Talk:United States Marine Forces Special Operations Command

message: Hi!
Acccording the following link the lemma should be "United States Marine Forces Special Operations Command" (MARSOC)  
* http://usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/main5/64D9C69C91287BD88525711E007467CE?opendocument
Who has verified information? (MARK S. 14:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this official reference it is called US Marine Corps Force Special Operations Command
** http://www.usmc.mil/genbios2.nsf/biographies/AAB57A104EB0177D85256A300050F20E?opendocument
(MARK S. 16:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Should this article be moved to United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, and this page changed to a re-direct?  It's the official name of the unit, according to the official site, the logo at the top of this article, and the intro of this article.  I imagine such a move would be uncontroversial, but I wanted to throw it out there before posting it on WP:RM. Mike f 18:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  It's the first time I've moved a page, so someone may want to check my work to make sure I didn't create any double redirects or anything.  Also, it may not be a big deal, but the "MARSOC" link in the United States Marine Corps article infobox points to one of the redirect pages, and I don't know where to find the infobox template to edit it. Mike f 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Template is fixed.  Thanks for the help.--Looper5920 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article to official unit name? 

message: Why does half of the article consist of the controversy in Afghanistan? I know the unit is only two years old, but this is severe imbalance. bahamut0013♠♣ 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at any other entry under the encyclopedia, and controversies do NOT take up half of the article (unless, of course, that is the subject). WP:NPOV states that the neutral point of view should be stated, then the opposing theories along with supporting evidence in a balanced manner. In either case, due weight is not given.Your assertation that you know exactly what is going on proves that you have your own POV and that you insist on pushing that agenda in an encyclopedia is simply unfair. bahamut0013♠♣ 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Splitting is a great idea. That way, we won't have coatrack problems, especially the balance and fact picking problems. bahamut0013♠♣  16:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: The fact remains however that the incident is still part of a contreversy and the only source mentioned is an independent human rights commission. The section takes many leaps of faith in describing the incident and the alleged cover up. I believe more sources need to be found and the section needs to be sanitized. Information should not be hidden but it should be untainted by poltics and personal feelings. I would invite other users to look the section over. --Ian (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it's notable, and getting rid of it is a little myopic.  As far as the bias and uni-source goes, I've pared it down to include the basic facts, which are agreed upon even by the Marine Corps who is at this time holding an investigation.  Rhetth (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: But the investigation is providing a lot of notable information concerning the incident, so the section is getting bigger.  Let me know if you think we should not include this information.  Rhetth (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nangahar 

message: Will MARSOC use the FN SCAR L and H?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.64.119 (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The FN SCAR 

message: Anyone heard of this new title?
It sounds cool and like a good idea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empirehero1 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Marsoc Raiders

message: The photo captions refer to "DASR operators," yet DASR is not explained anywhere in the article.  Perhaps someone could spell out what DASR stands for?  Hildenja (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DASR 

message: Seems they aren't exactly uncontroversial in their tactics - or amongst the Marines as such. Rumsfeld's renegade unit blamed for Afghan deaths Ingolfson (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents 

message: There should be a section devoted to controversy in this article. The very creation of MARSOC was controversial, and in many quarters, continues to be. Items on the incidents in Afghanistan should go here as well. DesScorp (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a Controversy section 

message: See: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/09/marine_marsoc_090709w/
Should this be added?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.50.249 (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st MSOB to command Combined Joint Special Operation Task Force 

message: See: http://www.shadowspear.com/special-operations-news/1714.html
See: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/phill-knives-one-2558000-marines-knife
Also, many references to a MSOR on google, seems like the organizational structure is wrong  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.63.214 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd MSOB ? 

message: I know there are MSOTs and they come with a Captain as their CO and all, but does anyone know what's the lineup on those teams like?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.26.186 (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command. 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 https://web.archive.org/20131224101454/http://www.marsoc.com/storage/downloads/marsoc-command-pamphlet.pdf to http://www.marsoc.com/storage/downloads/marsoc-command-pamphlet.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: - There is no need to duplicate that much info from infobox into the article, so close to the infobox. I would think that would be obvious. Please stop editwarring and leave it be. Thanks -  theWOLFchild 04:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: my reasoning was the lead (which includes infobox) should include the main pints of the page and one of the main points was the number of personnel. BTW the number of personnel was already on the page, i just updated it from 2,500 to 2,700. SWF88 (talk) 04:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But the section we're editing is not the lead, so I'm not even sure what you're talking about... Are you? Anyway, I explained the change in my edit summary and again here on the talk page. Hopefully it's clear to you. -  theWOLFchild 05:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate info 

message: The part about the Marines initially being resistant to an "elite" unit needs a citation. This is an interesting factoid, but it needs citation. I should note that, having no special knowledge about the article's subject, I googled this. It looks as though several sources use Wikipedia's language verbatim or near verbatim, so it is possible that a cursory search for sources will lead to a circular reference. The section on this talk page titled "Untitled" seems to quote from a source that predates this article, but the links in that section are broken. --Nogburt (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation posted; see article..CobraDragoon (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Citation to Initial Resistance to "Elite" Units 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command. 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/20131204133407/http://www.socom.mil/News/Documents/USSOCOM_Fact_Book_2014.pdf to http://www.socom.mil/News/Documents/USSOCOM_Fact_Book_2014.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220182041/https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/02/21/marsoc-at-9-anniversary/23607665/ to https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/02/21/marsoc-at-9-anniversary/23607665/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130214222055/http://www.socom.mil/News/Documents/USSOCOM_Fact_Book_2013.pdf to http://www.socom.mil/News/Documents/USSOCOM_Fact_Book_2013.pdf
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) 19:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion