Talk:United States Army Special Forces

Op Dets G & H
What are these Operational Detachments G and H that I've seen mention of lately? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source? - w o lf  13:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * SFOD-E and SFOD-G are parts of each group's 4th Battalion that are administratively equivalent to an ODA but have a slightly different MTO&E for special tasks that SFOD-As don't normally do. See DA Pamphlet Special Forces 600-3 I know what they are but I can't find any unclass sources aside from the career pamphlet for Officers I have the link to here so I'm assuming its something counterintelligence would rather adversaries speculate about. I don't know what a Det H is, that must be something from after my time but its probably the same sort of thing. 2601:8C0:400:9540:D123:D978:29FE:652D (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

green berets redirect
The top of the article says '"Green Berets" redirects here'. Which is true. But "green berets" redirects elsewhere.

Case sensitivity in this situation is a feature of Wikipedia. But IMO it's confusing to ordinary users.

I don't know if this could or should be changed. I just wanted to call attention to it. 73.157.241.154 (talk) 22:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Green Berets" (capitalized) re-directs here becuase it's a proper name, that of US Army Special forces, while green beret redirects to the generic "Green beret" page. - w o lf  00:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The entire Distinctive unit insignia section is copied from the military website
As you know, this is not permissible. I assume it's on the public domain, but it's still not attributed work. Citing references is not the same as attributing work. Additionally, I find the "background" subsection (the third paragraph) to be quite inintelligible.

I hope the original "author" sees this and does something, lest that entire section be removed.

I would add as well that this page seems very much to be one of those pages created by people affiliated with the organization (about which the page is being written) doing what amounts to apologetics. I would urge contributers to do their best to remain impartial and attempt to explain both sides of any discussion or controversy, even when there is evidence to suggest that one side is overwhelmingly correct. There is content here clearly designed to answer to criticism that itself is conspicuously absent. This is not democracy; this is brainwash.

Best regards. ~victorsouza (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well... thanks for the warning. This is something that we will all need to be vigilant about going forward. Thanks again - w o lf  03:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Bragg Vs Liberty
Why are people attempting (perhaps in good faith), to change HISTORY? In 1955 Bragg was Bragg; in 2023 it was changed to Liberty. It might be more correct to say Ft Bragg, now Ft Liberty, ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyerj (talk • contribs)


 * It's actually a very common occurrence on Wikipedia when an organization changes its name. Users, sometimes even experienced ones, tend to go overboard and change every mention of the old name to the new one. I've reverted the changes, and added "(now Fort Liberty)" on the first mentions in major sections. BilCat (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Old and little-known Special Forces Groups
Good starting source here: https://www.specialforceshistory.info/groups.html, "The Drop" magazine: Forker, Jeff, "25 Special Forces Groups", The Drop, pages 32-36,Summer 2020; http://www.viewmycatalog.com/SFA-2Q2020-Drop/index.html; and the Army Lineage Book, Infantry, which includes HQ Company data on some of the groups that were raised hurriedly by (seemingly) State Adjutant Generals from 15 April 1960 and disappeared without formally entering the Army rolls, never being federally recognized by the National Guard Bureau: Annex 2, page 889, 14th & 15th SFGs; Annex 3, page 889, 4th and 18th SFGs; Annex 5, page 890, 22nd and 23rd SFGs. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)