Talk:List of military special forces units/Archive 2

Regarding COMMANDOS...
Do commado forces (ex: turkish commandos) qualify as special forces to be included in this list, or are they counted as elite light infantry? Fustos (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * my general inclination is that if it’s described as SOF by its own military it should be added. Garuda28 (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, agreed. This list is pretty loose with it's inclusion criteria. Sure, you need a source or linked article, but as long as that source or linked article says anything about a particular unit being "special", "elite", "anti-terror", "hostage rescue", "deep recon", "black-ops" or any other descriptors along those lines, then it seems to get added here without much, if any, opposition. Not much we can do about that however, since the list is global, the more countries you include, the more broader the definition of "spec-ops" is going to be. - the WOLF  child  00:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Ukrainian Special forces...
Should the Ministry of Internal Affairs be considered MILITARY special forces or Law Enforcement? I'm asking because it seem the Ukrainian MVD seems to be a gendarme type forces, and all other gendarme type SFs were relocated to law enforcement special forces list.Fustos (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends if they’re considered part of their armed forces (like France) or not. If they are I’d say add them. Garuda28 (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

USASF
this edit by seemed to a worthwhile addition. I'm sure would benefit reader to distinguish just who the "Green Berets" are on this list, and who they aren't. Additionally, the entries for DEVGRU and 1st SFOD-D have additional commonly known monikers added to their unit entries, such as (SEAL Team SIX) and (Delta Force). I would ask (respectfully) that you reconsider the revert. Cheers - the WOLF  child  04:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not notice that we already had this precidence in the article. I’ll revert immediately. Garuda28 (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks bro. - the WOLF  child  04:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for allowing my edit to stand! --The Vital One (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

1st Airborne Brigade (Japan)
I've been looking around, and haven't been able to find any sourced material saying they're a special forces unit (elite, yes). Does anyone have anything on this? Garuda28 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See my reply to you above on Jan 28. - the WOLF  child  08:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My general worry is that I can find things that say a similar status to the 82nd Airborne being elite, but nothing in particular that says it’s a commando or special operations force (and no source from the JSDF saying this).Garuda28 (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree... and by US military standards, the 82nd Airborne isn't considered to be Special Forces. But this isn't just the US military, it's world-wide. The more countries we have, he more wide-spread (perhaps even 'watered-down') the definition of "spec-ops" is going to be. What might be considered "elite" to one country, isn't necessarily as such to another. If there is a source that describes a particular unit in a country to be in any way special, separate or above the rest of that country's military, then why not add it here? - the WOLF  child  17:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My counter argument is that I haven’t found a source that supports it being special ops. (To address you’re hypothecate) Some sources describe the USMC as elite, but it is certainly not special operations and should not be added here. I would say some editorial descretion is probably nessesary. Either that, or have it be directly sourced that it is a special operations unit (not just of elite status). Garuda28 (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we're basically on the same page here. The way I'm looking at it is we can't really compare one country to another. A "Spec ops" unit from one country might not be on the same level as any SOCOM unit from the US, they might not even compare to some of the regular force units in the US military, but they just same, they could be considered the top tier unit of their parricular country. (And of course, that would have to be supported by sources). And you're right of course, that some people feel that certain units in the US military are "special" or "elite", but they aren't SOCOM/JSOC so they officially they don't count. Like I said, the more countries that are included, the wider the definition, and like you said, that's where some editorial discretion may need to come in, along with careful analyzation of sources. - the WOLF  child  03:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we are. So to the topic at hand, what are your opinions on adding the airborne brigade. I’ve found reliable sources for the Special forces group, but nothing that puts in the same tier. Garuda28 (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * TBH, I haven't looked into the sourcing for this entry. But, imho, if the Japanese military considers this unit as "special" or "elite", and in some way "above" other regular units; in abilities, responsibilities, (eg: CT, HRT, and such) training and equipment, etc. and/or under a specific spec ops command structure, then perhaps they should be added to this list. But, again, it depends on sourcing and Japan's definition of SF. - the WOLF  child  05:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Suppressed notes
At the top of the page is a suppressed note that reads; Which is fine, but while doing some article cleanup, I noticed that some (not all) countries also have a hidden note just below the section header that reads; Out of the 86 countries listed, only 20 have this notice;


 * 1) Australia
 * 2) Austria
 * 3) Belgium
 * 4) Canada
 * 5) Chile
 * 6) China
 * 7) Germany
 * 8) Greece
 * 9) Hungary
 * 10) India
 * 11) Indonesia
 * 12) Israel
 * 13) Italy
 * 14) Philippines
 * 15) Poland
 * 16) Spain
 * 17) Switzerland
 * 18) Turkey
 * 19) United Kingdom
 * 20) Zimbabwe

Just curious... Thanks - wolf  18:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are these left over from a older/previous cleanup effort? (and people have just been removing them as they come across them?)
 * Or have these notes been recently added? (and to these specific countries for some reason?)
 * Looking in the page history you would have seen that I only added them every so often; I did not think that every country would require the reminder. Anyone inserting information for any country would be sure to see at least one of them. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits layout of sections and revert of Belarus and Serbia
Hello, can you please explain why you changed the layout for (and in instances reverted my edits):-
 * 1. Australia edit-adding the name of the armed forces inconsistent with the layout of other sections (US,UK,Russia,etc..), moving the see also hatnote for the special forces article into the section which is reserved for name/link to article on a branch of the armed forces, special forces command or unit when the article moved was neither of these and is an overview of that country's special forces, moving Tactical Assault Group, which is a sub unit, from below the units to alongside the name not following a descending order.
 * 2. Zimbabwe edit-same as above, moving the hatnote into the section when it is not an article on a branch of the armed forces, special forces command or unit and is an overview article.
 * 3. Chile edit-same as above (1&2), moving the hatnote into the section when is it not an article on a branch of the armed forces, special forces command or unit. Adding the name of the armed forces (same as 1&2).
 * 4. Belarus edit-adding the name of the armed forces same as above (1&3), moving the hatnote into the section same as above (1,2&3) when it is not an article on a branch of the armed forces, special forces command or unit and is an overview article. You reverted my edit, to insert the name of the command - Special Operations Forces Command - and to correct the names of the units with citation to the official Belarus defence website.
 * 5. Serbia revert-you reverted my edit when I changed * to ; consistent with layout of other sections, fixed a dead link for the Special Brigade, corrected unit name for Counter-Terrorist Battalion according to the official Serbian Armed Forces citation and changed to correct unit link Counter-Terrorist Battalion (Serbia) not Counter-terrorist Battalion of MP Serbian Special Brigade which is a redirect, added a citation for 72nd Reconnaissance-Commando Battalion, inserted 63rd Parachute Battalion according to the official citation, corrected unit name for Military Police Battalion for Special Purposes according to the official citation, inserted the command for the Military Police Battalion for Special Purposes unit - Military Police Directorate - according to the official citation.--Melbguy05 (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * TL;DR. I will say that this entire page is full of inconsistencies and is in need of top to bottom cleanup and updating. So it seems odd that after I reverted you for wp:or a few days ago, you pulled that stunt with undo function, I commented on it... then suddenly you you come here and revert every edit I make. Maybe you should do some explaining... -  wolf  16:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Annndd... nuthin. But, I was wasn't expecting anything anyway. - wolf  21:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Poland
- I wanted to ask why you keep changing "Polish Special Forces" to "Special Troops Command"? (in the parent article as well). Also, does it really need 10 refs, all piled up on the top link? After that there are 6 sub-units listed, 4 are linked to parent articles, the 5th is a red link and the 6th is just text. I would suggest that if there is one ref that covers all special forces of Poland, add that to the top link. The 4 units after that are linked to parent articles, so don't need refs. The 5th unit; Support Unit of Command and Security of Special Forces "Nil" - needs a ref, and the 6th unit; "7 Special Operations Squadron - operational command only" - needs a ref (and should be red linked if there is potential article there in the future).

I'm not sure which refs should stay and go, as some are in polish, some are dead links, and one at least appears to be a blog of some type, (it has a picture of One sixth warriors on the main page!)

So, anything that can be done to clean that up would be good. Thanks - wolf  22:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"Tiger Forces" and unreliable sourcing
"VeteransToday.com" is not a reliable source for anything, as it is a fringe, Russian-linked disinformation outlet. See, e.g., this article. This has been discussed at RSN, and it appears that others have concurred that it is unreliable (see Archive 138 and Article 175).

And more specifically, the claim that VeteransToday.com makes -- that the Syrian "Tiger Forces" are a "special forces" unit -- is contradicted by the reliable sources out there. This October 2018 report from the Middle East Institute explicitly states that the Tiger Forces are a militia, not a special operations unit: "While often described as the Syrian government’s elite fighting force, this research portrays a starkly different picture.... this research demonstrates that the true power of the unit does not come from their alleged status as elite fighters but instead from their large size, supply lines, and Russian support."

--Neutralitytalk 04:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I'm actually not familiar with the source, but when I looked it at up on RSN, I went with the most recent entry; Archive 182. There, the final word was; "Veterans Today seems like it meets the guidelines.", and I went with that. I was just reverting back in what appearred to be the removal of sourced content. But I'm not all that invested in this. You seem like you're more familiar with it, so I'll leave it to you. If you want to revert again, I won't contest it. Thanks for starting s discussion. Cheers - wolf  05:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you already reverted while I was typing out my reply. It would've been nice if just once, people would just follow the rules and wait to have a discussin before rushing to revert again. It would've nice if you had just waited a few minutes. Then it would've been resolved collaboratively, instead of you arguing with some lengthy revert summary. Oh well... - wolf  06:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Does Russian FSB special forces qualify as military special forces?
Given their role seem to be a hybrid of the FBI and it's Hostage Rescue Team, and (JSOC), the FSB spetsnaz aren't limited to civilian operations. They extensively take part in counter terror operations with the military in the Caucasus. Kubinka-2 Special Purpose Center for the SSO is based on Alpha, Vymple and Kaskad groups experiences against islamist insurgence. Furthermore, Directorate V is responsible for defending, or in extreme cases, recovering nuclear material. Is it enough to move FSB to the military section? Quenreerer (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

US NSW
@Belevalo; With this edit summary you wrote; "dude. fuck it. WP:RD the Wolf removed so much info and unvenly it made the whole page a mess. the US article wasn't trimmed at all, (jingoistic bias maybe), but most others were. Will attempt to add links to units but also trimming them", in reference to my recent clean up of this article. An effort that involved almost 60 edits, as I had done one country at a time, an overall removed 20+kB of unsourced content, needless minutiae and superfluous bloat. An effort that you summarily reverted.

Then, with this edit, you removed all the SEAL Teams, with the edit summary; "clean up". The blatant hypocrisy notwithstanding, the Teams are the main, identifiable unit of NSW, the same as the Groups are to SF. As such, I have re-added them, along with additional sourcing, not so much that it was needed there, but more to show you how to do it. I also made a few minor corrections and alignments. As I had said, I realize that you are relatively new here, and still figuring things out, and as such I tried to discuss this with you before, but to no avail. And so I decided to wait until you are done doing... whatever it is you are doing, and then at a later date I will come and clean up this page. Again. Have a nice day - wolf  15:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Turkish SF Units
The list I have just written have been deleted, I want to explain that they are a special units within Turkish security organizations.


 * Turkish Naval Forces
 * Underwater Search and Rescue Group Command this unit is new unit under, Turkish Navy estabilished in 2017. They are new specilazed unit for deep water Explosive ordnance disposal & Underwater Search and Rescue missions.
 * Coast Guard Command (Turkey)
 * Maritime Search and Security Operations Team (SÖH) They are Similar to Maritime Security Response Team (MSRT) which is also on this list. Special Task Unit of Coast Guard Command (Turkey)
 * Diving, Safety, Security, Search and Rescue Team (DEGAK) DEGAK is coast guard diving and Explosive ordnance disposal unit

Gendarmerie General Command has 2 commando brigade see List of commando units

With the rise of the Kurdish insurgency, the gendarmerie, established two additional commando brigades and, apart from this commando brigades, a new HQ was established in Ankara for combating terrorism and border operations. Shortly called Gendarmerie Special Public Security Command Introductory video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yc5mo7sMbM

Gendarmerie Special Operations teams are selected military special units consisting of specialist gendarme commando's who was deployed in different provinces to combat terrorism. Also Participated in cross-border operations as SF unit for ex Operation Olive Branch
 * Gendarmerie Special Operations (JÖH)


 * Gendarmerie Search and Rescue Battalion Command (JAK) JAK is a special search and rescue battalion within the gendarmerie. This union is specially trained and the element of searching and scanning in all climatic and geographic conditions. what makes them special force is; personnel rescue and search in mountain and snowslide type environments to different situations such as CBRN defense.

Also i want to mention Security Forces Command's SF unit. They have also SF unit apart from TAF similar to Special Forces Command (Turkey) Since i creat the page i want to add it also on the list under Turkey section TRNC Special Task Force Command

I hope I could explain it, I'm not adding the police or other law enforcement units here, I just added expert SFs. If these are to be deleted, I think half of this list should be deleted too. Kind Regards Cengizsogutlu (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Many of these do not appear to be special forces as defined here on the project. I would suggest, again, that you self-revert, then re-add units, one at a time, and only with a reliable source that confirms they are SF. - wolf  15:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Tell me what makes them not special forces ? For ex TRNC Special Task Force Command how is that not SF? Or btw What is your knowledge with the special forces i wonder? If you think that way, there are dozens of troops on the page similar to these troops and I start delete them all then.
 * Here for ex even on first letter A

Argentine Navy


 * Tactical Divers Group Divers? Same as i mention
 * Amphibious Commandos Group Marines? is that SF Cengizsogutlu (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Wait on B now;

Bangladesh

Directorate General of Forces Intelligence What? Intelligence is SF? is that ALSO JOKE?
 * Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Bureau (CTIB) = Bruhh its police

Bangladesh Army
 * Para-Commando Brigade Normal Para Commando how can be SF?

Bangladesh Navy
 * Special Warfare Diving and Salvage (SWADS) ALSO DIVERS
 * Offensive Demolition Division 71 (ODD71) EOD

Bangladesh Air Force
 * No.41 Squadron Bruhh Special Jets? On thi list? Cengizsogutlu (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You can stop, right now. I am not going to debate this entire list with you. This is about your edits and your edits only. I don't have to prove they are not special forces, you have to prove they are. You are the one adding content here, the WP:ONUS is on you provide properly sourced content. This is also about you edit warring to try and force your content in, despite the policies of this project. You added content, it was reverted out. It is supposed to stay out until the conclusion of a talk page discussion. You have repeatedly reverted that content back in, and as I write this, that content is still there. The first step that needs to happen is you self-revert the article back to WP:QUO, iwo, remove that content. Then going forward, add only units that have an attached reliable source confirming the SF status, or a linked article that contains said sourcing. I suggest doing one unit at a time for ease, but either way, you need to follow the policies and guidelines of this project, or be reported and likely blocked - again. And no, this is not a joke. - wolf  16:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Okey,i will delete it but TRNC Special Task Force Command will stay cuz it has official page. Sorry wasting your time have a nice weekendCengizsogutlu (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You self-reverted, but then re-added stuff right back. Again, not how it works. I have reviewed the six units you've listed, both their linked articles and their sourcing. From what I can see, SAS has to go, SAT can stay, Underwater Search and Rescue Group Command has to go, MAK has to go for now, but it could likely be re-added if better sourcing is found, AKIP has to go and TRNC can stay (but I'm saying that on an WP:AGF basis. It needs better sourcing. Though I won't challenge it, others might.) Basically, you've added an Naval EOD unit, a Naval SAR unit, and an Air Force SAR group - these are not special forces. Nothing supports either Naval unit as SF, and in the article for AKIP, it specifically states they are "mainly for civil use", and they are clearly distinct from the MAK unit. These three need to be removed, and the MAK entry also needs to be removed until better sourcing is found. As I said, SAT and TRNC can stay, but you should still work to improve the sourcing as well. - wolf  16:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

no source for spartan 3000
... and the sources that do mention the unit, mention it as an "elite" unit, not a special forces one. Belevalo (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Read the definition of "special forces" and "special operations". The sources provide sufficient information to support inclusion. Meanwhile, you need to stop reverting disputed content. Just because you finally posted a comment, does not give you a free pass edit war. This is a collegial project, when are you finally going to learn to work with others? Not everything needs to a battle. - wolf  12:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * post link here where it says spartan 3000 is a special forces unit. Belevalo (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you even bothered to look? Spartan 3000 has four refs attached:
 * The Telegraph: "Special Forces unit..."
 * The Diplomat: "The unit’s main task is to carry out special operations..."
 * The New York Times: "South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade..."
 * NZ Herald: "The special force unit..."
 * How do you miss it in, not one, not two, not three, but all four sources? This is going beyond WP:TE & WP:DE into WP:CIR territory now. I strongly suggest you stop beating this dead horse and move on to something else. - wolf  18:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Lebanon
Why’d you remove my edits. MoeMoe01 (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I explained in my edit summary, your edits were unsupported. All content must be supported by reliable sources. Surely you saw that note when you were editing the page, yet you made the edits anyway. Just as you must've seen the note on my talk page, yet... again. If you want help, contact the help desk. - wolf  02:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

1st SFC (A)
today you made this edit, where you changed 1st Special Forces Command (1st SFC) (A) to 1st Special Forces Command (Airborne) basically removing the initialism and adding a needlessly redundant duplicate of the command name, both before and after the pipe. You didn't leave an edit summary to explain the change (instead marking it as "minor"...?) Perhaps 1st Special Forces Command (Airborne) - 1st SFC(A) would be more suitable? (with the initialism that is used on the SOC website) While someone else might revert you or otherwise change that content, I've started this discussion to give you an opportunity to clarify your edit and perhaps work towards an agreeable solution. - wolf  08:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose we can consider this progress. Thank you for the edit. - wolf  20:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Indian SF
Hey most articles state Indian Army has 9 Para battalions and some are saying 7, both are there in Wikipedia. Is their any reliable source?? SReader21 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You may want to ask, I believe he edited that section last, and may have a special interest in that country. - wolf  03:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

ANASF
The addition or removal of ANA Special Forces will have to be sorted out between and. -  wolf  03:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Previously, it seemed important to that this entry remains. There should be a discussion about this and they are invited to take part. -  wolf  16:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . This unit does exist, it's just all of the sources are very old, better not having it on the page until better sources (and more up-to-date ones are found). Purijj (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That red link should tell you all that you need to know. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what point you're trying to make about red links, but there are numerous entries that are either redlinked, or not linked at all, but they are supported by sources, which is what determines inclusion for any SF unit on this list. The entry in question, before it was removed, was: ANA Special Forces . This was an entry that  insisted on including. I had initially removed it because the sourcing was poor and it appeared to be a duplicate. Once I noted there was a significant entry for the SF on the Afghan National Army (ANA) page, I improved the sourcing for entry. Now, at this point, it's not clear why  removed it (he didn't leave a summary or respond to this thread), or why Purijj has suddenly reversed himself and doesn't seem to care about the entry anymore, but if it's going to be removed, then that whole SF section on the ANA page needs to be removed as well. So of the three of you that have now weighed in on this, come to decision one way or t'other, (preferably a consensus), one hopefully supported by policy, and then enact it. -  wolf  21:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not about not caring, it's just I'm not going to start an edit-war over it, as doing so would just make things uncivil. And agreed, if one is going to be removed ,then the rest should, as most is poorly sourced and very dated. Thanks. Purijj (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't address the ANASF section on the ANA page, which is what this list page was listing. -  wolf  15:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ANA SF exists, but the SF organizations is still poorly sourced and vague. All i could find was that there are at least 2 special operations brigades with some SF battalions (kandaks) in them and the national missions brigade. ANA SF is more of a occupational term like "green beret", than an actual unit name. Like with the US SF there is no US SF unit or Green Beret unit, but we know about units that have those soldiers. Same with ANA SF. I also didn't include ANA Commando battalions because their role is light infantry, more like the OG 75th Ranger regiment, not SOF and they're also the talent pool from which ANA SF get it's soldiers. Belevalo (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * . Soild points, that seems to be the case. Purijj (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. In the US, there is a unit, a whole branch actually, of special forces called "Special Forces", ("Green Berets" is a nickname for same). It appears that there is a similar set-up with the ANA, with the ANASF being somewhat modelled on US SF (hardly surprising, given the situation there). Their name is Afghan National Army Special Forces, and since there is a whole section about them on the Afghan National Army page, I don't see how they we don't include them here. This is just a list of SF units. All that is required is that 1) they are SF, 2) they have a (linked) article on WP and/or 3) they are sourced. As long as that sections remains in the ANA article, there should be an entry here listing it. That what this page is page for. So again, if you want to remove the entry here, then you need to address the section there. I'm not pushing for way or t'other, just that this gets dealt with... either way. (And post edit conflict: : "Solid points"....? Which ones and how so? -  wolf  15:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you’re getting United States Army Special Forces and United States Special Operations Command confused, you’re right that this is a list of SF units... The problem is that "ANA SF” isn’t a unit per say. If you created a page for an Afghan SF unit and added it to the list I doubt there would be any objections. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also just FYI WP:ONUS puts the burden to get consensus on the one who wants to include not the one who wants to remove. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oy, this like herding kittens now. First, I am aware of the difference between US SF & SOCOM, and this has nothing to do with the American military. And ftr, I was not the one that originally added the ANASF entry to this list, that was USER:PURIJJ. I initially removed it because it was poorly sourced and thought it might be a duplicate of the ANASOC. Purijj insisted on re-adding it, 'as is'. So instead of edit-warring, or just leaving garbage, I looked into it further myself and found some better sourcing. That's when I also found that the ANA page has a section about the ANASF. Following that, USER:BELEVALO removed the ANASF entry from this page. I initially thought that since Purijj was so adamant that it be included, that he and Belevalo could discuss it and (hopefully) sort it out. (I even started this thread for them.) But Purijj since pulled a 180⁰ and seemingly wants to wash his hands of the whole thing, and Belevalo will not address the ANASF section that I have now repeatedly mentioned. (And so far, neither have you, ftm.) Also, I'm aware of wp:onus, are you aware that I haven't tried to re-add the entry, or even specifically argue in favor of its inclusion?
 * So, jtbc, I'm not pushing to include an ANASF entry here. I am however, noting that as long as there is a section on the ANA page about an ANASF unit, then it probably should be included here. But, if the consensus is that it doesn't belong here, then that ANASF section at the ANA page will need to be addressed. This is a list of SF units. We can't have a WP article that has a section about an SF unit without noting said unit here. That's what this page is for. If it exists, we list it here, if it doesn't, then that needs to be addressed there. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. -  wolf  23:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * TL;DR... as long as there is a section about the ANA Special Forces on the ANA page, then they should be included on this List of military special forces units. -  wolf  02:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * they are. The are represented by the 1st and 2nd SO (special operation) Brigades, which are a mix of SF and Commando battalions Belevalo (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So the if 1st & 2nd SO Brigades are units of the ANASF, just like the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th & 10th Groups are units of the United States Army Special Forces, then why not list them as such? Either ANASF exists or doesn't, and there is a section at ANA, as well as a sourced entry here, that says is does exist, so why not list the "Afghan National Army Special Forces" on the "List of military special forces units"? -  wolf  12:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The ANASF doesn't exist as a unit. I didn't add the 1st, 2nd SO Brigades under ANASF, because they're a mix of special operations and commando kandaks (battalions). If there would be a separate page for ANASF and therefore included here, i wouldn't be opposed to it, just like the US Army Special Forces isn't technically a unit, but the information in it regarding the SF groups is relevant and helpful enough, that i don't actively push for a removal. But if someone said it's not an SF unit so we must remove and only leave the groups, i would agree wit the reasoning. One possible solution regarding ANA SF is to link the ANA SF page section to the 1st and 2nd SO brigades. Belevalo (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The comparison I was making with US SF is that it is branch of the army, (it exists), and the numbered groups all belong to it. But I think I see the point you’re making in that where the US SF groups are all Green Berets, as in 100% SF, you're saying that these ANASF brigades are not 100% SF? Because there's non-SF mixed in, do I have that right? -  wolf  17:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ANASF brigades are not 100% SF? Because there's non-SF mixed in - that's what it appears to be. Belevalo (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still not clear what you're basing that on... is it a source? An article? Meanwhile, since starting this weeks ago, nothing has been done about about the ANASF section on the ANA page. As it stands now, with the sourced content on that page, I don't see how we can omit it from this page. Belevalo, you're the only one to effectively respond here, (if we disclude Purijj's declaration of disinterest and Horse Eye's Back's vague and empty comments), do you have any response regarding the ANASF section? -  wolf  20:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Made a few changes. Based on the source ANA SF seemed to have been a placeholder for ANA Special Security Forces and ANASOC. There are 2 ANA special forces battalions, based on the Green Berets within the National Mission Brigade, which should be highlighted within the NMB with propers sourcing, but otherwise the section can be renamed Special Security Forces going forward to avoid any confusion. Belevalo (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. As the only person so far willing to research and update the ANASF-cum-ASSF section of the ANA page, I'll leave it to you update the Afghan section of this page. Thanks for the efforts, and for finally putting this issue to rest. -  wolf  11:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Link removals
, you made 3 edits today, this thread is to discuss those edits; Again, thank you for the edit summaries, I hope you also contribute to the discussion. -  wolf  05:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) China - PRC - agree this is a duplicate (and thank you for the edit summary)
 * 2) US - 2 links; United States special operations forces & List of reconnaissance units, you say are "not for this page". I'm not clear on how you've determined that. Nearly all of the units listed on those pages are special forces/ special operations/ or SF/SO capable. Can you clarify this some more?
 * 3) UK - 2 links; List of reconnaissance units & List of paratrooper forces, you say that "list for paratroops and recon isn't a special forces unit"  - again some clarification may be needed, along with some discussion, including input from others, as well as an examination of the units listed and their capabilities to help determine whether they should be included here or not. There's no hurry and I'm sire it will eventually get sorted out.


 * my reasoning is that this is a page that has sections that lists special forces units. we have the see also that lists other lists. keep it simple keep it easier to read. if the unit is sf, then it should appear on this list making another link redundant Belevalo (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I see that "List of paratrooper forces" is already listed under "See also", so we can call that a duplication. The "List of reconnaissance units" to each specific country is currently not listed under "See also". It appears to be, but that is actually the article "Special Reconnaissance", with the link re-labelled. If you're suggesting the actual lists be added there as well, (and perhaps the Special Recon article link changed to its actual name). I'm ok with that. That just leaves the link to "United States special operations forces". That one still hasn't been addressed. I would think that keeping that as a hatnote where it was, under the entry for "United States" would be the most appropriate place. If you agree, then that would settle all the removal issues, and I would be happy to then make the changes. Thanks for the responses. -  wolf  12:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * i'm good with the United States special operations forces hatnote staying as a see link, similar to how spetsnaz is used for the Russian section, as a i don't see the link used anywhere else and the detail about the US SOF could be useful to more detail oriented readers. The special recon list should be re linked properly in the see also section. Belevalo (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ It was nice collaborating with you. -  wolf  17:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of unit native names
Hello any reason why you removed the unit native names? such as for Canada, Brunei, Norway & others, and other countries in these edits and .--Melbguy05 (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Mainly, this is a list article, and the articles it lists contains all additional information, including names/designations in alternative languages. But further, not all instances of alternative language use were sourced, and in general, it helps to cut down on repeated, needless, superfluous additions that just serve as clutter, such as single-use ip users who see an alternative language in one entry and then feel it must be added to other, along with other unsourced and/or unneeded content. Thanks -  wolf  17:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What about sourced official language unit names for units in which English is not the official language of the country?--Melbguy05 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that apply to virtually every country listed here? (save the few where English is the only official language) -  wolf  20:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it would apply to the majority of the units in the list. I discussed this with Buckshot06 in July 2017 on my Talk Page and they agreed that "it would be helpful to have the names of units in their language".--Melbguy05 (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You asked one guy about native names and he basically said 'meh, ok', as part of a larger discussion. Even if you wanted to call that consensus, it was five years ago and consensus can change. But like I said, this is just a list, and all the units listed here can have any native names included in their linked/parent articles. Otherwise, it's just clutter that leads to more clutter that usually includes non-supported content. But if you want to continue to argue for inclusion, it begs the question; how do you add native names for some units, but not others? -  wolf  20:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan-Taliban Special Forces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badri_313_Battalion

from their articles: '''The Red Unit, which numbered approximately 300 by 2016, reportedly employs commando tactics and is equipped with "advanced weaponry", including night vision equipment, heavy machine guns and M4 carbines. Members have been seen during photo ops to be carrying non-encrypted Icom IC-V8 VHF radios. They are known to be especially proficient in night combat, and considered to be better trained and equipped than most Afghan National Army soldiers.'''

and https://www.samaa.tv/news/2021/08/talibans-special-badri-313-patrol-kabul-streets-in-us-gear/

"The new force is reportedly highly trained and equipped with state-of-the-art military equipment."

" A member of the Pakistan Defence website told Daily Mail that it showed the Taliban were no longer a bunch of farmers, but a professional paramilitary force, with one expert suggesting they were even better equipped than the Pakistan Army. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:967f:da30:e90c:dfda:9e5a:79f5 (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the problem right there, "The Taliban is a paramilitary force". We have a separate article for that. Right now, Afghanistan is basically a failed state and probably shouldn't be listed here at all, until it is once again a country with a recognized government and an organized military with special forces. (jmho) -  wolf  14:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Taliban afghanistan isn't recognized as a legitimate state. its a tinderbox of loosely affiliated tribes and warlords that can go up as a tinderbox after final us withdrawal.Belevalo (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Syrian Special Forces
The entries for the 14th Special Forces Division and 15th Special Forces Division denote them both as "possibly no longer operational". Should they still be listed? Then is no additional information regarding this on their individual articles, but that said, those pages raise another question. The articles make it very clear that despite the unit names, they are more like conventional light Infantry/air assault units as opposed to actual special forces. Given that, should these units have been listed at all? -  wolf  16:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Littoral Response Group (UK)
could you clarify why you believe this this should be included on this list? Thanks -  wolf  20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking. I tried to show that the LRG(s) are/will be a special operations force - perhaps my references were insufficient to do so - with what I had seen in the media. I did include members of LRGs themselves saying special operations are part of their mission set, as well as the MoD's/British government's specification that the Future Commando Force (implemented with the LRGs) will perform special operations in the future. If my references and/or explanations were insufficient or incorrectly implemented, please let me know, and I'll be happy to clarify any mistakes. Thanks! 13tez (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, as for the sources, I'm not sure if the the youtube videos are WP:RS. The videos themselves obviously have MoD content, but the channel appears to be someone's personal channel. The other two sources are RS. With all info combined however, this appears to be a task group, that will be capable of bringing ashore special forces (SF) when needed, but the core units are RN ships and companies (40 & 45) of 3rd Commando, which themselves aren't listed here as SF. At most they have been described a few times as "special operations capable". But beyond say, bringing the SAS into enemy territory via an amphibious landing, what else makes them "special operations capable"...? These LRGs have been described as "task groups", "exercises" and right now appear to be in the planning stages, and even if confirmed as SF, we don't add future units. And if confirmed as currently operational, we need more RS-supplied info that clearly defines them as SF. (imho) -  wolf  17:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me again! Taking a look at the video sources, they are all posted on the official channel of the Royal Marines, and further it is royal marines themselves saying they are forming a special operations/special operations capable force. I would assume that would make those videos sufficient to show they are SOF along with the language in the defence command paper (and news coverage, press releases, statements, etc) - though maybe some more and stronger of the latter could be used. However, I'm not sure about the guidelines on sources re determining reliability and being secondary to the subject - and rules as a whole. The special operations role is/will be carried out by the marines of an LRG rather than the littoral response group as a whole (i.e. not the ships and sailors, who are there to enable those marines and operations). The Littoral Response Groups are to, along with the Army Special Operations Brigade, relieve and complement UKSF in conducting some special operations (themselves so that UKSF can focus on other and more important parts of their mission set as well as being less stretched). This would include having the marines of a LRG perform reconnaissance and raiding operations in coastal regions, and ASOB perform FID missions. The LRGs are somewhat in a grey area between being present or future. It is hard to tell given there isn't 24/7, in-depth news coverage of progress. Afaik, currently one LRG has been stood up (LRG(North) has already completed a deployment - see https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/june/29/210629-albion-returns-from-baltic-mission), and the other (LRG(South)) is in the process of being stood up (as of last news coverage - see https://www.forces.net/news/royal-marines-defeat-us-marines-gruelling-five-day-california-battle). At the same time, I think it's a safe bet to say their capabilities aren't currently developed fully.  13tez (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I don't think they can be added currently, not with the info provided so far. When more info is available, and/or better reliable sources (primary and secondary) are provided, perhaps then. That's my opinion however, you're free to ask for a third opinion if you like. -  wolf  22:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Somalia Danab Brigade
Hello I apologise for removing the edit on Somalia it was not malicious. The reason was that the unit is more of an infantry commando unit and not special forces per the definition of the term--Mikeytuku (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, not a big deal and thanks for the post. That unit was one of the entries that was linked to, and relied on, it's parent article for inclusion on this list. That article states it's Special Forces and so the removal here creates a conflict. I would suggest maybe giving that article a look, and if you feel corrections need to be made, go for it. In the end we have to go with the sources, whether they're correct or not. Cheers -  wolf  15:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Danab is indeed more infantry/commando, and includes motorized (MRAP) infantry, so it's not appropriate to call them special forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, like I said, it was one of the entries that relied on it's parent article for inclusion. I would again suggest that anyone with an interest in this brigade, should probably have a look at it's article. -  wolf  14:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

UKSF+
, not sure what you're playing at here, with all the edits, either dumping in content, or removing content (sometimes the same content!), and all without a single edit summary. I believe likely got it right with his last edit, so going forward, instead of editing that content any further, how about posting your intentions here first? If there's something you want to add, or remove, or if you just want some help, post it up here and it'll get sorted out. This will help prevent any further disruption to the article. Thanks -  wolf  08:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

you again removed a significant amount of sourced content, against consensus and with virtually no explanation. I again invite you to discuss this issue here on the talk page instead of repeatedly disrupting the article. Thank you -  wolf  17:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I support Blackshod's edit removing the Brigade Patrol Troop added by 148.252.128.177 on 3 November 2021 (later renamed to Advance Reconnaissance Force by Chromehyphn then to Surveillance and Reconnaissance Squadron by Blackshod) and removing the Pathfinder Platoon also added by 148.252.128.177. The Brigade Patrol Troop and the Pathfinder Platoon are not considered to be special forces. Not sure if the Ranger Regiment is special forces it is described as being "special operations-capable". Special operations-capable is not defined but it may similar to the US special operations capable which would be like adding the United States Marine Corps Reconnaissance Battalions. Although the Ranger Regiment's role seems to be support and influence very different to that of the Recon Battalions.
 * No. 7 Squadron RAF and No. 658 Squadron AAC are sub-units of the Joint Special Forces Aviation Wing. Neutrality in a December 2018 it seems accidently changed the list ordering.--Melbguy05 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure why Brigade Patrol Troop has been renamed, it should be the article name, other than that, I don't really have strong feelings about these entries either way, but given the number of editors involved in their addition, there should be some opportunity for discussion before they're just arbitrarily removed. Another issue is sourcing, these entries have a significant number of sources attached. Whether it's "special forces", "special forces support", "special operations", "special operations capable" or "elite, advanced, recon, super-duper-troopers", etc., etc., these units aren't just regular military. They at least have a relationship with the special forces that should perhaps be included here somehow. Even the US spec ops capable units mentioned above have links to their pages here. (jmho) -  wolf  23:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I edited Royal Air Force/British Army fixing the sub-units of the JSFAW as above and tidied up a recent edit of Buckshot06. I discovered that MarnetteD in March 2019 replaced the JSFAW ref on RAF site to the main RAF site (Filling in 7 references using Reflinks). Replaced it with the most recent RAF JSFAW ref. Special Forces Flight of 47 Squadron is not a sub-unit of the JSFAW in the RAF ref nor in a MoD Service Personnel and Veterans Agency guide only AirForces Monthly magazine has it as a JSFAW sub-unit.--Melbguy05 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Melbguy05, I know you're already aware, but I'm pinging and  to make sure they are also aware of this discussion, given that Buckshot edited the content being discussed, the purpose of which was to revert Coldstreamer. This is just an FYI. -  wolf  20:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I support Coldstreamer20's edit that was reverted by Buckshot06 removing 148 (Meiktila) Battery Royal Artillery, 4/73 (Sphinx) Special Observation Post Battery and the Honourable Artillery Company Patrol Squadron as they are not special forces. 148 and 4/73 were added on 26 November 2021 by Chromehyphn and the HAC was added on 27 December 2021 by Blackshod.
 * The sources for the Brigade Patrol Troop is an official Youtube video that doesn't even mention the unit nor the Youtube linked article, the other source is a personal website WP:SELFPUB that barely mentions the unit and the Portsmouth news doesn't even mention the unit. The Pathfinder Platoon is WP:OVERCITE with ten refs. The Telegraph does not write it is special forces, the Daily Express writes "special forces" but it is a tabloid WP:RSP, the Independant writes it is a "elite airborne specialist reconnaissance unit", Sky News writes it is "elite" and Soldier magazine does not write it is special forces. The other source is a Sky News documentary on operations in Afghanistan on Youtube. The other four sources are books.
 * You added several books as sources for the Pathfinder Platoon. Do any of the books state it is a special forces unit/special operations force? or that it conducts special operations? pages numbers would be useful.--Melbguy05 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * afaik you can't ping ip users. fyi - wolf  19:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already thanked Melbguy05 for his edit clarifying my revert of special forces aviation units. My principal purpose was to rollback edits by Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) who has significant, severe, WP:CIR issues and problems judging source reliability. I am open to correction by editors in good standing, who can judge source reliability (as seen immediately above, Youtube, personal website etc). I will note however the Brigade Patrol Troop former Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre is in my view extremely competent, sitting on the very edge of special forces if not to be judged SF without reservation. Regards to all. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have removed the Pathfinder Platoon as 148.252.128.177 never responded. The Brigade Patrol Troop article has not been updated in years. The MOD last used that unit name in publications I think around 2013. This explains the use of other names Advance Reconnaissance Force and Surveillance and Reconnaissance Squadron by other editors. The sources were not helpful I would have removed it as well. Also the Ranger Regiment as there is little information available on their training or equipment although some on selection. Nor on their role except "undertake roles traditionally carried out by Special Forces" with one interpretation of this being that special forces were carrying out conventional roles. They are described as a special operations-capable unit not special forces (p.46). But Blackshod removed them on 16 Jan.--Melbguy05 (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

"Non-UKSF Special Operations Units" - removed

 * Royal Marines


 * Brigade Patrol Troop
 * British Army


 * Pathfinder Platoon
 * 148 (Meiktila) Battery Royal Artillery, note as part of 3 Cdo Bde comes under Royal Naval Command.


 * 4/73 (Sphinx) Special Observation Post Battery Royal Artillery


 * Honourable Artillery Company Patrol Squadron


 * Ranger Regiment

This entire sub-section was removed by on 9 May 2022, with the summary: "removed Non-UKSF Special Operations Units - see Talk discussion in Jan 2022". The last comment there, (in the discussion above), was made 5 months ago. Additionally, I'm not sure there was a clear consensus for removal then. And at some point, Army Special Operations Brigade also seems to have been removed. These units appear to be supported by several editors, along with refs that describe these units as being some degree of "special forces", "special operations" (with/without "capable" attached), "elite light infantry", "commando", etc. Perhaps some of these units don't belong, but then again, perhaps some do. There should be a clear consensus to support this mass removal. I'll ping those who took part above, (,,, , pinged and 148.252.128.177 notified on tp), and post a notice at wt:milhist. Cheers - w o lf  06:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * With a brief look at the discussion, the whole issue goes back to Coldstreamer20 (J-Man11) and their involvement is reasonable reason to delete. However, if an editor in good standing wants to rewrite similar content with due diligence in confirming sources, I don't have a problem with that.  But that is not the same as simply reinstating that content. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If this was a simple case of a adding content and then another user removing said content because it was added by a sock account, I might be inclined to agree with you. But that was not the reason given for removal, and aside from that, this content has subsequently been reviewed and discussed, and in some instances added or re-added, by other users in good standing, so I can't see how it can be now be removed en masse as a retroactive measure to CS20's block for socking. (imho) -  w o lf  16:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Users MarnetteD and Neutrality had no involvement with any of the units removed. I mentioned them in relation to units that are part of the United Kingdom Special Forces (UKSF) that are still in the list. My last comment was on 21 January and at the time I thought the units had been removed by on 16 Jan. I must not have seen however that you reverted Blackshod on 16 Jan. Blackshod removed all the units again in February, that you reverted, that was then reverted by Blackshod and that you then reverted.
 * In the last Blackshod revert in February you put in the edit summary "this is sourced content" and in a post on WT:MILHIST "removal of sourced content". Are the citations from a WP:RS reliable source / WP:VERIFY been vertified? Where was the content "reviewed and discussed"?--Melbguy05 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You had mentioned MarnetteD's involvement above, which is why I included them, and you also noted that Neutrality had made an edit to this content, which is why I included them. Do you oppose them being pinged? As for the initial set of edits to this content; yes... it may seem confusing, as your chronology points out. But at the very beginning if this discussion, which I initiated, you can see I was repeatedly trying to get Blackshod to engage, and help explain some of his edits, which all the way up to now he has refused to do, even though he has been actively editing, continuously right up to today (and that includes not only the multiple pings to them on this page, but also multiple notices about this page, as well as a personally written invite to discuss, posted to their user talk page). The discussion, from the beginning is still here on the page (eg: it hasn't been archived or otherwise moved/removed) and all 24 refs are listed just above, they include many sources commonly used here, both secondary and primary. - w o lf  19:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

South Korea
It's not on any ORBAT of the ROKMC. Does anyone have any information of the unit aside form the few 5 year old articles? When was it inaugurated? Where is it stationed? It looks like it was a concept that never got off the ground. Goggo2020 (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Spartan 3000 doesn't appear to exist
 * This is a good start; appealing to the community for assistance in establishing facts about content. As I said on your tp, it may unfortunately be difficult in this instance, as information about most classified military or intelligence units is difficult to come by. I'll keep an eye an this discussion and assist if I can. -  wolf  05:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine
I added units (and sources) that are under the Special Forces Command (SSO) of Ukraine. They're also presented on the Ukrainian page. What error did i miss and who am I edit warring with? I understand the first revert (no sources) but after i added sources. Goggo2022 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to be the same edit as 3 days ago, this is for SF units, not intel units (different list for that). We dont list schools here. Some of the sources you used didn't appear to support the unit for inclusion here and some of the other sources don't appear to be reliable sources. I suggest you read the sourcing guidelines carefully and go through each addition to ensure compliance. Until then, I will again suggest you self-revert (per wp:quo), until this discussion is complete and you have finished reading and reviewing. -  wolf  17:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * i modeled it on other sections. Most specifically the US. And that section shows the Air Force Special Operations Training Center as a unit
 * and the Psychological Operations Groups
 * and the Intelligence Support Activity (ISA)
 * and Special Operations Aviation Training Battalion
 * and the 389th Military Intelligence Battalion (Airborne) of USASOC
 * and 528th Sustainment Brigade
 * and the Mission Support Center of Naval Special Warfare Group 10, etc. Goggo2022 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE is not a sound argument, just because sonething is on another page, or different section of the same page, doesn't automatically mean your edit is correct. Just the same, I've removed some of the units you mentioned from the US section, but you still need go through each unit, and each ref in your edit, and ensure they are correct, both per WP policies and guidelines and on their own merits, before re-adding them. -  wolf  17:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * so Psychological Operations Groups in the US section is OK, but not in the Ukrainian section? And 389th Military Intelligence Battalion is ok for the US section but not the 10th special purpose detachment of the Ukrainian GUR, which has special purpose literally in its name?Goggo2022 (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, we don't include/exclude stuff based on other stuff. Units may have similar names, but not the same qualifications or duties. I removed some from the US, but left others (for example: Intelligence Support Activity (ISA) is a Tier 1 special mission unit). For now, I would suggest focusing on the rest of your edit, (the orbat in the Janes ref is a good place to start). If you want to challenge other units from other countries, that should be done after, and should be a separate discussion. -  wolf  18:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Greece & the US
From the above section, you seem intently focused on adding units for the Ukraine, but for some reason have abandoned that effort and now appear to be focused on currently listed units for Greece and the US. Same as before, you made an edit, you were reverted, now you can discuss it here if you like. -  wolf  20:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * just keeping the same energy. marines aren't SF and there's no source either. Same for the MIB. also the MIB appears in the 528ths ORBAt. Goggo2022 (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A) once a discussion begins, there are no more edits made to disputed content until the discussion concludes, and that's only if there is a consensus or agreement. If not, then then content still remains as is, and you would then be free to seek dispute resolution. Please keep that in mind, because I see you have again edited this disputed content. I'm not sure why you're so anxious about this, but you've already be warned about the policy on edit warring (for this very page), so there's really no excuse. I would strongly encourage you to self-revert and let the process play out. B) by "marines aren't SF ", I take it you're referring to the 32nd Marines Brigade (Greece)? You mentioned there is no source, but if an entry is linked to a parent article, that is sufficient for sourcing, as long as there are reliable sources on that article, which in this case there is. The page has a ref that states this unit is SF. So you will definitely need to reverse yourself on that. C) As for the US, and the 389 MIB, you seem to want it removed because it's a sub-unit? But why? This list is a directory of such units and it is useful information, escpecially since it has it's own article. There are other sub-units listed (and sub-units of sub-units). There more info, the better. Simply stating that it "appears in an OrBat" is not a strong argument for removal. -  wolf  03:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * now you're adding sub-units to the US intead of pushing to remove them? Since you've been actively editing, you've had an oppotunity to review the source for the Greek entry, but despite all your activity, you still haven't engaged further here on the talk page. Under the precept of qui tacet consentire videtur, I take that as your agreement on both the Greece and US entries, and that this discussion can now be considered closed. -  wolf  23:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Vietnam
re: your previous edit, for recon, see List of reconnaissance units and for intel, see List of intelligence agencies. Not every unit gets listed here. Thanks -  wolf  01:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually, in VPA, each Recon Battalions have 1 Special Recon Company assumes the role of special operations forces. They funtions include long-range reconnaissance, covert operations, direct action, counter-terrorist and hostage rescue.
 * About the 3 Brigade of 2nd General Department, they are literally 3 Special Forces Brigade operate as Action Division and pretty similar to Spetnaz GRU Artemius74 (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but you will need reliable sources for each entry/unit that clearly states they are Special Forces, or lists enough primary capabilities that confirms SF is their role. -  wolf  12:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of military special forces units
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of military special forces units's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Littlegreen": From Spetsnaz:  From Spetsnaz GRU:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Afghanistan?
According to the wikipedia page for the "Afghan Armed Forces", currently there are three listed Special Operations capable outfits in their military structure, those being the Badri 313 Battalion, the Red Unit, and the "Yarmouk 60 Special Red Jnit]]Forces Battalion"

The wikipedia page for "Special Forces" lists the NATO definition for Special Operations as "military activities conducted by specially designated, organized, selected, trained and equipped forces using unconventional techniques and modes of employment"

The Badri 313 Battalion alone appear to employ specially designated, organized, selected, and trained personelle along with them being well equipped. As stated in their wikipedia article "The battalion is equipped with camouflage uniforms, combat helmets, body armor, night-vision goggles, M4 carbines, sidearms and Humvees of US origin.". I think there's plenty of credence on wikipedia alone to justify adding the Afghan Armed Forces Special Operations Units like Badri 313, the Red Unit, and the "Yarmouk 60 Special Forces Battalion" to the list of military special forces units. 2601:600:9681:FFA0:D4F7:DD39:9DE3:CDBB (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The individual articles for Red Unit and Badri 313 Battalion make them appear questionable as bona fide "special operations forces". Being "equipped with camouflage uniforms, combat helmets, body armor, night-vision goggles, M4 carbines, sidearms and Humvees" is by no means an indication of sof status, even reserve units of the US Military have such basic equipment. As for "Yarmouk 60", they only have a single mention on the Afghan Armed Forces page, with no additional information, and it is supported only by a single questionable tweet. Perhaps bring the issue of sof up on the AAF talk page, and see if a SOF section can be created and expanded with relevant content and reliable sourcing. And then go from there. - w o lf  14:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm confused why they aren't considered "bona fide" - a lot of the SOF units on this very list don't even have their own dedicated wiki pages, so should those SOF units be removed from this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9681:FFA0:85B9:333B:EC84:C0C1 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * First, any entry on this list that doesn't have an article (eg: is either red-linked or not linked) has a source attached.
 * Second, I didn't say they "aren't considered bona fide", I said they "appear questionable as bona fide". (As in to me, or imho.) That was just from a quick glance through those articles and a few of their refs. Just becuase the Taliban calls them "Special Forces" doesn't mean they are. But a single editor doesn't decide what does or does not get added to an article. When there is a dispute over whether certain content should be added or not, it is usually decided by consensus. As per WP:ONUS: "" You already pointed out the NATO definition from the SF article, and we also have several more listed in the lead of this page. If you go through the sources from the Red Unit and Badri 313 articles and find some solid support for inclusion, you may be able to sway consensus in your favour. Good luck - w o lf  22:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * added this:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afghan_Armed_Forces?useskin=vector#Possible_to_expand_the_Special_Forces_section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9681:FFA0:1D05:DEEA:37B6:73C9 (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a start, but all I see there is a report from Fox news, which already has reliability issues, and reporter with a questionable understanding of special operations. I see now where you got the quote from with the list of American equipment the Taliban fighters have, but again... just because they're walking around in camo with NVGs and M4s doesn't make them special forces. Nor does suddenly having a few Blackhawks means they have a unit like the 160 SOAR. And the comment that they are now "comparable, perhaps, to the best in the world"... as in, UKSF (SAS, SBS), JSOC (Delta, DevGru), JTF2, GROM, SASR, KSK, GSG-9, etc., etc., is... laughable. There is nothing to support idea that the Taliban has created a training pipeline similar to the other groups, or even has the infrastructure and experienced personnel necessary to implement such an undertaking. Many of these units have decades of experince, and what's more, all these groups I've listed, and many more, all share their experience with each other, increasing it exponentially. They train and operate together and they share techniques and intel. The Taliban just doesn't compare. IMO, there would need to be more sourcing, reliable soucing, with solid information to support the idea that these Taliban groups are "special forces/special operations capable", along the lines of the other groups listed here.
 * But that's just me. As I said, you should be seeking more sourcing. And of course, you need a consensus from other editors. We'll have to watch and see of anything more develops. - w o lf  21:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)