Talk:Scott Helvenston

Untitled
I'm putting up an accuracy dispute flag because it's unlikely that Helvenston finished SEAL training by age 17. Military elistment age is either 17.5 or 18 years, and SEAL training takes longer than that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cotixan (talk • contribs) 22:35, 20 January 2006.


 * You can join (the mil.) at age 17, so it is possible that he could complete training before he was 18. So until you provide valid evidence to prove that is false, I'm going to remove the flag.  Additionally, I have seen it reported by several other places that this is true too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.200.30 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 22 January 2006.


 * According to the BUD/S Warning, you need to have an appropriate rating to go to BUD/S. If this story is true, it is simply amazing progress.  The article doesn't mention his rate; what was it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk)


 * I HATE to speak ill of the dead, but I'm questioning his age as well. I joined the Army days after I turned 17, so that's not the problem. The problem is that Navy basic training is 3 months long, PLUS your time in rate traning (anywhere between 5-14 weeks), PLUS 28 weeks (I think) of BUD/S school, PLUS another 15 weeks of SQT training. Now, if he took off to BUD/S the day after RT, that's one thing. But that chance is RARE. The average wait to get to BUD/S is about a year. I should also point out that graduating from BUD/S doesn't make you a SEAL; you have to graduate from SQT as well. I don't doubt the young man was a SEAL, but at 17? Rattlerbrat 13:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can address most of the issues raised above. I also enlisted at 17, bootcamp to buds. If one had a rate you attended A school prior. I was a Boatswains mate, there is no A.school for that. After Bud/s graduation it's straight to jump school. Back then there was no SQT training, after reporting aboard then you were sent somewhere, i was sent to SF Commo with 3 others. Seal7987 (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW: Those concerns are from 2006 -- if they were people, they'd be older than Scott Helvenston was when he enlisted. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * One more addition. I got this from AutheniSEAL, a site that spent years busting phony SEALs:

From the day he first reports for BUD/S training to the day a man is ready to deploy as a fully trained, fully integrated member of an operational SEAL platoon, requires a bare minimum of 18 months.

http://cyberseals.org/authentiseal/realitycheck.htm

My martial arts instructor was a SEAL; I'll ask him as well. But in light of this, I think the accuracy dispute flag needs to go back up. Again, I'm not speaking ill on his young man, and I'm not saying he wasn't a SEAL; I'm just questioning how it was done so quickly. Rattlerbrat 13:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You know what I question? How did Erik Prince of Blackwater get out of the Teams without fulfilling his five year commitment? (It goes without saying that just qualifying makes him a better man than me, but enquiring minds want to know). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk)


 * Modern SEAL training- BUD/S, SQT, PRODEV-ULT-SIT, in addition to the numerous other schools (jump school, JO training, language schools, CQD, etc) does indeed require about three years of training before an operator sees combat. However, SQT is a relatively new school, as tridents used to be awarded by the individual NSW commands on each coast. Mr. Helvenston was 38 when killed, so we cannot judge his training two decades ago by modern standards. It seems likely that, knowing he enlisted at 17, this is merely an erroneous claim, based on the possibility he graduated BUD/S while still 17 (though this does not qualify one as a SEAL). He may be the youngest SEAL, but probably not at 17.--Jmalc 14:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, jump school IS part of SEAL training (hint: it's the "A" part) albeit done at an Army facility while remaining in the SEAL chain of command. And I'd like to see you be the first to tell a SEAL that he needs "JO Training". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk)

Try reading the article again and this time spend extra attention to the following: "He joined the Navy at 17, and thereafter became the youngest person to complete Navy SEAL training." What does this say? It doesn't say he was a SEAL at 17. It says he joined the navy at 17, had SEAL training and was the youngest ever to complete it. Read before you react. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.83.84.77 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 13 March 2006.
 * Actually, sorry to cause conflict, but it says this because I made that edit. Before, it did indeed say he became the youngest SEAL at 17. --Jmalc 16:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, calm down. Just because we're trying to clear up some stuff doesn't give you cause to act all crazy. Second, I still say that's bunk. He may have been the youngest in his CLASS, or in his CYCLE. But EVER? How on earth would we know? I was one of the youngest in my graduating class (not SEAL or anything like that) by all of four days. I only happened to know that because I asked. If he's the youngest, then it's by mere hours, because many a SEAL has come before/after him. I want to see some proof that this dude was the youngest to EVER complete training. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.108.226.68 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 16 March 2006.

GQ Magazine has confirmed with the Navy that Helvenston was indeed the youngest ever to become a SEAL. He dropped out of high school and got his GED before entering the Navy, which is why he was allowed to enlist so young. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.11.80.35 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 March 2006.

Whoever said Navy basic training is 3 months is incorrect--Navy basic is only nine weeks. Keamos 16:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Helvenston recieved special permission to join the Navy at age 16, and graduated BUD/S at age 17. Roundeyesamurai 15:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Identified -> Suspected
To the anon: STOP inserting your pov. JCS had live overhead footage of the assault and correlated with the widely-publicized press photos of the crowd that's pretty good evidence. Moreover, HUMINT sources and SIGINT intercepts (they boasted about the killings in their own communications) confirmed their identities - these weren't random people deciding one day to kill a white guy - they were well-known members of the insurgency. --Mmx1 04:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What was the method of killing the assailants? "Each of the men identified as responsible for the killing of the contractors were subsequently tracked down and killed by the Marines of 1st MEF.” I doubt that the military actually coordinated a Munich style hit job for everyone in the crowd, I doubt JCS would order such a thing. More sources must be inserted to document these claims before writing them down.

“STOP inserting your pov” “Their deaths and the disrespect accorded to their corpses sparked public outrage in the United States and resulted in subsequent raids in Fallujah. Each of the men identified as responsible for the killing of the contractors were subsequently tracked down and killed by the Marines of 1st MEF.”

This article only mentions part of what hapend and only from one pov. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.221.169 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 June 2006.

Page 5 of Bing West's No True Glory states that the identification of the principals were collated in the days following the raids and their names placed on raid lists. Raids occur on a daily basis, they were just added to the top of the list. The footage came not from satellites, but a low-flying UAV, and the eagerly photographed individuals are quite easy to identify, there are many photos like this, the most famous:. He confirms that these raids were conducted after the abortive April 2004 assault. --Mmx1 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Expand the Bio?
IMDB has a much more thorough bio here: Is it worth incorporating some of this into the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gavin6942 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 June 2006.

changed the main image
I changed the image to another one because the one beforehand was copyrighted. The new one falls under fair use.--Kolrobie 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Placed in "Mercenaries" category
I'm aware that this will be a contentious edit, and I'm not sure why. Here's my argument: He perfomed MILITARY FUNCTIONS in Iraq with a MERCENARY COMPANY(who are already in the same "Mercenaries" category) for the purpose of FINANCIAL GAIN rather than any social or political cause. I suspect that the issue with be that he was an American, but that's just a matter of semantics. If anyone can put forward a convincing argument that he was indeed NOT a mercenary, he can be removed from the category. Otherwise he stays. --68.149.181.145 22:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What military functions? He didn't participate in raids, he didn't seek out enemy combatants.  He was a private security guard engaged by two private companies that were shipping out kitchen supplies.  The only difference between his duties and those of a guard for a Brinks armored car is that the neighborhood he was running through was more hazardous.  I'm removing it from this page. 71.136.180.146 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To be a mercenary one has to be taking part in a conflict to which one's nation is not a party. The Iraq conflict was a war between the United States and Iraqi Sunni Insurgents and foreign Arab Islamic Jihadists, so any American (or any other national whose home country was part of the coalition) cannot objectively be defined as a mercenary regardless of whether they were participating as a combatant or as merely armed security protecting civilian diplomats, aid workers, and reconstruction employees, as Helvenston was.Walterego (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Allegations
The allegations were very strong and one sided since there was no mention in the section of the defense to them. Since there is already a page dedicated to the court case, it isn't necessary to have them here. I left the important and relevant information about the case. HotshotCleaner (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scott Helvenston. 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) 05:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Youngest Navy Seal
Since that page has been created it has been false. The entire internet uses it as the lone source without documentation. How can it be corrected? Seal7987 (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If there's a reliable source we can cite to that says so, we can note that the claim is disputed. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How do i forward documentation? Seal7987 (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to be forwarded. The documentation needs to be in a verifiable, reliable source. See WP:RS for what qualifies. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. The issue here is the youngest Seal to graduate, so its birthdays and graduation dates. My source is a email from Naval Special Warfare, that i wasnt permitted to share that email.. Would you agree that the US Navy is a reliable source? A verifiable source?  Seal7987 (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's the format that's the problem and matching the source to the claim. The issue in this case wouldn't be the reliability of the U.S. Navy as to DOBs and graduation dates. That's fine in this specific case for Scott Helvenston (we have a different rule for public records for living persons). The problem is the lack of it being published in a reliable source in a way that readers could verify. An email generally cannot be used as a reliable source unless it's been published, in a verifiable manner, to something that *is* a reliable secondary source. So like, if that email were published on a Navy Times article, we could use the contents of it by just pointing to the Navy Times article itself as the source. But Wikipedia itself can't be the original publisher of that email, someone else (typically a media website, academic or historical paper, or a book) publishes it first and then we can cite to the claim they make. The other thing is, and I know it may sound dumb, but we can't just "do the math" ourselves. That's considered synthesis, which is also a form of original research. So, by themselves, the DOB and graduation date aren't enough. For us to include the claim that Scott wasn't the youngest SEAL, the source would have to actually make the claim that he was not youngest SEAL, not just list his age and graduation date. Unfortunately, this is a challenge when working with military articles, but particularly those in the SOF community due to the way Team culture works, not to mention classification and PERSEC issues. If you could find somewhere that would publish that email, I'd seriously look into taking that approach -- it'd be a pretty newsworthy story so I think you might find some traction there with military-specific outlets. Or maybe Don Shipley's site might cover something like this? Sorry, I don't have any easy answers there. ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)