Talk:Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape

message: although this article mentions the USAF's SERE program, it seems to mainly focus on the NAVY's SERE program and neglect the other.  either go into more detail on both or divide them up and make them two seperate articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauk55 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi all, rich1vanwinkle here (June 2020). A friend (former USAF SERE instructor) suggested I work on the Wikipedia SERE article - so here I am. As a former Air Force SERE instructor, I had the privilege of teaching Navy, Marine, and Army SERE instructors (or prospective instructors). The Air Force program is so much more "robust" (as indicated by career instructors and their high regard around DoD [ United States Department of Defense ] and outside the military) that any SERE article that doesn't seem a bit biased in that regard is simply dishonest. Personally, I bring only one bias here - that we produce the most relevant and useful content for the reader/researcher. I share the bias that revealing some details could prove harmful to American troops while also believing that information already in the public domain or sector is just that. Unfortunately, there is a vast amount of disinformation regarding SERE out there and I would hope to remedy that a bit. Since the “RT”, “Origins” and “torture” sections were added/amended, much more information has become known – mostly from the Congressional Hearings (prompted by good press reporting). That info needs to be sifted, gleaned, organized, and often explained. Certainly, excessive reliance on one author (Mr. McCoy) yields a controversial and disputed outcome, especially when his arguments are facially flawed. So, piece by piece - with a bit of restructuing - I am working top to bottom on a re-write. I realize that it's a bit arrogant of me to presume that need and/or privilege, but I'm open to criticism, change, and input. So, here we go... Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  In above contribution: indentation, moving of the signature ( from the top to the bottom ) and clarifications (e.g. DoD) added by Steue (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: a tad biased

message: This section sounds a little "fanboyish" to me. It's nnot really objective at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casual Karma (talk • contribs) 07:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call it "fanboyish" at all.  I am a former SERE instrictor and basically expanded upon the meaning of the patch, instead of just the reference to "tiger".  What are your qualifications to make that comment?I55ere (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The SERE Patch section

message: The previous information is considered Sensitive by the Federal government and should not be retained.  It has been replaced with superior information, in the fact that the current information is accurate and obtained from official information sites, and not New Yorker articles based on hearsay and intended to inflame.  I apologize to anyone bothered by the change.=Tsalagi
:It's a little late for censorship. The information has already been distributed in about 800,000 copies of the New Yorker. One of the benefits of the free press in your country is that you can publish information that your government would like to suppress (i.e. mark secret or sensitive).  Also the WP article does not state that the New Yorker information is "fact", only that this is what has been reported about SERE. It's also worth noting that Wikipedia is not limited to sources approved by the US military. I think most editors would agree that this is a good thing.  --Lee Hunter 18:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But if they've been published in a high-circulation magazine then they are already by definition common knowledge. --Delirium 13:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensitive info 

message: I've trimmed and edited the new material from the NY Times substantially. It seemed like the extensive quotes were a bit over the top.  Also it's an op-ed column, not a report by a staff writer. I've also removed the link to the article because  NY Times links die after a few weeks. --Lee Hunter 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NY Times material

message: There is mention of the sleeping bag technique but there is no description of what it is. It may as well not be mentioned, and one wouldn't miss a thing. --Anagnorisis 22:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sleeping bag what?

message: There should not be a link to an MSNBC Olbermann opinion piece on waterboarding at the end of this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.46.46 (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: I have reinstated this long-standing section removed by an editor without discussion. Grounds given were that the article is "about the acronym SERE."  SERE is indeed an acronym: the subject of the article, however, is the SERE program itself, not its acronym merely. Insufficient and fallacious grounds, therefore, for the section's excision. Wingspeed (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Controversies'' section 

message: I propose that  Survive, Evade, Resist, Extract (Extract) be merged into  Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (Escape). Both SERE courses are on the same set of skills for different militaries. 'Escape' is a much longer article, 'Extract' could easily form a subheading.
Of course, the argument could be made that the cojoined article should be renamed "SERE." But that, IMHO, is a further discussion. The point here is that these articles work much better as one article. --01:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are merged I think it would have to be under the heading SERE as there is a subtle but important difference in what they are called in the two countries, which is reflected in the different doctrines and training regimes involved. Blackshod (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Blackshod; why should the American title have precedence? SERE should be the article name. 109.155.250.229 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no objections to the merge, however; the UK one states that it is given to UK Army Personnel. The reason that is at RAF St Mawgan is that it is taught to Pilots and aircrew if they are shot down over enemy territory (RAF, RN and Army Air Corps) so a merged article should reflect this rather than just focusing on Army. If the merger does not go ahead, I can flesh out the UK one, but I would prefer that the US heavy stance on a merged article is removed if the merger goes ahead.The joy of all things (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The Ref 1 url is dead, 404. Googling for alternative sources of the same content that is a .mil or .gov source, wanted to discuss what I see. There is a copy of what looks like the exact document on fas.org but I feel to have the same credibility it should be from an official .mil site. I found this, on dtic.mil but am not sure if this is the exact same/proper document
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130021p.pdfSuper veritas (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference 1 link is dead, looking for alternates

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928185104/http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?command=viewone&id=10&database=Unlisted.db to http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?command=viewone&id=10&database=Unlisted%2edb
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The only instances of the 'club' you guys refer to on the internet is this page or people who are quoting this page (interestingly including ACTUAL military sources and SERE schools erroneously trusting your work!) however there is no historical example of ANYTHING to do with it. HOWEVER. There is a Late Arrivals Club, which issued certificates and a flying boot, and did everything else you claim the 'Late Returners Club' did. There's historical examples of the boot, certificates, and book references to this club. It might be worthwhile to fix such a blaring error in your article lede! :P 124.190.207.57 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late Returners Club? You Mean Late Arrivals Club! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape. 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  tag to http://www.gazette.com/articles/training_31846___article.html/cadets_program.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060815124943/http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/mowhoush.asp to http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/mowhoush.asp
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) 05:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see two points where action should be taken:
 - Correct the factual inaccuracy in the "Origin of SERE techniques" section, or
 - Downgrade from C-Class on the quality assessment scale
== Factual Inaccuracy ==
This section mistakenly deflects away from Communist China origins and improperly points us toward 
CIA practices. This current article's "Code of conduct" section states that
SERE training is aimed at living up to the Code of Conduct in hostile
environments. When Eisenhower created that Code of Conduct with Executive
Order 10631 https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10631.html
that order also states: 
"All members of the Armed Forces of the United 
States are expected to measure up to the standards in this Code of Conduct 
while in combat or in captivity. To ensure achievement of these standards, 
members of the armed forces liable to capture shall be provided with specific 
training and instruction designed to equip them to counter and withstand 
all enemy efforts against them, and shall be fully instructed as to the 
behavior and obligations expected of them during combat or captivity."
This "Origin" section refers to the Kubark manual published 1963, but the
executive order was 1955. Furthermore, the "erroneously" claim links to
a nonexistent section in the Brainwashing article. The likely support is
the Brainwashing article's paragraph ending with footnote 20, which links
to http://palmm.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A32574/datastream/OBJ/view/Communist_interrogation_indoctrination__and_exploitation_of_prisoners_of_war.pdf
and claims that 1956 document proves the point. 
On the contrary, that
1956 document is the code of conduct training and it's introduced by
Eisenhower himself. (Is the 1956 document a fake? There is a rubber stamp
naming Lt Col Karl E. Osenlund, and there's a digitized Army register
showing same name, same rank, retiring 1957: https://books.google.com/books?id=pPcfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=osenlund,+karl&source=bl&ots=Z18-bNL5qi&sig=ACfU3U0nCSU30OtgZICVHo1YKm7swyt_0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwim9cKK-4HpAhWRPM0KHWmqBSAQ6AEwA3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=osenlund%2C%20karl&f=false .) So the 1956 document appears to be the real training pamphlet, and
it actually says the opposite of what this section and the Brainwashing
article's section says it says. Words were cherry-picked so as to appear
to be citing an authoritative source. 
Given that this section claims
to report the origin of SERE techniques, it seems to me that we should
be giving the origin as the same executive order which established the
Code of Conduct in the first place. The same Executive Order (a)
establishes the Code of Conduct, and (b) requires those subject to
capture to receive resistance training. I would suggest quoting the
executive order as above, and also linking to the 1956 document as
an early exemplar of said training. The CIA and related references
(the bulk of the current section) have no place here - regardless of
whether there is or is not a later relationship to CIA influence. This
section is about origins (and perhaps original intent) not about
controversies.
Disclosure: I completed USAFA-based SERE training summer 1976.
Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job Rich1vanwinkle.  I still see duplicative information on U.S. Air Force SERE Specialists in the "History - USAF Survival Instructors/SERE Specialists" (second paragraph) and "U.S. Military SERE/Survival Schools and Courses - Air Force" (first paragraph) sections.  The information only needs to be discussed once. --McChizzle (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

text: The entire "Erroneous Conflation of "SERE Techniques" with "Detainee" Interrogation/Torture"? is difficult to read and comes across as an editorial or blog post, not something especially relevant to the topic. I think it should be removed, or whoever wrote it should significantly touch it up. 76.119.114.192 (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Origin of SERE techniques" appears to be incorrect 

message: This section mistakenly deflects away from Communist China origins and improperly points us toward 
CIA practices. This current article's "Code of conduct" section states that
SERE training is aimed at living up to the Code of Conduct in hostile
environments. When Eisenhower created that Code of Conduct with Executive
Order 10631 https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10631.html
that order also states: 
"All members of the Armed Forces of the United 
States are expected to measure up to the standards in this Code of Conduct 
while in combat or in captivity. To ensure achievement of these standards, 
members of the armed forces liable to capture shall be provided with specific 
training and instruction designed to equip them to counter and withstand 
all enemy efforts against them, and shall be fully instructed as to the 
behavior and obligations expected of them during combat or captivity."
This "Origin" section refers to the Kubark manual published 1963, but the
executive order was 1955. Furthermore, the "erroneously" claim links to
a nonexistent section in the Brainwashing article. The likely support is
the Brainwashing article's paragraph ending with footnote 20, which links
to http://palmm.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A32574/datastream/OBJ/view/Communist_interrogation_indoctrination__and_exploitation_of_prisoners_of_war.pdf
and claims that 1956 document proves the point. 
On the contrary, that
1956 document is the code of conduct training and it's introduced by
Eisenhower himself. (Is the 1956 document a fake? There is a rubber stamp
naming Lt Col Karl E. Osenlund, and there's a digitized Army register
showing same name, same rank, retiring 1957: https://books.google.com/books?id=pPcfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=osenlund,+karl&source=bl&ots=Z18-bNL5qi&sig=ACfU3U0nCSU30OtgZICVHo1YKm7swyt_0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwim9cKK-4HpAhWRPM0KHWmqBSAQ6AEwA3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=osenlund%2C%20karl&f=false .) So the 1956 document appears to be the real training pamphlet, and
it actually says the opposite of what this section and the Brainwashing
article's section says it says. Words were cherry-picked so as to appear
to be citing an authoritative source. 
Given that this section claims
to report the origin of SERE techniques, it seems to me that we should
be giving the origin as the same executive order which established the
Code of Conduct in the first place. The same Executive Order (a)
establishes the Code of Conduct, and (b) requires those subject to
capture to receive resistance training. I would suggest quoting the
executive order as above, and also linking to the 1956 document as
an early exemplar of said training. The CIA and related references
(the bulk of the current section) have no place here - regardless of
whether there is or is not a later relationship to CIA influence. This
section is about origins (and perhaps original intent) not about
controversies.
Disclosure: I completed USAFA-based SERE training summer 1976.
Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Inaccuracy 

message: 1. The C-Class assessment was awarded, if I understand the revisions correctly, on 6 January 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASurvival%2C_Evasion%2C_Resistance_and_Escape&diff=prev&oldid=262456807
2. The inaccurate section was added later, March 2012: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=ElijahBosley&page=Survival%2C_Evasion%2C_Resistance_and_Escape&server=enwiki&max=
This current talk page includes a separate discussion concerning article accuracy, which existed prior to awarding the C-Class assessment, so concerns to that point were sufficiently resolved. The C-Class assessment checklist as of January 2009 noted B-1 (referencing and citation) criterion not met, and B-2 (coverage and accuracy) criterion met. That's why I am now suggesting that, based on the section added in March 2012, the "coverage and accuracy" criterion is no longer met.
My specific concern is that the "Origins of SERE techniques" section appears to be strongly biased and based on later scandals. If the current section were titled "Origins of later scandals" the title would at least match the content. The sources point to relevant documents but misstate those documents' conclusions to support the biased interpretation. Given the lack of any discussion of this concern, on either this page or the section's author's talk page, I'm flagging this to the Military History project to assess the misinformation/disinformation.
Edward Barnard (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downgrade C-Class Assessment 

message: Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Blog" content ("Curriculum") 

message: Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes re ====False claims of "SERE" credentials and ties==== 

message: Rich1vanwinkle (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job Rich1vanwinkle.  I still see duplicative information on U.S. Air Force SERE Specialists in the "History - USAF Survival Instructors/SERE Specialists" (second paragraph) and "U.S. Military SERE/Survival Schools and Courses - Air Force" (first paragraph) sections.  The information only needs to be discussed once. --McChizzle (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finish of re-write 

message: I have undone the revision... Removing relevant content without an explanation is (at best) inappropriate. If there is soemthing you don't like about the content (accuracy, etc.) then you need to explain.
I appreciate the interest and desire to improve the content. The revision is not an improvement.
RVW  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich1vanwinkle (talk • contribs) 19:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 1009555316 by Nic T R  

message: The image accompanying the caption, "The seven Mercury astronauts during USAF survival training in 1960" is out of context for this article. Xin Jing (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Image 

message: It is an unfortunate reality that almost none of the folks who edit Wikipedia content bother to use the talk page to support their edit. Of course, that is because most edits are either improper for purpose, content, format, or concept. 
I appreciate those who make minor edits for correction or clarity and those need no comment. But if you wish to re-write a section or completely change the content of a section it would be polite, thoughtful, courteous, and appropriate to explain the need and details.
Those who keep insisting on ignoring the facts, the evidence, and the relativity or materiality of their edits regarding “torture” and SERE should use some other forum to express their opinions. No matter how much one may oppose torture (no one more than I do), it is simply absurd to continue misstating the apparent and established facts – There has not been any claim (that I can find) by any person who has any credentials as a “SERE Instructor” who instructed anyone in “how to” use torture techniques. Actual US military SERE instructors were asked to do so and REFUSED. Wannabe SERE instructors who actually were military intelligence interrogators used the SERE claim to hide who they actually were.
Thus, when someone from Gitmo says that some guy told them they were SERE and “taught” them “enhanced interrogation techniques”, that is hearsay - or more accurately, incorrect and misleading hearsay. So, either come up with a name of some SERE Instructor who has any public credential supporting that claim who participated in the teaching of torture or the actual torture of someone or quit making these edits. 
Again, this is an article about SERE training. If someone misuses that training, then add that to the “SERE abuses and scandals” section. But offer more that hearsay cites to support such.
Thanks, RVW  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich1vanwinkle (talk • contribs) 03:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire "Erroneous Conflation of "SERE Techniques" with "Detainee" Interrogation/Torture"? is difficult to read and comes across as an editorial or blog post, not something especially relevant to the topic. I think it should be removed, or whoever wrote it should significantly touch it up. 76.119.114.192 (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous Conflation of "SERE Techniques" with "Detainee" Interrogation/Torture 

message: Hey. Alexa 88.201.6.52 (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey. Alexa 

message: I. Love you 88.201.6.52 (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey. Aliexa 

message: We are not given service numbers anymore. We use our social security number as our unique number. Service numbers haven’t been a thing for a long time. 69.72.113.45 (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information given during interrogation 

message: Under SERE abuse and scandals, the second point asserts that waterboarding at USN Schools was discontinued in 2007. Then immediately following that states "However, waterboarding at SERE was reinstated in 2018 and is still incorporated into the training today." The given citation(111) though provides nothing stating anything about waterboarding being reinstated. 57.140.28.27 (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterboarding