Talk:United States Marine Forces Special Operations Command

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mfreedberg2016, Adamsd2016, SlayerWill. Peer reviewers: Jonathan Reissi, SlayerWill.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Hi! Acccording the following link the lemma should be "United States Marine Forces Special Operations Command" (MARSOC)

Who has verified information? (MARK S. 14:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

According to this official reference it is called US Marine Corps Force Special Operations Command

(MARK S. 16:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Quote: " The potential participation of the Marine Corps in SOCOM has been controversial since SOCOM was formed in 1986. At the time, Marine Corps leaders felt that their Force Reconnaissance units were best kept in the Marine Corps' MAGTF command structure, and that the detachment of an "elite" Marine Special Operations unit from the Marine Corps would be to the detriment of the Marine Corps as a whole. A reevaluation following the September 11th attacks and the global war on terror, along with new policy established by Secretary Rumsfeld, caused the Marine Corps to work towards integration with SOCOM." Does this mean that substantial portions of the command structure are still pissed off by this development, or has there been an overall 'sea change'? -Toptomcat 03:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move article to official unit name?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Template is fixed. Thanks for the help.--Looper5920 21:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?[edit]

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)[reply]

22:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)~== Added back in the allegations regarding Nangahar ==

Adding the substance of the allegations against the MARSOC unit is not unbalanced. Reducing this event to the simple redux that "Afghan civilians alleged that they fired indiscriminately," when the Marines shot 40 people along a 16-km stretch of roadway, and killed twelve of them, including at least two infants, a teenage girl, and a 75-year-old man, is POV. It is akin to saying that "Joe Bonanno is alleged to have been involved in racketeering," and cutting out the substantial evidence that proves it. This is an encyclopedia. People come to the site to get information, not to have the information hidden from them because it is not "balanced."

Also, the changing of the title of the section to "Controversy about firefight" is POV. There is no controversy about a "firefight." The controversy is the substantial evidence (there has been none developed to the contrary) that there was no "firefight," and that this was "shooting civilians," which is why I gave that title to the "controversy" section. Although the Marines claimed that they came under small arms fire immediately after the attack, their credibility is severely impeached by their conduct vis-a-vis the Afghan police and international journalists, as Maj. Gen. Francis H. Kearney III obviously believed. One does not spoliate evidence and then expect the world to believe one's exculpatory stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MithraUnconquered (talk • contribs) 06:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I would say regardless of guilt/innocence, whatever, the fact is that this case is still under investigation and it really has no business being on the main page of a Special Operations information page. I am not saying it should be taken off completley, rather it should just simply be moved to another site, and add a link on the main page. I don't see all the accusations and controversey on the Navy SEAL or Army Special Forces pages, and both of them have their fair share. So let's let this case ride it's course, take it's time, and provide a link to another page. It's just the right thing to do. thaemcee2

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Nangahar[edit]

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)[reply]

Good getting rid of it. NPOV or not the incident doesn't have enough notability to take up 3/4 of the article, and not sure it would even merit a footnote evaluating the history of MARSOC 50 years from now. 70.129.159.159 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The FN SCAR[edit]

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)[reply]

Marsoc Raiders[edit]

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)[reply]

DASR[edit]

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)[reply]

Incidents[edit]

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)[reply]

Needs a Controversy section[edit]

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)[reply]

1st MSOB to command Combined Joint Special Operation Task Force[edit]

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)[reply]

3rd MSOB ?[edit]

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)[reply]

Organization[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate info[edit]

@SWF88: - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Need Citation to Initial Resistance to "Elite" Units[edit]

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)[reply]

Citation posted; see article..CobraDragoon (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Marine_Forces_Special_Operations_Command&oldid=1205838990"