Thewolfchild (talk | contribs) |
|||
(28 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
===(arbitrary break)=== |
===(arbitrary break)=== |
||
"''{{tq|The most important thing is, You did't provide any South Korean sources that support your opinion.}}''" - Again, I don't need to provide South Korean sources. That's not how it works. I have already provided ''four'' reliable sources, to support the content in the article (not "''my opinion''"). This is why I suggested you familiarize yourself with our sourcing guidelines, so that you don't keep getting caught up in the same error (here or anywhere else). You need to either show that all four of those sources are somehow inapplicable, or provide more recent sourcing that supports the changes you wish to make. - [[User talk:Thewolfchild|<span style="color:black">w<span style="color: red;">o</span>lf</span>]] 06:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC) |
"''{{tq|The most important thing is, You did't provide any South Korean sources that support your opinion.}}''" - Again, I don't need to provide South Korean sources. That's not how it works. I have already provided ''four'' reliable sources, to support the content in the article (not "''my opinion''"). This is why I suggested you familiarize yourself with our sourcing guidelines, so that you don't keep getting caught up in the same error (here or anywhere else). You need to either show that all four of those sources are somehow inapplicable, or provide more recent sourcing that supports the changes you wish to make. - [[User talk:Thewolfchild|<span style="color:black">w<span style="color: red;">o</span>lf</span>]] 06:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::I have also already provided so many South Korean reliable sources distributed in March 2016, to support the current content [[List of military special forces units|in the article]] have wrong information. |
|||
:::* [https://search.naver.com/search.naver?where=news&query=%EC%8A%A4%ED%8C%8C%EB%A5%B4%ED%83%84%203000%20%ED%95%B4%EB%B3%91%EB%8C%80&sm=tab_opt&sort=0&photo=0&field=0&pd=3&ds=2016.03.01&de=2016.03.31&docid=&related=0&mynews=0&office_type=0&office_section_code=0&news_office_checked=&nso=so%3Ar%2Cp%3Afrom20160301to20160331&is_sug_officeid=0 South Korean reliable sources about Spartan 3000] |
|||
:::* [https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20160320000800315?section=search South Korean reliable sources about Spartan 3000 - English version] |
|||
:::'''In March 2016, All South Korean press announced that Spartan 3000 is a Quick Reaction Force(신속대응부대) or Quick Maneuver Force(신속기동부대) or Mobile Unit. |
|||
:::'''In March 2016, Just 4 foreign press announced that Spartan 3000 is a 'Special Force Unit or Special Operation'''' |
|||
:::'''[[Primary source|Original source]] was from South Korean Press, Foreign press translated the original source then distributed abroad.''' |
|||
:::'''Therefore, I reckon that I already showed that all four of foreign sources distributed in 2016 are inapplicable.''' |
|||
:::'''If you don't agree on this point, We need hearing other people's opinions and mediation from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests.''' |
|||
:::Now, You only seems to believe only just 4 English newspaper articles distributed in 2016 - 7 years Ago. |
|||
:::I'm South Korean, So I'm good at South Korean military and I can easyliy access the South Korean reliable sources than foreigners. |
|||
:::Again, Just 2 weeks later, We can receive the newest official answer about charcteristic of Spartan 3000 from [[Republic of Korea Marine Corps]] |
|||
:::For you information. Please refer to [https://rokmarineboy.tistory.com/3170 Photos of Jeseung Unit] from official ROKMC blog in May 2016. |
|||
:::'''We can find a word "제승부대 - ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force" in the below Photo.''' |
|||
:::''''Spartan 3000' was just nickname in March 2016. In May 2016, At inauguration ceremony, official name was Jeseung Unit(제승부대).''' |
|||
:::* [https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20160320000800315?section=search Please check out South Korean reliable source English version again] |
|||
:::'''dubbed "Spartan 3000," the official said.''' |
|||
:::In my humble opinion, I hope that you save your precious time in this discussion.[[User:Footwiks|Footwiks]] ([[User talk:Footwiks|talk]]) 07:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:59, 14 May 2023
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Afghanistan?
According to the wikipedia page for the "Afghan Armed Forces", currently there are three listed Special Operations capable outfits in their military structure, those being the Badri 313 Battalion, the Red Unit, and the "Yarmouk 60 Special Red Jnit]]Forces Battalion"
The wikipedia page for "Special Forces" lists the NATO definition for Special Operations as "military activities conducted by specially designated, organized, selected, trained and equipped forces using unconventional techniques and modes of employment"
The Badri 313 Battalion alone appear to employ specially designated, organized, selected, and trained personelle along with them being well equipped. As stated in their wikipedia article "The battalion is equipped with camouflage uniforms, combat helmets, body armor, night-vision goggles, M4 carbines, sidearms and Humvees of US origin.". I think there's plenty of credence on wikipedia alone to justify adding the Afghan Armed Forces Special Operations Units like Badri 313, the Red Unit, and the "Yarmouk 60 Special Forces Battalion" to the list of military special forces units. 2601:600:9681:FFA0:D4F7:DD39:9DE3:CDBB (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- The individual articles for Red Unit and Badri 313 Battalion make them appear questionable as bona fide "special operations forces". Being "equipped with camouflage uniforms, combat helmets, body armor, night-vision goggles, M4 carbines, sidearms and Humvees" is by no means an indication of sof status, even reserve units of the US Military have such basic equipment. As for "Yarmouk 60", they only have a single mention on the Afghan Armed Forces page, with no additional information, and it is supported only by a single questionable tweet. Perhaps bring the issue of sof up on the AAF talk page, and see if a SOF section can be created and expanded with relevant content and reliable sourcing. And then go from there. - wolf 14:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm confused why they aren't considered "bona fide" - a lot of the SOF units on this very list don't even have their own dedicated wiki pages, so should those SOF units be removed from this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9681:FFA0:85B9:333B:EC84:C0C1 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- First, any entry on this list that doesn't have an article (eg: is either red-linked or not linked) has a source attached.
- Second, I didn't say they "aren't considered bona fide", I said they "appear questionable as bona fide". (As in to me, or imho.) That was just from a quick glance through those articles and a few of their refs. Just becuase the Taliban calls them "Special Forces" doesn't mean they are. But a single editor doesn't decide what does or does not get added to an article. When there is a dispute over whether certain content should be added or not, it is usually decided by consensus. As per WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You already pointed out the NATO definition from the SF article, and we also have several more listed in the lead of this page. If you go through the sources from the Red Unit and Badri 313 articles and find some solid support for inclusion, you may be able to sway consensus in your favour. Good luck - wolf 22:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm confused why they aren't considered "bona fide" - a lot of the SOF units on this very list don't even have their own dedicated wiki pages, so should those SOF units be removed from this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9681:FFA0:85B9:333B:EC84:C0C1 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- added this:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afghan_Armed_Forces?useskin=vector#Possible_to_expand_the_Special_Forces_section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9681:FFA0:1D05:DEEA:37B6:73C9 (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, that's a start, but all I see there is a report from Fox news, which already has reliability issues, and reporter with a questionable understanding of special operations. I see now where you got the quote from with the list of American equipment the Taliban fighters have, but again... just because they're walking around in camo with NVGs and M4s doesn't make them special forces. Nor does suddenly having a few Blackhawks means they have a unit like the 160 SOAR. And the comment that they are now "comparable, perhaps, to the best in the world"... as in, UKSF (SAS, SBS), JSOC (Delta, DevGru), JTF2, GROM, SASR, KSK, GSG-9, etc., etc., is... laughable. There is nothing to support idea that the Taliban has created a training pipeline similar to the other groups, or even has the infrastructure and experienced personnel necessary to implement such an undertaking. Many of these units have decades of experince, and what's more, all these groups I've listed, and many more, all share their experience with each other, increasing it exponentially. They train and operate together and they share techniques and intel. The Taliban just doesn't compare. IMO, there would need to be more sourcing, reliable soucing, with solid information to support the idea that these Taliban groups are "special forces/special operations capable", along the lines of the other groups listed here.
- But that's just me. As I said, you should be seeking more sourcing. And of course, you need a consensus from other editors. We'll have to watch and see of anything more develops. - wolf 21:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afghan_Armed_Forces?useskin=vector#Possible_to_expand_the_Special_Forces_section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9681:FFA0:1D05:DEEA:37B6:73C9 (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Spartan 3000
Spartan 3000 is former English nick name. official name is Jeseug Unit.[1]
Actually, This is not the new special quick reaction unit.
1st Marine Division (South Korea) have below 3 Brigades.
- 2nd Marine Brigade (Yellow-Dragon)
- 3rd Marine Brigade (King-Kong)
- 7th Marine Brigade (Warthog
These existing brigades undertake a task of the quick reaction unit by turns.
For example,
- January to April: 2nd Marine Brigade become Jeseug Unit
- May to August: 3rd Marine Brigade become Jeseug Unit
- September to December: 7th Marine Brigade become Jeseug Unit
They are ordinary marine unit. absolutely not special unit.
Do you understand what I mean? Footwiks (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
References
- Hi, few things;
- 1) Items like this belong on the article talk page, not on a user talk page.
- 2) This unit was already discussed here, see Talk:List of military special forces units/Archive 2#no source for spartan 3000
- 3) in your edit, after you removed that unit, you added the name of another unit, but you linked it to the parent unit just above. The is problematic for several reasons;
- 3a) it gives the impression that there is an article for the unit when there is not,
- 3b) as there is no article, and you failed to attach a ref, this means the unit you added is unsourced, and subject to removal.
- 4) there is an issue with your link in that it both uses a the 'pipe trick' to give the impression that an article exists when it doesn't, and it's a duplicate use of the same link in the same section, when this typically isn't even permitted on the same page. See Help:Link for more information.
- 5) Once your edit was reverted, per WP:BRD, you should have then come to the article talk page to discuss it. Instead you, reverted again, which is not the preferred way to resolve a dispute. (and edit summaries such as: "
I'm South Korean. I'll explain it at your talk page.
" are not at all useful). - 6) The unit is question is sourced, as noted above. If you have subsequent sourcing showing that it has been disbanded, please provide it. Unless and until then, the article should remain at WP:QUO. (And, I'm not going to mention my nationality/race here because it's irrelevant.)
- 7) Lastly, looking through the link you included above, there is no mention of "Spartan 3000", of any special unit being disbanded, or of any nickname prior to "Jeseung Unit". This appears to be a different unit. - wolf 18:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I will say it again, Spartan 3000 is former English nick name. This English nick name was disbanded and 'Jeseug Unit(제승부대)' is the official name of brigade with quick reaction task in the 1st Marine Division (South Korea)
- Below foreign sources are not accurate. Term - The special force unit or special operation. These are the just translation mistakes.
- [1][2][3][4]
- The Telegraph: "Special Forces unit..."
- The Diplomat: "The unit’s main task is to carry out special operations..."
- The New York Times: "South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade..."
- NZ Herald: "The special force unit..."
- Below article is the original source by South Korean press Yonhap News Agency on 20 March 2016.
- Below article is the original source by South Korean press Yonhap News Agency on 20 March 2016.
- Please translate and check out.
- Please translate and check out.
- 군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다.
- 이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다.
- 군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다.
- For your information
- In 2019, ROK Marine Corps restructured regiment as a brigade
- In 2020, ROK Army restructured regiment as a brigade
- For your information
- Therefore, Regiment in 2016 and current brigade are same unit and Republic of Korea Armed Forces don't use term 'Regiment' anymore.[5]
- Please check out the South Korean press at that time (2016) about Spartan 3000.
- absolutely not special unit
- All South Korean sources about Spartan 3000 announced - Quick Reaction Unit(신속대응부대) or Quick Maneuver Unit(신속기동부대) or Mobile unit,
- Absolutely not, 'Special Force Unit'
- In conclusion, according to all South Korean press, Spartan 3000(currently Jeseung Unit) is not the Special Forces unit,
- Spartan 3000(currently Jeseung Unit) is the just already existing Brigade with Quick Reaction Force Task in the 1st Marine Division (South Korea) .
- I have questions.
- (1) Can you provide South Korean reliable sources that Spartan 3000 is the special forces unit?
- I can't find any South Korean sources that Spartan 3000 is the special forces unit.
- As I mentioned before, some foreign sources used 'The special force unit or special operation'
- But this is the obviously translation mistake.
- Spartan 3000(currently Jeseung Unit) is the South Korean Unit. We have to prove the characteristic of Unit by South Korean reliable source.
- (2) Do Quick Reaction Force or Quick Maneuver Force include in the list?
- There are 2nd Quick Response Division (South Korea) and 8th Maneuver Division in the Republic of Korea Army.
- Are they special forces units?
- (3) Do you want official answer about Spartan 3000(currently Jeseong Unit) from Republic of Korea Marine Corps?
- By this south korean government's Q&A system, About two 2 weeks later, I can receive the official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps.
- Footwiks (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Rothwell, James (21 March 2016). "South Korea unveils elite 'Spartan 3000' force as Kim Jong-un threatens to 'bury our enemies at sea'" – via www.telegraph.co.uk.
- ^ "South Korea Unveils New Elite Unit Of Marines". thediplomat.com.
- ^ "South Korea Plans 'Decapitation Unit' to Try to Scare North's Leaders". The New York Times. 12 September 2017. Retrieved 20 April 2021.
- ^ "Spartan 3000: South Korea's elite decapitation unit". nzherald.co.nz. 13 September 2017. Retrieved 20 April 2021.
- ^ source
- (edit conflict) The entry is sourced, with not just one or two, but four sources, that are all considered reliable. Just because the unit is from South Korea, does not mean that South Korean sources are required, nor does it negate any non-South Korean sources that are considered reliable. Also, just because you claim there is a "
translation mistake
" (with all four...?!) doesn't necessarily mean there is. More is needed to support these allegations. I would suggest you re-read our sourcing guidelines and re-familiarize yourself with them.
- (edit conflict) The entry is sourced, with not just one or two, but four sources, that are all considered reliable. Just because the unit is from South Korea, does not mean that South Korean sources are required, nor does it negate any non-South Korean sources that are considered reliable. Also, just because you claim there is a "
- Also, I read the text above in Korean (the bolding of the text there, as well as with your "
In conclusion...
" bit was unecessary, and some consider it rude). That said, I'm not clear on your point with that as it seems to support inclusion of the Spartan3000 entry. - I won't be "checking the South Korean press", as I don't need to. I already found multiple, reliable sources to support the entry. That however, doesn't preclude you from "checking the South Korean press", or any RS media outlet, and if you can find sourcing that clearly states the current sources are all, somehow, incorrect, or that clearly report that Spartan3000 has been renamed, or disbanded, or otherwise had their status changed as such they no longer should be listed here, then post your findings here and we'll go from there.
- Lastly, may I suggest (make that strongly urge) that you perhaps write out your replies in your sandbox first? And then when you are satisfied with them, copy them over which ever talk page discussion your are engaged in? That, or use the preview function? As it is, you made thirty-one consecutive edits just for this one reply. The very reason we have the options of using preview or the sandbox (among others), is so that your edits don't clog up the page's history, or blow-up all the watchlists of users watching the page. This is something that you would be doing as a courtesy for your fellow editors. Thank you - wolf 05:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- p.s. - I tried to translate that source you noted, and I rec'd a warning from Google:
- "Looking for naver.com? The site you tried to visit (n-news-naver-com.translate.goog) looks fake. Attackers sometimes mimic sites by making hard-to-see changes to web addresses.". fyi - wolf 05:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- The most important thing is, You did't provide any South Korean sources that support your opinion.
- Please read original press release (English version) from Yonhap News Agency.
- Marine Corps launches expanded mobile unit for N.K. contingencies
- How about hearing other people's opinions and mediation from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests.
- Footwiks (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This lastest article you just added also appears to support the current entry. I have no opinion atm on reliability, but aside from that, I'm not sure what purpose it serves for your pov here.
- As for your comment about "mediation committee". If a content dispute reaches a point where the two parties cannot come to any kind of an agreement, then typically the steps at dispute resolutuon are followed. I don't know about you, but I don't think we're there yet. We've basically just gotten started. You are still adding new information, I'm still not sure you are 100% clear in how our sourcing guidelines work. There's still some basic research that can be done and further discussion to be had, before we can reasonably say we've reached an impasse, and need DR. That's just my opinion, but you seem somewhat impatient. How about we slow down and see if we can't come to some kind of understanding? - wolf 06:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I read the text above in Korean (the bolding of the text there, as well as with your "
(arbitrary break)
"The most important thing is, You did't provide any South Korean sources that support your opinion.
" - Again, I don't need to provide South Korean sources. That's not how it works. I have already provided four reliable sources, to support the content in the article (not "my opinion"). This is why I suggested you familiarize yourself with our sourcing guidelines, so that you don't keep getting caught up in the same error (here or anywhere else). You need to either show that all four of those sources are somehow inapplicable, or provide more recent sourcing that supports the changes you wish to make. - wolf 06:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have also already provided so many South Korean reliable sources distributed in March 2016, to support the current content in the article have wrong information.
- In March 2016, All South Korean press announced that Spartan 3000 is a Quick Reaction Force(신속대응부대) or Quick Maneuver Force(신속기동부대) or Mobile Unit.
- In March 2016, Just 4 foreign press announced that Spartan 3000 is a 'Special Force Unit or Special Operation'
- Original source was from South Korean Press, Foreign press translated the original source then distributed abroad.
- Therefore, I reckon that I already showed that all four of foreign sources distributed in 2016 are inapplicable.
- If you don't agree on this point, We need hearing other people's opinions and mediation from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests.
- Now, You only seems to believe only just 4 English newspaper articles distributed in 2016 - 7 years Ago.
- I'm South Korean, So I'm good at South Korean military and I can easyliy access the South Korean reliable sources than foreigners.
- Again, Just 2 weeks later, We can receive the newest official answer about charcteristic of Spartan 3000 from Republic of Korea Marine Corps
- For you information. Please refer to Photos of Jeseung Unit from official ROKMC blog in May 2016.
- We can find a word "제승부대 - ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force" in the below Photo.
- 'Spartan 3000' was just nickname in March 2016. In May 2016, At inauguration ceremony, official name was Jeseung Unit(제승부대).
- dubbed "Spartan 3000," the official said.
- In my humble opinion, I hope that you save your precious time in this discussion.Footwiks (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)