Talk:Delta Force/Archive 1

message: Delta Force is a nickname not an official name, and should be listed as such on the article page.  The term Delta Force refers to a Chuck Norris movie by that title.  This name is frowned upon in the actual community and if used at all should be listed under nicknames.  All instances of Delta Force should be changed to Delta. --SFjarhead 13:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its common name among the general populace of the world is Delta Force and therefore the article title should be kept as Delta Force. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). -- Necrothesp 10:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: delta is an army organization, but members of the military from any branch may try out for the force. additionally, some recruiting is done from other forces, but on an informal basis. usually such prospective recruits have special operations experience, such as marines from a MEU-SOC. Avriette 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's in a name? 

message: delta force should remain the way it is.in every special forces guide or encyclopedia etc  they are refered to as delta force not just delta.plus it is more recognizable as delta force also personally it sounds better.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.248.202.119 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 10 August 2005.
Delta Force is such a clicheed, overused term. It is, indeed, cringed at by actual operators. Within the Army Delta Force is known as Delta, D-Boys, or just D. Members of the unit are referred to as 'Operators'. Rumor within military circles has it that the unit has been renamed to Combat Applications Group or CAG. Delta Force is just being thrown around too much, it seems. By comparison, look at the former Seal Team Six, which, due to the brazen blabbermouth Richard Marcinko, had to redesignate itself 'Naval Special Warfare Development Group', or DEVGRU. As secrecy in both the SEALS and Delta intensifies as the war on terror continues, there may come a time when special operators in either unit carry no designation whatsoever. Most direct ops are conducted as part of a Task Force anyway, e.g. Task Force 11 or 22 in Afghanistan, which is an amalgam of operators from all branches of the military. The point is, if the public overuses unit designations they are likely to be changed. Anon—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.14.46 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 28 October 2005.
No, administratively they will always have some unit identifier, even if working under another unit commanding a taskforce. It's just the way the military is. Combat Applications Group does indeed refer to Delta, but is a very loose umbrella term. Gibson Cowboy 16:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Delta force remain

message: There is a Delta Force series of movies. Two of the movies The Delta Force and Delta Force 2 already have Wiki pages. There is also a Delta Force video game which has a wiki. Why don't we make a Delta Force disambiguation page? We can give a link to the above and include Delta (US Special Operations Force) as one of the options. This would allow Wiki to have the correct name and allow for the uneducated masses to find the appropriate article. --BenWoodruff 16:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree Mathmo 13:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta Force - disambiguation 

message: I tried to substantiate the recent diff with a cursory google search, and subsequently found nothing but a bunch of garbage by counterintelligence fanboys. I realize these things are hard to substantiate, but surely somebody can find something? Avriette 17:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA "DAO" group? 

message: A show on TV (history channel?) on capturing Pablo Escobar (cocaine kingpin in Columbia in the 1990s) said the Delta force was heavily involved in Columbia as part of that effort (as part of the US response to the President of Columbia's request for help). 4.250.138.184 18:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw that too. As a result I inserted a line about that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 October 2005.
This should be expanded ; Killing Pablo gives more details about Delta implication, and is more reliable about the role of Delta advisers for the Search bloc. Rob1bureau 13:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta and Escobar 

message: One of several operations in which Delta Force operators are thought to have played important roles was the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They allegedly entered Baghdad in advance, undercover with long hair and moustaches..
The last bit of that seems like it could be false. As it happens, I don't know that much about the subject, and am most probably wrong, hence why I didn't make a change. Just let me know if I did correctly, so that I can learn in future.--Dreaded Walrus 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undercover with long hair and moustaches 

message: Fiction, as defined by the Oxford American Dictionary: "Invention or fabrication as opposed to fact." Folks have been persistently editing this article with citations from The Unit, a show on CBS; 24, a show on FOX; and Deception Point, a novel by Dan Brown; among others — and these citations are, to say the least, inappropriate. Small wonder the mainstream doesn't take this project seriously, if you're going to publish an encyclopedia that asserts certain facts to be true based on their depiction in dramatic works. Cribcage 04:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiction 

message: I've put together a list of Delta soldiers that have died in action since the beginning of the unit. Given the secrecy of the unit, a death is one of the few times the unit is even somewhat tacitly acknowledge by the Pentagon, which doesn't even list the unit in the press release announcing the soldier's death, choosing only to say the soldier was assigned to Headquarters, U.S. Army Special Operations Command. I think this would be a good addition to this page but wanted to run it past others before adding to the page. Thanks. Dsw 11:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You could conceivably make an article called "List of US Army Special Operations Command soldiers who have died in action" but since you have no way to explicitly verify that they were in Delta, you cannot include it in the article as per WP:V and WP:CITE. ⇒ SWATJester Ready  Aim  Fire! 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think the sacrifice is the same if a person was delta or a fry cook on the USS Missouri.  I agree that a page for soldiers who died in service might be good, but long, as it really should include all the names available for all conflicts.  I am not sure if it would get vandalized if it is even possible to make such a list.  Perhaps some sort of clearing procedure would need be dreamed up and obviously restrict user posting.  I am sure there are databases with list of Fallen Soldiers somewhere that could be used.  One nice thing about such a list would be that families, friends, comrades, could then link to a page in memory for each of the fallen, in those pages information like citations, unit, branch, or other information could be included.  Just my 2 cents. Mantion 21:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta casualties 

message: Is/are there any legal citations for claims made in this portion of the article?  The legal standing described in the "Immunity" section seems rather improbable for several reasons: PDD 25 (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd25.htm) is a Clinton era document dealing with peacekeeping operations and while a sitting President can pardon someone for past crimes (think of Nixon and Ford) a President has no authority to exempt anyone from the laws of the United States. Even the president of the United States is not exempt from the law. Again, any valid citations suggesting that the President of the US can simply exempt someone (FBI, CIA, military, or the Boy Scouts) from the law?  If not, perhaps the section should be removed.
It's true that they have presidential inmunitty? thanks...
It is what someone has written in the page some time ago, but it's probably false as said above your own message. I don't know the laws problems, but it seems that the President of the U.S. can't give imunity to anyone. Rob1bureau 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Immunity

message: This section, particularly the reference to MEMS (microbots), makes absolutely no sense at all. What is the point of microbot techonolgy in the overall context of Delta? How and why are they applied or used? Where is the citation documentation? This needs a serious rewrite or should be eliminated. Sduplessie 01:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the problems of "immunity" and "MEMS" are among those making a clean-up and a re-organization of the page necessary. The page should cite more sources, and primary focuse on information directly linked to Delta, for example planned operations about POW/MIAs in Laos or hostage rescue in Middle East (US hostages in Lebanon, TWA-847 and Achille Lauro hijackings). Rob1bureau 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technology

message: I think it is plainly obvious that many special operations forces use non-standard equipment.  Perhaps a discussion about how this is done is in order.  The issue of 1911 use brings the issue up for me here.  I dont' doubt its use by members of Delta or other special units.  It is merely not the only one.  I have seen references to Delta using HK USP Tactical Pistols, Glock 19, and even the ubiquitous Beretta 92.  Stating that the pistol of choice is a personally bought highly customized 1911 is disingenuous, and does not give an accurate portrayal of what is used and carried by these soldiers.  The fact that they have discretion is not disputed, just the portrayal here is remarkably one sided. Smash05
:The part about the 1911 quotes a clear and identified source, what is rather rare in the page, so I advise to keep it. But I agree that as most SOF, D-Boys can carry the weapon they want. In his second book, Robert Baer reports D-Boys in the Beyrut embassy using 9 mm Glock pistols (probably 17s, but he doesn't told what model) - it was between 1986 and 1988. It is another good reference, maybe someone could add it (I don't do it because I have read the French translation of the book, no an English one). Otherwise, it seems that the 1911 is the most used pistol in Delta (various reports including Black Hawk Down). Rob1bureau 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is very clear that the 1911 is the clear choice for Delta. A very telling source is Larry Vicker's web page, because as a professional soldier his retirement plan became custom gunsmithing but his only experience with that was from the Delta Armorers and hence the only pistol he builds is the 1911. Here is a good quote from his webpage, "I was also fortunate to be in a Unit where more .45 ACP ammo is shot out of 1911 style pistols than any other place in the world; the ultimate test bed. I learned alot in the 15 years I was at 1st SFOD-Delta about what it takes to make a 1911 work reliably and how to keep it running. I also want to thank the individuals who work in the arms room at the Unit; they will remain nameless but I learned alot from them on making a 1911 run." I plan to intergrate this into the article if no one else has objections. --Semper Fidelis 16:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1911 pistol and non-standard equipment. 

message: Someone added a bit about the HK416 that was uncited and seems to violate NPOV.  Also as noted in a conversation above - I think a well regarded weapons magazine may not be a good enough source on the 1911 issue.  I hate to be picky but it irks me for reasons I will get into if someone wants me to.  Anyway I would like to see a citation for information on the HK416 - and perhaps alot of this information belongs in an equipment section. Smash05 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (UTC)Smash05, perhaps you are referring to Larry Vickers. I made a page for him, but it was shortly deleted. He was hired by HK for his experience as a Delta Operator and was a cheif designer for redesigning the M4/M16 into a operating piston system. You can find more information here, http://www.hkpro.com/hk416.htm, or here, http://www.vickerstactical.com/about/HK416.htm. I would also like the Larry Vickers page to be reinstated, but if not maybe his reference should be taken off this page. He was also responsible for pushing the development of the 7.62 HK 417 as he is a well stated fan of the larger NATO round. --There is no replacement for displacement. 03:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for rewriting the Larry Vickers Page, I had planned to complete it but your draft was far better then what I could have completed. As for the M4/M16 Piston system that was written by myself, and I was speaking from what I felt was common knowledge about the weapon but I apologize if it violated the neutral tone. I felt it was important to mention because a unit such as Delta is often deployed without support for several weeks and quite often taking time to break down their firearms is not an option, due to the fact that each member must wait for his turn to break down their personal weapon so that at any time there is no more but one gun out of action, as I have been told that is the SOP for Recon Marines. Reliability is crucial when in this situation and I think we can accurately assume that this is the reason why only SOF have received this rifle. As I mentioned below, I would request permission to detail some of these issues in a separate article along with alternatives so they could only be briefly mentioned here. You are most certainly correct that gas piston systems have been around for the M16/M4 family long before Heckler and Koch came into town, Patriot Ordinance (http://www.pof-usa.com/) being my personal favorite. I think a separate page with some of the over viewing some of the issues (the 5.56 NATO being unsuitable for CQB), and alternatives such as the HK416 and other guns, along with mentioning that it would not be feasible for the Army to replace the M16 rifle entirely but could rather only replace the upper receiver and reuse their stock of magazines with other alternative options. Speaking from personal experience I must respectfully disagree with you evaluation of the rifle's mechanism. I have seen soldiers fight over the M249 because nobody wanted to have to use a M16 because after several hours in the field it was unknown it your rifle could fire more then a half dozen rounds. Even the Army and Marine times have published articles that state the HK416 is far superior to the M16 and there is a rather large push among some of the command to get the best weapon for the troops. The M16 is a fine rifle in many aspects but only so much so when it has been properly cleaned, not including criticism of the 5.56 NATO. The Jessica Lynch incident, and hundreds others that did not receive attention show us what the ramifications are of a rifle that does not offer reliability in harsh environments. It's quite true that some or most of this incidents were the fault of improper weapons maintenance but it is not always possible to maintain the weapon at it's operating condition in many circumstances, to most obvious being SOF units such as Delta. This issues stem back to Vietnam and the original rifle because of changes in the final production plans. Take note, I am not trying to put down the M16 completely. For a shooting war on the plains of Europe this rifle, and the 5.56 NATO, would have proven to be a very powerful combination against Soviet weapons as was envisioned but today's military must adopt to overcome the issues that are present in the current war we are fighting. While the HK416 no doubt had issues in it's testing phase that is actually a positive point because every issue caught early is an issue that can be solved before the final product is deployed. As seen Heckler and Koch have had great experience and positive results helping redesign the British SA80/L85 so this is not their first time doing this. I think this merits further discussion and I am looking forward to your reply but I mean no disrespect towards your position. --Semper Fidelis 13:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to Overview Section 

message: I added more to the HK416 and HK417 along with sources, and made a seperate section for weaponary because it seems to be such a hot topic. I also expanded Larry Vicker's section, and plan to help create a page for him once I find more sources (other then his personal webpage). I also plan to create a page for issues with the M4/M16 to it's possible in the future that less of those issues have to be highlighted in these passages. The Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/) spacifically states that only Delta Force and other special forces units are going to see the new HK carbines so I feel that it is fitting to mention them. --There is no replacement for displacement. 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: I changed instances of the M14 to the M21 because this is the military term for the rifle. Although the original author mentioned the M14 because that is how it is referred to in Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden, the author of that book only used the term M14 because he felt his readers would not be familiar with the more obscure term "M21". --There is no replacement for displacement. 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well somebody changed one of the M21 mentions back to M14, most likely based on the movie "Black Hawk Down". In an effort to avoid an edit war I'm changing the other instances of M21 to M14 but I request that it be up for consideration that it is changed back to M21. The M21 has other differences then the M14, other then just the scope. I would highlight those of the action in pictures using my personal M21 and M14 if someone is curious. --There is no replacement for displacement. 15:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed references to M21 because Shughart's weapon, according all accounts I've read, wasn't a M21. It was a M14 with specific modifications including a non-magnifying red-dot scope. It wasn't based on a M21 (national match barrel, mount for ART scope, etc.). This is already said at the M14 rifle page. Rob1bureau 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, it was my personal understanding that the M21/M14 rifles built for Delta and other groups such as the SEALS, and Recon have the larger gas chambers, the Krieger barrel, the 1:10 rifling twist, and other modifications that are associated with the M21 but perhaps I am wrong. I cannot find a source online that verifies this so I concede that the page should stay with the term M14. As for the SR-47, I had it on there because the buzz was that this rifle was built specifically for Delta and SEAL task forces hunting Al-Qaeda in the long caves of Afghanistan and other areas where they couldn't bring in all the ammunition they needed. It's also a useful weapon in areas where you do not want to leave American manufactured shell casings as a calling card. Either way, it's a fairly trivial weapon and did not last long (at least publicly). I don't have a source other then word of mouth, but I wrote an article on the .458 SOCOM round that is rumored to be in use with Delta for some of the latest CQB missions in Iraq --There is no replacement for displacement. 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  M14 to M21 

message: Its nothing that says this in the article, but does Delta recruit foreign soldiers? I think I have heard that Delta asks soldiers from foreign special forces, like the British SAS and the German KSK (and other special force units they cooperate with), if they'd like to join Delta (if they have impressed Delta in some kind of way). Of course after they'd been put through the same tests as normal recruits. On link under this text it says: "Delta conducts worldwide recruitment twice a year prior to its fall and spring assessment-and-selection courses."
Link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/sfod-d.htm
Anyone who can answer my question?
:I seriously doubt they recruit foreigners, and those foreigners would have no reason to leave their own elite unit to join an American one. The line from the global security page you posted means they'll go to South Korea to recruit from 2ID or Europe to recruit from the units stationed there, instead of just sitting at Fort Bragg and waiting for people to find them. Parsecboy 16:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recruting foreigners? 

message: i dont understand why you deleted my entry.according to the government devgru and delta dont exist. the gov didnt say devgru participated in raid but is only speculated by the media. cia sad operatives dont "exist" either, however, it is speculated that they do exist and participated in the raid. whos to say that delta ( a unit that government doesnt acknowledge) didnt participate in the raid?
Read the two links I posted on your talk page. If you still have questions, come back here and ask them. Rklawton (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: delta in operation neptunes spear

message: the SoCom Combat Assault Rifle/Mk16 and Mk17 to commandos in April. In a bland release from the company's PA shop, FN says fielding will continue through the winter of 2009. A source close to the program tells me so far the Rangers have gotten their new rifles, with Navy Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewmen and SEAL teams 1, 2 and 3...
from Defense Tech - May 13, 2009
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004844.html
Delta force changed its standard weapon from the M4A1CQB to the HK-416 since 2004 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.48.229 (talk • contribs) 
Sources:i found the article in Armytimes magazine and here is the link :www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/ .
i dont know why its not working but you can read the article on yahoo ..just write HK-416 new delta weapon on yahoo search and it will be the first search result ( better than the M4 but the army cant have it )
  
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.132.48.229 (talk) 10:32, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 
:Provide a source, and we'll include it. Parsecboy 15:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link you provided is broken; perhaps you missed something copying it? Parsecboy 13:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/  FIXED Mcase07 03:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Delta Weapon 

message: I don't know that it has an official name, but it appears that Delta did security for the Seattle WTO meeting, as seen here: Delta's down with it Tmaull 04:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that any information about Delta with a good source is interesting. Should be added in the part operations. Terry Griswold's book DELTA (2005 edition - ISBN-10: 0760321108) also reports that "Delta had to provide badly needed assistance during both the 1986 Statue of Liberty centennial in New City York and the 1984 Olympics Games in Los Angeles". I also advise Steven Emerson's Shadows Warriors, in which there are quite some information about Delta operations in the 1980s (Gen. James Dozier kidnapping, TWA 847 and Achille Lauro hijacks). Rob1bureau 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known Delta Operations 

message: Since the Army not commit on delta activity , so casualties in both Afghanistan and Iraq are not released but listed as : HQ US Army special operation command .--Jonybond 08:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i know about 12 operator casualties since 9/11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.88.211 (talk • contribs) 
So give your list (and your sources if possible please) ! Rob1bureau 20:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta casualties  

message: People the army switched to M9 Beretta and that includes Delta ..I know a guy in Green beret who said all army units now are using M9 .--Max Mayr 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide a source then, not just hearsay. Parsecboy 22:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, but you need to provide a reliable source for the article to be changed. You can't just say "so and so said it, so it must be true". Parsecboy 11:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  M1911  

message: I have changed the title from "Famous Delta Force Operators" to "Notable Delta Operators". Reason for this, is that you would think these particular people were movie stars (though Eric Haney could be debatable due to his work with "The Unit"). It is rather distinguished that the operators are rather more Notable due to contributions, operations, citations or private sector work or entertainment. Therefore, they are not "famous" in the vein of a Tom Cruise or Eric Bana. Mcase07 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CHANGE TO OPERATORS 

message: Is the sidenote about Ranger hair styles necessary?141.161.119.79 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably in a Ranger article.  It should be mentioned in this article about the relaxed grooming standards for Delta.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The haircuts are something mentioned already in relaxed grooming standards for The CAG. Highly noted and contrasted in multiple books and publications - much the same with the Army Special Forces as well. Mcase07 (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are only required to get Haircuts once a year for Military photos.  I've seen pictures of these guys with beards as big as I am.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.143.238 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember reading the bit abour Rangers haircuts in BHD. Can someone check that ? Rob1bureau (talk) 08:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranger Haircuts 

message: It was stated in Black Hawk Down that Delta operators wore Pro-tec helmets instead of standard issue kevlar helmets due to CAG's special role in hostage rescue (they were more concerned with bumping and scraping their heads because of their fast operation is what i recall the book was saying). Should that be listed in the article and also is it possible that by now Delta may have custom helmets made for them, since "What Delta wants, Delta gets"? Tsurugi (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta Helmet 

message: Someone added back what they claim is the beret flash for Delta. This is absurb. First, ALL beret flashes authorized by the Army Institute of Heraldry are the same shape. There are no triangles. Second, what kind of sense does a seperate flash make? If the Army tries to keep the unit under wraps or at least reasonably low key, why would they authorize not only a special flash, but one that was a completely different shape than any other flash, which would make these guys identifiable at 100 friggin yards? That patch isn't even a real one authorized by the Institute of Hearldry. It is a fake made up by a private company in the mid 1980's. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supposed beret flash 

message: Is beyond gay, it makes the article like some kind of friggin video game you can buy. And I haven't the slightest idea how anyone can talk with authority about this unit. 
-some 11 bang bang fag  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.147.79 (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree as well, but I would say the bit out the stipend to purchase a custom M1911 style pistol is worth keeping. Maybe the info about the HK 416/7 as well, given that it was designed in partnership with Delta. The rest can go, as far as I'm concerned. This isn't Ghost Recon or Call of Duty 4, after all. Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does that mean that the weapon section stays or goes? In my opinon it should go  (Archangel1 (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why shouldn't an article about a military unit have a section about the equipment it uses? --Dekker451 (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The weapons section 

message: I've added an outcome section to the Operations list, since otherwise it's just a list of operations, giving no idea of what actually happened in them. --MoltenBoron (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea, but I have some concerns about how you summarize them. For example, you listed the outcome for Vigilant Resolve as a failure with 27 KIA. This article is about Delta. Delta didn't lose 27 people, nor was Delta the main force. They participated. If a reader looks at this, they could get the impression that Delta ran this operation and lost 27 of their people. Same holds true for other entries. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I add the number of Delta operators and the total number of troops in the operation that might make it more intelligable. I'll see what I can do. --MoltenBoron (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outcomes 

message: The language in this article needs to be changed to continue with the NPOV policy.  (Archangel1 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: There are literally thousands of sources which detail SEAL involvement in the B of M.  John Gay, a SEAL, was shot, his Randall knife deflecting the round.  It is discussed here .  Dick Couch, in his book "Finishing School" details the account of Eric Olson, who rose to be commander of SEAL Team 6, and  his involvement in the B of M.  Bowden touches on this in Black Hawk Down as well.  Simply put, read the book more closely.  Search Google.  Read other accounts of the battle, it's there...and quite obvious. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Mogadishu and SEAL involvement 

message: Why don't we use this patch as the official insignia of Delta Force?
It is really weird that on the website of the USACOM there is nothing about Delta Force. Only on the website of Joint Command, but that is different branch. I don't see how is the Delta Force part of the Army then. It is same with the globalsecurity.org article, nothing about Delta Force in the US Army Spec Ops Command article, only in the Joint Command again - because the Joint Com is separate and independent, along with USASOC, Navy spec command, and marine spec ops command. --Novis-M (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patch + Unit 

message: This is my first time posting, and I am not completely aware of all posting standard, so please bare with me.
*I have been reading this page with any information about the Unit's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet there have not been any references made with regard to their mission as a "ghost tank battalion" which forced Saddam to think he was surrounded in Tikrit and not escape to Syria or Iran.
*He also mentions how they organized for the battle in Shahi Khot against al Qaeda and the Taliban using AFO members(advanced force operations) of TF 11 with 10th Mountain Division.  He specifically mentions how they used laser designators from one group SEAL operators along with Delta operators to call airstrikes against hidden enemy fighters who were trying to ambush the 10th Mountain Division during the battle.
*The book is set up as a guidelines to live your life by while referring to previous life  experiences.  He also states in the book that certain names or facts may have been changed for operational security.  But the meaning behind what he was trying to explain should not have been lost.
* I have read the book through its entirety, however, I have checked on the web and could not find any sources which could support this book or the author, and I was wondering if the book is legit or could be validated as a source for this page or as a seperate page on Wikipedia as there is no reference to this person or his book on this site.
Flyinggr (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are two books relating Blaber's actions : Not a good day to die by Sean Naylor about Operation Anaconda (in the Shah-i-Khot valley) and Cobra II by Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor about the invasion of Iraq. As far as I know, no-one has challenged his claims. Rob1bureau (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible new source of information: "The Mission, the Men, and Me" by Pete Blaber

message: I removed the following section, which has been tagged as not being supported by any reliable sources since Nov 08. Please reinstate information only if supporting citations can be incorporated. —Eustress talk 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: If there are parts of the article that are unverifible, we should pin-point them and remove them, especially on such a controversial topic. Also what exactly is "eliminating covert enemy forces (where in the U.S.?)" and isn't this opinion "It is composed of the best special operators and soldiers of the Army who are carefully selected in special processes." Also in the intro do we really need to talk about other CT units, wouldn't that be best for the history section or maybe create an overview section? Also is any of the unregistered editors check the discussion, are the edit summaries to much to ask for? But, what do I know I "am" not an admin :) Aaron mcd (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits (8/17/09) 

message: Is this article really a start class? If has, reliable (for the most part) sources, and is free of major grammatical errors. Maybe it deserves a C class? Aaron mcd (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are significant parts of the article that remain unsourced, which prevents it from being rated as B-class. WP:MILHIST doesn't use C-class ratings, so it's stuck at Start for now. Parsecboy (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality Scale 

message: There is no way that a book that describes the selection process at its inception in 1979 can be a reliable source on what the current selection process looks like today. In order to be accurate and not speculate, the text needs to reflect this. Presenting this information with the current sources is misleading. I don't really think there is a valid argument that a 29-year old account can be considered current. — OcatecirT 07:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also there is an incredible amount of unsourced material in this article, and the unsourced tag is dated November 2008. I am going to go ahead and remove everything that is unsourced. This topic invites a high level of specualation and innaccuracy. — OcatecirT 07:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it more appropriate to be proactive and look for sources rather than removing information that could be correct. It is however within your right to do so... 71.52.222.151 (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection process 

message: The last sentence mentions needing an ASVAB score of at least 110. The only problem is that the ASVAB caps out at 99.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.85.85 (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The ASVAB has changed its scoring system several times over the years.  Rklawton (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the recruitment paragraph? 

message: I question the statement that the Aviation Branch may have at least some enlisted helicopter pilots. No branch of the US military has had enlisted pilots since WW2. Most Army helo pilots are warrant officers, and while many if not most WOs come from the enlisted ranks, they cannot be considered enlisted people. 
It is possible that the author intended to state that Delta "grows its own" pilots from within its ranks, but that's just a conjecture on my part. In any case, this statement should be verified. Unless & until it is confirmed, it should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.56.152 (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enlisted Pilots? Doubtful. 

message: Shouldn't the History section reflect more of Beckwith's 15 year (or so) struggle to convince Army brass to create the unit? He initially presented a full report to the Army immediately upon his return from the SAS in the early 60's, highlighting the Army's vulnerability in not having an SAS-type unit. He rewrote and re-presented that report several times and risked his career several times, trying to force the point, for many years. Finally, in the mid 70s, when terrorist threats became high profile, the Pentagon tapped him to go ahead with his idea. The article makes it sound too simple: "He briefed military and government figures, who were also impressed with the SAS concept." Like he presented the idea and they said the word go right away. Anyone agree? All of the above info is in Beckwith's memoir, by the way. Rljkerns (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Good job adding those specifics. 76.26.80.220 (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section/ Formation 

message: The official designation is not the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta anymore it is the 1st Combat Applications Group, according to the US Federal Government. I would provide a link but it also has were 'Delta' trains and their missions so I cannot. --124.180.150.164 (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: One (or more) users are repeatedly adding the word "rumored" as to the existence of this unit. Given the number of sources spelling out its existence, I think "rumored" isn't appropriate and should not be used here. Thoughts?  Rklawton (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Rumored"

message: Please do not add speculation about Delta's role in Osama's death unless you've got reliable, verifiable sources to go with it. Rklawton (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Role in Osama's death

message: If anyone finds a source that it was ACE that got him, put it in here please, also respect OPSEC, Loose lips sink ship... If you know what it mean  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.102.49 (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bin Laden Dead (YES!!!) 

message: An editor has attempted to rename this article by copy and pasting the content of both the article and the talk page into a new article.  There are two problems with this: 
# We should discuss any such significant changes prior to implementing them - but no such discussion took place.  
# By copying/pasting this article's contents, we lose its entire edit history. It's the article's edit history that shows us who wrote what and enables appropriate author attribution.  Instead, the edit history would incorrectly indicate that a single editor is responsible for the article's entire contents, and that's just not right.  
Instead, if it becomes necessary to rename this article, we simply perform a page-move.  This will maintain the entire edit history while allowing the article's name to change.  But, of course, before we do that, we should attempt to gain consensus.  Rklawton (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change: ACE

message: The Delta Force Wikipedia page should not have any popular culture information, there is a separate page for this 'Delta Force in popular culture'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.192.65 (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Warfare 3, massive upcoming video game 

message: (1) How does the rank structure work and is there any information about what ranks each role has in the unit. It is said that experienced NCOs in the E4 to E8 range are recruited from the Army. Do they keep their rank or are they assigned new ranks within the Delta? (2) Appearing in civilian clothes or in camouflage uniforms without insignia disqualifies them as POWs in case they are captured, thus falling within local civil criminal or terrorists laws. Can anyone clarify? --Malin Lindquist (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranks and POW status 

message: Well done, Rklawton! Let's dial this page back a notch to what we can verify. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But is your addition really about Delta or about the raids? I would suppose (and I have not looked) that the raids have their own articles. But then again lately I have become more of an "exclusionist." Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

text: *And it needs re-written to NOT be a copy vio and to be less of a "story". "D-boy"? Are you serious? Dial the whole story-telling part back. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold deletion