers and roles through the 1960s and 1970s. By 1983, the chief function of the remaining UDTs was insertion and extraction of SEAL teams, and the UDTs were redesignated as part of the SEALs

in the spirit of cooperation, I am adding this caveat "It is important to note that Ventura was not a SEAL at the time of his service, but an adjunct program called UDT Underwater Demolition Team which was redesignated as part of the SEALs in 1983 and whose members are now collectively referred to as “SEALs” and the Frog, UDT, and SEAL community." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.247.200 (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Even according to your source the UDT and the SEALs were different entities when Ventura was in the UDT. Again, 1983 was 8 years after he was out of the USN. Please, either find something verifiable from a reliable source that states that he was on a SEAL team or remove him from the list as he was not a SEAL. V7-sport (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

His unit now called SEAL and thus deserves inclusion. I added caveat addressing your points —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.247.200 (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, he was in the UDT, not the SEALs and once again it was called the UDT when he was in it and once again, he has acknowledged that he was never in the SEALs and once again that is verifiable through reliable sources. Please discontinue this unless you can demonstrate that he was on a SEAL team, something you have ACKNOWLEDGED that he wasn't. V7-sport (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
 * This Seal site claims Ventura as one of their own. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The "SEAL Site" fails WP:RS and carries the following disclaimer: "NavySEALs.com is a private web community of SEA Air Land athletes and Navy SEAL supporters. It is not affiliated with the US Navy. The views expressed here are solely those of the owners, and members, of NavySEALs.com" It is not a reliable source. V7-sport (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport.

We clearly need editorial assistance as V7sport has a problem with Ventura and changes the posts, historically accurate and explained for conflicts, every few hours. The Navy clearly states that his unit was merged into the SEALs and is now called "SEAL" and has the RIGHT to be called SEAL, the SEAL verification sites point that he was a SEAL and he is clearly a historical figure from that UDT/SEAL program, perhaps better known that everyone on than anyone on the list. I clearly made concessions to V70 and added notes and caveats to the nomenclature explaining the posts and revisions but v7sport is acting like a petulant child and starting an edit war. I am an adult with better things to do than squabble with some acting like a child after I clearly made concessions and clarifications on the post to acquiesce to a middle ground.--76.173.247.200 (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Read this! "Governor Ventura's office confirmed that Ventura was never a member of the elite Navy SEALs...Ventura's spokesman, John Wodele, confirms Ventura was in the UDT's, and he says the Governor has never tried to convince people otherwise." That is Verifiable from a reliable source. Regardless, you have been reported for multiple groundless reversions. I have tried my best to explain to you that the standard inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability but for whatever reason, you are determined to claim he was something he wasn't and that he has denied being. Whether you are being deliberately obtuse or are just incapable of getting it your continued insistence on placing him on this list is vandalism. Read your talk page sometime, you have multiple warnings from different users.  V7-sport (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

Please note, by the way, that the gentlemen, v70, who has caused much if this argument, has been cited several times in the last year for messing with various biographies or instances of Jesse Ventura and seems to have a problem with him and seeks to disparage him.

In the article above cited by V70, which is clearly a political motivated article before Ventura won office, it states "Spokesman John Wodele says it's acceptable for Ventura to use SEAL as short-hand for what he was, especially since the UDT's and SEALs merged in 1983, after Ventura left the service."

The rebuttal point in the argument is essentially that while the Navy may say its okay, the other writer stated that he feels its not and Ventura "should know better" in his OPINION, Navy be damned. Again, its is detractors, politically motivated people and someone cited several times in one year for attacking him (probably washed out of BUD/s and is jealous of Ventura's overall success) stating that he should not be. --76.173.247.200 (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
I have come to this article after a request for a third opinion at WP:3O. I have not edited this article before and have not had any interactions with the editors involved, so can describe myself as sufficiently neutral. However, I would note that there are more than 2 editors involved, so ordinarily the third opinion system would not apply, but I feel I might be of some assistance. First, I have to agree that the addition of Ventura to the list would not be appropriate. He does not identify as an ex-SEAL and did not serve as one. That is not in dispute. If the classification of UDTs has changed, it might be beneficial to note that in the article, but state that it is not a reason for inclusion. I would then suggest the commencement of a list of UDT members. I will start this in my userspace at User:Bigger digger/List of Navy UDT members but will not be able to complete it without help. That article could then be moved to article space and linked from this list of SEALs. Thoughts and contributions welcome! Bigger digger (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If we can find a reliable source that specifically states that the Navy considers all UDT members SEALS (or all UDT members during the period of Ventura's service), then Ventura is a SEAL (and I seem to remember something about that at the SEAL museum in Florida). Without such a source, then we can't list him as a SEAL in this article. It's not complicated folks. Rklawton (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! May I make a suggestion or request? In that the Department of the Navy, which supersedes all of us, has merged and classified them as the same, that the page (which includes other people NOT CALLED SEALs because they predate them such as Cahill) be called List of Frogmen, UDTs and SEALs and that respective units (Frog, UDT, SEAL, UDT/SEAL and Frog/SEAL in the case of the ones that are both) come after their names. This would make the most sense. Please advise. Please note, by the way, that the gentlemen, v70, who has caused much if this argument, has been cited several times in the last year for messing with various biographies or instances of Jesse Ventura and seems to have a problem with him and seeks to disparage him. Thank you again for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.247.200 (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the DotN would be a reliable source. Now all you need to do is find and cite the regulation or law that makes your case. Once you do, you're in the clear. Rklawton (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

shoot, I pasted wrong piece, please respond to the following (I am not a wiki expert)

Thanks for your input! I believe that I can answer your questions and I ask that I may I make a suggestion and/or request?

First, my suggestion. Based on the fact that the Department of the Navy, which supersedes all of us, has merged and classified them as the same, that the page (which includes other people NOT CALLED SEALs because they predate them such as Cahill) be renamed/called List of Frogmen, UDTs and SEALs and that respective units (Frog, UDT, SEAL, UDT/SEAL and Frog/SEAL in the case of the ones that are both) come after their names. This would make the most sense.

Also please note that in the notes you asked if there is verification that UDT became SEALs, you can simply look to the Wikipedia UDT page.

Also please note, the Navy's official position is that UDTs whenever/regardless of the dates of their tenure, can be considered part of the SEAL community. While Ventura was in office, he was mercilessly attacked from the left and right wings that jointly spent $12M to beat his $400k successful campaign. He was attacked on every front, in my opinion, out of simple envy. He was on the cover of Time and Newsweek when he was told he did not stand a chance. People looked for every technical detail to attack him and he thus protect himself from being called a lair because of partial interpretations or technical loopholes that were afforded to him by the Navy. His office stated that he was not a SEAL while in service, which was technically true. However, while he had to take that position to cover his tail, the Navy simultaneously gives him the right to state that he was a SEAL. Only his detractors deny that fact and the position of the US Navy.

Also please note, by the way, that the gentlemen, v70, who has caused much if this argument, has been cited several times in the last year for messing with various biographies or instances of Jesse Ventura and seems to have a problem with him and seeks to disparage him. Thank you again for your help.

By the way, I noticed an earlier string about Stew Smith. He ran the PT program at Annapolis for prepping people to go to the SEALs and has had several published books on SEAL preparation, fitness and what it takes to be a SEAL, aside from Rangers, SWAT and Marines. My family used that book and became a SEAL and for that fact alone that his written works have helped SEVERAL young men become SEALs would argue his case of the importance to the community or those fine young men aspiring to be SEALs. --76.173.247.200 (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Addition: in the article above cited by V70, which is clearly a political motivated article before Ventura won office, it states "Spokesman John Wodele says it's acceptable for Ventura to use SEAL as short-hand for what he was, especially since the UDT's and SEALs merged in 1983, after Ventura left the service."
 * The rebuttal point in the argument is essentially that while the Navy may say its okay, the other writer stated that he feels its not and Ventura "should know better" in his OPINION, Navy be damned. Again, its is detractors, politically motivated people and someone cited several times in one year for attacking him (probably washed out of BUD/s and is jealous of Ventura's overall success) stating that he should not be.
 * --76.173.247.200 (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it would be a good idea to merge these lists to have them all in one place, but we need the source that states all UDT frogmen can be considered SEALs. Can you provide a link here so we can check your assertion? And thanks for signing your posts! Finally, please try to refrain from commenting on the motivations of other editors, comment on their edits and how they meet policies and guidelines &mdash; I find it makes for a much nicer atmosphere and helps get things done! Bigger digger (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, we cannot use wikipedia as a source, each page has a disclaimer to say it can't be trusted! We need a source that accords with WP:Reliable sources (click and read please!) to say that UDT members can now be considered SEALs. Finally, the spokesman mentioned above worked for Ventura, so is not on in a position to decide whether UDT members can be called SEALs. Hope that's clear. Bigger digger (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation in the matter and I apologize if I commented on the editor I felt biased.

Herewith I submit reasons that Ventura should be in the list (I am still searching for the official Navy page as government and military bureaucracy and records can be difficult to navigate) and why the SEAL list should be merged into the Frogman, UDT and SEAL list.

First, from the Navy SEAL Musueum website “On May 1, 1983, all UDTs were re-designated as SEAL Teams or Swimmer Delivery Vehicle Teams (SDVT). SDVTs have since been re-designated SEAL Delivery Vehicle Teams.” http://www.navysealmuseum.com/heritage/history.php

Captain Larry Bailey is considered an authority on SEALs (he is the one people contact as the last aribitartor whether people are SEALs or frauds), is a retired Navy SEAL Captain and was formerly from Naval Special Warfare Command. He states in the following article “yes” (article here) http://socnet.com/showthread.php?p=418 “The "Official" Word on Jesse Ventura

A source at the Naval Special Warfare Command states: Our take is that Jesse Ventura is a SEAL. He even did his reserve time in SEAL Team ONE. He earned and wears the trident....Captain Larry Bailey is probably the best guy to talk to about this, but OFFICIALLY, we think its splitting hairs by Salisbury and the Navy considers Jesse Ventura as a former SEAL… Hope that helps.

Captain Larry Bailey states: JESSE VENTURA SEAL OR NOT? Jesse Ventura went through UDT/SEAL Class 58 in 1970 and was assigned to UDT-12, where he spent three years (including three deployments fo Subic Bay, Philippines). As a UDT frogman, he operated in Viet Nam waters and earned the US Viet Nam Service Ribbon. He undoubtedly, like so may UDT men of that era, went ashore in Viet Nam for short periods of time. After he was released from active duty in 1973, he joined Reserve SEAL Team ONE. The point here is that all graduates of BUD/S are referred to within the Naval Special Warfare community as SEALs. They received the same training, whether they went to SEAL Teams or Underwater Demolition Teams. The case made by Commander Salisbury on Fox News Channel recently is without merit; Jesse Ventura is a SEAL by any definition. Larry Bailey, Captain, USN (Ret.)

R.D. and Pam Russell, Co-Directors of Navel Special Warfare Archives state:

The official view point of the Archives is that Jesse was a SEAL. He completed BUD/S and the SEAL course in the desert. The west coast used UDT as a man power pool so they could pull people at any time without there being a training delay.

There you have it, three "official" statements, draw your own conclusions...”

The US Navy Seals staes that he was a SEAL and more http://blog.usnavyseals.com/2009/09/jesse-ventura-a-navy-seal-a-governor-and-much-more.html --76.173.247.200 (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * THe information you provide, if backed up by reliable sources, would show that he was a SEAL. The "official" statements that you present above come from a forum that is not backed by reliable sources.  Please revert your latest addition yourself and let the conversation conclude before readding it.  You just came off a block for edit warring and you are right back at it in the middle of a discussion that at this point is not agreeing with you.   GB  fan  05:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * RE;Special:Contributions/76.173.247.200 PLEASE READ [|READ THE RELIABLE SOURCE REFERENCE THAT HAS BEEN SENT TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES BY SEVERAL DIFFERENT EDITORS.] The link that you sent for the Navy Seal Museum Does not state that Ventura was in the SEALs. It is a general history of the SEALs going back to inception and does not mention Ventura's name. A search through Google tells me that you are not going to find his name on the website. The second link that you provided "socnet.com" is a message board where anyone could post anything, it utterly fails Reliable_sources. The third link, "blog.usnavyseals.com" is a blog(It failsReliable_sources) with the following disclaimer; "This web site and associated pages are not associated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by U.S. Navy SEALs or any other U.S. Armed Forces including, but not limited to, U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force and U.S. Coast Guard." So it too utterly fails Reliable_sources. (Although you might find the responses to the article informative.) The assertion that he was on SEAL team 1 is false, His Navy_Enlisted_Classification was UDT from start to finish, this was reported by KMSP-TV in Minneapolis who got his form DD 214 through a freedom of information act. Regardless, blog postings fail Reliable_sources. I would appreciate it if you would spare me (and whomever else is reading this) the personal insults and abide by the Assume good faith principles as well as the Reliable_sources guidelines. I would also appreciate it if you would remove the edit yourself as I am endeavoring to respect Wikipedia guidelines. V7-sport (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
 * Reverted, Are you User:Sterlinglongcolbo by any chance? V7-sport (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)V7-sport

As noted above, let's see something official from the Department of the Navy regarding all UDTs being SEALs. The source does not have to be online - just publicly available. The Navy has a history department and librarians, perhaps someone there could help you. Rklawton (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Entry Criteria
If an individual was both a Seal, and notable, it should be easy to find a citation to verify the fact. Please do not add any members to the list that do not have references indicating their SEAL affiliation, and notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.59.29.34 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose if the citations are in the subject's article, then that's sufficient for inclusion here without duplicating these citations here. On the other hand, if an article doesn't yet exist, or if the article lacks citations supporting the SEAL claim, then reference here should be removed on sight. But requiring us to maintain duplicate citations here and in the subject's article is pointless and not required by policy.  Rklawton (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Please do not come in and dictate how the article is maintained. As fara as removing existing information, the first step should not be to remove entries just because they don't have sources on this list.  Your first step should be to add citation needed tags if you challenge the information.  Inline citations are not required to be on every piece of information, only those that are challenged or likely to be challenged, see Verifiability for more information.  GB fan (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not dictating anything see Verifiability. To quote from the Verifiability page, which you seem to have not read: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia or from websites that mirror its content as sources, because this would amount to self-reference." Please do not create new verifiability standards for this page that are contrary to Wikipedia's published standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.59.29.34 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Please also see Lists, which states that "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view ". there is no section in the Lists guide that makes it ok for Lists to self-reference Wikipedia. Are you two really editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.59.29.34 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:V does not say that these should be removed because they do not have citations in this list. If you are challenging them then add fact tags to the ones you are challenging and allow editors the possibility to fix them.  GB fan (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 4.59.29.34 are you challenging each of entries and saying they are not SEALs and notable?  GB fan (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 4.59.29.34, don't just tag everything without an inline citation. Wikipedia entries may not reference other Wikipedia articles as a reliable source but there is no requirement by policy to duplicate inline citations for list articles when the parent articles for each entry contains the needed references. If you check a parent article and it does not contain a reference then you may challenge or remove that entry from the list article until a reference is produced. Otherwise simply tagging everything without an inline citation a list article is obnoxious and unwarranted. If it really bugs you then put the leg work in yourself and add all the duplicate citations here as well but don't just tag them and expect someone else to put in all the superfluous effort for you. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

James Suh
Should James Suh be listed here. He is known for for one event, being killed in a MH-47 crash. I can not find any other coverage of him other than after his death. GB fan (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to list him in an article for notable SEALs. Rklawton (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not incredibly hung up on including him. He's verifiable a SEAL, the media has covered him individually, he was one of 12 SEALs killed in what is arguably the most infamous SEAL op of the Afghan war and his home town built him a memorial. All that said I understand the inclination to limit scope to those who are officially noted for extraordinary accomplishment (Navy Cross, MoH) or those who have achieved independent notability outside their profession as a SEAL. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Change article to include UDTs?
Maybe we should change the name of this article to include notable veterans from the other NSW units, and not just the SEAL Team vets?

I mean, Jesse Ventura, SEAL or no SEAL, is a pretty notable BUD/S graduate. Teddy Roosevelt IV is listed here but I'm not sure he was on a SEAL Team, I have written source confirming he graduated BUD/S and was assigned to UDT-11 though.

As far as I know, SEALs, UDTs, NCDUs, and Scouts and Raiders are considered 'equals' by the NSW community. 83.233.139.169 (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd not get into the degrees of worth or a skills debate, it's a nonconstructive, dead end road. What I will say is that, according to the Navy, anyone who graduated BUD/S after the establishment of the SEAL qualification are "SEAL qualified". That makes them SEALs regardless of whether they went to a UDT or a SEAL Team. Prior to around 2007 there wasn't even a SEAL job rating within the Navy, it was a skills qualification. So a guy would be a Master-at-Arms (SEAL) or a Culinary Specialist (SEAL) and based on that would be assigned to duties requiring a SEAL qualification such as a SEAL Team or a UDT. They even competed for promotion based on their original rating. In other words it's acceptable to reference pre-SEAL UDTs and other frogman organizations as doctrinal and cultural predecessors and everyone after the establishment of BUD/S as the SEAL qualifying schoolhouse as a SEAL, or at the very least "SEAL qualified", regardless of what unit they were sent to afterwards. TomPointTwo (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, so what do you say. I'm thinking rename to "List of [US] Naval Special Warfare Veterans" or "List of UDT/SEALs" or something like that. It would put an end to the UDT vs. SEAL malarkey. 83.233.139.169 (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, not all personnel in Naval Special Warfare are SEALs. There's the SWCC, Diver and EOD guys and then all the support personnel who belong to NSW. The eaiset thing is simply to list a person here who both meets wikipedia's notability guideline and who have reliable sources confirming their status as having held the SO rating or been awarded the SEAL qualification prior to the SO rating's creation. That won't require a change in title or scope of the article. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it would require a name change to get Jesse Ventura listed here and that is a stated objctive in the orginal post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.21.147 (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can find a source that says Ventura was SEAL qualified after his BUDS graduation (I'm not sure when he graduated) then feel free to add him. Otherwise it's probably not going to fly. I'm not sure changing the scope of an article to get one person added to this list is really appropriate. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember lots of discussion on this here and on his article that says he was not a seal so i don't see how we can add him without a change in scope. If i remember right he even came out and explicitly said he was not a seal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.21.147 (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We could change it to "List of BUD/S Graduates", and I'd like to say Ventura isn't the sole issue here, it's UDTs in general. I can't personally think of enough notable UDT vets warrant an own separate list-article (not saying that there aren't enough, I just don't know about it), so I think it would make sense to have them all in one article with the SEALs. 83.233.139.169 (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * But then again, not all SEALs and UDTs went to BUD/S, some went to UDTR (the equivalent training program on the east coast). 83.233.139.169 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a draft UDT list, User:Bigger digger/List of Navy UDT members. GB fan please tell me what you think of my editing 19:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So what do you think we should do, separate lists? merge? If we go for separate lists there would be quite a few duplicates, guys who were on both STs and UDTs. 83.233.139.169 (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed Roger Crossland
– BUD/S Class 58, SEAL Team 1, UDT 12; entitled to wear the Presidential Unit Commendation ribbon for service in Vietnam; started and commanded Naval Reserve SEAL Team 2; recruited to the SEAL's by Richard Marcinko; a Naval War College graduate who has written internationally on the subject of maritime unconventional warfare including the U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings and the New York Times; author of Red Ice, The Jade Rooster, and several related published and internet articles     

The sources do not match the claim made other than unreliable sites, such as personal "Wetpaint"???? and blogs. How is he notable? And was he REALLY a SEAL?
 * Crossland was a SEAL, he was a plankowner of SEAL Team 2 and was called back to active duty on December 7, 2011 to serve in Afghanistan.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * He graduated with class 58 (1970) and was a plankowner at SEAL-2 (commissioned in 1962)? K380 (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Category
Do we really need this list? Won't a category serve the same purpose? Rklawton (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Superficially but some names are notable enough here but not notable enough for their own articles. Others have stub articles which I'm not sure will stand the test of time. The notability threshold is lower for inclusions in a list article than for categorized, standalone articles. Additionally a list article allows for some descriptiveness facilitating quick searches and is a thousand times more accessible to the average reader. Do you have a specific reason you want to make the transition or was it more curiosity? TomPointTwo (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, no specific reason. All but one person on the list has an article, so it seemed rather redundant. Rklawton (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of United States Navy SEALs. 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/20110714173422/http://www.news4jax.com/news/2999887/detail.html to http://www.news4jax.com/news/2999887/detail.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the purpose of "red linking" some of the names on this list?
This instruction is contained as a comment on the page.


 * ANY NAME ADDED TO THIS LIST MUST HAVE A LINKED BLP CONFIRMING THEIR NSW HISTORY OR AN ATTACHED REF, IN WHICH CASE THEIR NAME * * GETS RED-LINKED. UNSUPPORTED ADDITIONS WILL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY

It's not clear to me exactly what is the criteria for "red-linking"? Persons without a "Biography of a Living Person" on Wikipedia?

From Wikipedia:

Articles should not contain red links to files, to templates, or to topics that do not warrant an article, such as a celebrity's romantic interest who is not a celebrity in his or her own right, and thus lacks notability. Red links should not be made to every chapter in a book. Red links should not be made to deleted articles unless the reason for the deletion of the article was not due to a lack of notability or the topic not being encyclopedic in another way. Many important topics have had previous articles that were not salvageable or were vandalized. In addition, even if a page has been deleted because it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines, you may make a red link to the term if you intend to write an article about an entirely different topic that happens to have the same title.

In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see Notability – Whether to create standalone pages).

So my questions:

As a reader (not an editor) or Wikipedia is there some clear meaning for "red-linking" of some but not all names on this list that do not have a BLP -- or is it being applied in a way that is specific to this page?

Quoting the above criteria: "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name." Who has made the determinations of this, as some (but not all) of the people who are listed here, but do not have BLPs are red linked. What criteria was used to determine that some people could "plausibly sustain an article", but others could not?

If the difference is an important one what is the justification for only applying it to new names on the list?

Who went through and did this "red-linking" and why isn't there any discussion of it on this page?

ZeroXero (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically, red links encourage article creation. The criteria for inclusion on this list is "notable" SEALs (with BLPs or refs). If they're notable enough for this list, then they are possibly notable enough for their own article. Almost 90% of the guys listed have their own BLPs already, so the other 10% are certainly "plausible" for their own articles as well. - the WOLF  child  23:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Red links
- Along with my comments above, 9 out of 10 entries on this list already have BLPs. The other few that are listed are notable, as per their attached refs. They are likely candidates for their own BLPs and linking them (red) helps encourage the creation of those BLPs. They are not listed because they are dead (I'm not even sure any of them are), so WP:MEMORIAL does not apply and I don't know what "WP:MILN" is. - the WOLF  child  02:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a Wikipedian who has served in SOF units, alongside SF Green Berets in non-combat roles. And I've been to a lot of VFW bars hearing people claim valor about their SEAL Team 6 exploits. (My tongue is sore from biting.) So I am quite inclined to be critical of those who want to loosen WP:NOTABILITY standards. Not every SEAL or UDT who has a redlinked article meets N standards. (And see WP:MILNG.) So I hope this list can maintain the WP:WTAF standard. – S. Rich (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, from one who also served, thank you for your service. That said, your comment might not cross the COI line, but it does have a POV-ish tone to it. This is not a bar, these listings aren't of some ROTC-week-end warrior-Spec Op-wanna-bes (and quite frankly, I don't see the connection here, or the analogy you are trying to make). They are actual SEALs whom have gained enough nobility to be covered by one or more reliable sources. That is enough to have them listed here, even without a red-link. But the fact they have been covered by one or more reliable sources means it plausible they could have a BLP article themselves, hence the red-link to encourage creation of said BLP article. I don t see a reason to delete these entries, (despite the last essays you linked). Give it some time, some of those links may go blue. That is something we want here, right? - the WOLF  child  02:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And thanks backatcha. As you are noting, I'm tagging the various refs for the redlinked names. Some not tagged have refs that simply say so-and-so was a SEAL. – S. Rich (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Also, a single SEAL-mention is not significant per WP:BASIC. 03:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, but a simple search may (and have) turned up additional sources that show that some of these guys have other accomplishments that make them notable, or may be tied to military operations of note. Ultimately, some of them may have to go, but we're not in a rush to get rid of anyone, are we? - the WOLF  child  03:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2018
ADD:

Matthew Charles Paradise, BUDS class 138. The first Navy Seal to become the Commanding Officer of an aircraft carrier in the Navy History (USS Carl Vinson, 2018) Reference: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=105961 Walnut43 (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - wolf 04:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

SEALS rollback
Say, your rollback on the SEALs article was improper. It re-introduced some errors and improvements that I had fixed. E.g., removed an ndash in the list, re-added unneeded verbage, lengethened the SD by adding unneeded info, made "space" a proper noun, etc. If my edits created specific errors, then please correct those specific errors. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't see all of your changes as improvements, but that said, there were (obvious) errors made just prior to your edit, that you left in place, and then you re-introduced them again with your revert. Then for some reason you attempted to raise the issue on my user talk page instead of here, the article talk page, where content issues should be discussed. But, we're here now so, what changes would you like to see made? -  wolf  05:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)