Talk:United States Navy SEALs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Navy SEALs article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force

Can we move the info about uniforms and tigerstripe out of the intro? I'm not sure if there's a reason for it, but it's a bit much: "During the Vietnam War, SEAL members wore “tiger stripe” camouflage uniforms, often with civilian blue jeans and “coral” sneakers, for patrol missions. On base, they wore standard uniforms with a black beret during the early years (when they patrolled alongside the Swift and STAB boat units of the “Brown Water Navy”) and tiger-striped “boonie” hats in later years. Currently, they wear variations of the U.S. Marine Corps MARPAT camouflage and RAID BDUs. Only men may apply to become SEALs."--Jmalc 22:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why was this moved? --Jia ng 01:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This needs much more about training. Now I'm curious. Meelar 05:17, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

There's lots of information available about SEAL training. I invite anyone to post what they know. Prospero --- Doing a google search, i found that seal team six is red cell according to most sites...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.97.121.99 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 15 January 2005. -- This is not true; Dick Marcinko was, however, the commander of both units. --68.120.68.129

[edit] Other Specops Groups

I'd love to see someone with more knowledge than myself put together a general special operations warfare page with links to this article as well as any about German, Russian, and other groups (Flotilla 13 anyone?)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MtB (talk • contribs) 10:12, 14 November 2004.

Special forces, commando, list of special forces. —Joseph | Talk 05:04, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Spun off UDT

I've spun off the information regarding the UDTs to Underwater Demolition Team. This is in hopes that since their official tasks were different from the SEALs that some background into their specialties and differences will be discussed. Alkivar 05:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "The leading offensive force in the world"

I've reverted this, but even as it is, it could do with some backing up. For example: "according to Janes, one of the leading offensive force in the world" (I have no idea whether or not Janes actually say this). --stochata 17:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you guys would quit changing the page, stating that the SEALs are among the best, i got those articles from the offical SEAL page from www.navy.com and from the SEAL Encyclopedia written by a Green Beret, US Army Special Forces, so do research before you change (deleted) you don't know about (deleted).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.149.228.13 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 15 February 2005.

Listen (deleted) whoever is changing the page is pissing me off, according to www.navy.com, on their SEAL page, it states the SEALs are the leading offensive force in the world. "The Encyclopedia of the Navy SEALs" , written by a Green Beret and the First SEAL Roy Boehm, it states that the SEALs are the most well equiped, and best special operations/counter-terrorist unit ever assembled.

quit changing (deleted) before you do research, so now you know—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.149.228.13 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 15 February 2005.

Why are the first two paragraphs of this article identical to text on [1] ?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 01:39, 15 February 2005.

those two articles are taken from the SEALs' home page at navy.com—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.7 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 15 February 2005.

Don't you think direct propaganda is a little out of place? It needs to be made a quote.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.52.229.196 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 16 February 2005.

I've reverted the re-addition of the "leading offensive force" bit. For one, it's redundant; we already have it (cited) in the first body piece, which is much better. No point in saying it twice. Second, it's POV to just go ahead and say it. No way around it. I don't mind saying "So-and-so says they're the best", but I do mind saying "Everyone thinks they're the best". Finally, it adds nothing to the article to have it in the intro. See the pages on avoiding weasel words/peacock terms and the NPOV page for more. Deltabeignet 04:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is the first paragraph in this article. Everyone thinks their special forces are "the best in the world". Avalon 12:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

You can't say that the SEALs absolutely ARE the best in the world unless they indeed are. The Navy SEAL website alone is not a trustworthy source. Of course the SEALs think the SEALs are the best. The fact that there is any debate at all means that you have to say "one of the best" or something along the lines of that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.51.118 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 14 October 2005.

[edit] 20/20(0)

In the part of the article detailing the training of a SEAL, it says no less than 20/200 vision is admitted. Is it supposed to read 20/20? I'm going to change it, but if I am wrong, by all means, correct my mistake. --TheChrisParker 18:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] France?

"Each team can deploy anywhere in the world or France with 4 hours notice by sea, air, or land."

anywhere in the world, OR France!?

That sentence didnt make any sense.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.38.88.137 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 July 2005.

'or France' -hahah. The information also incorrect. It's actually within 24 hours.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.51.118 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 14 October 2005.

hmmm.... maybe it was supposed to be something like "anywhere in 24 hours and france in 4"....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.51.118 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 14 October 2005.

LOL good one--Mimbster 16:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahahah, man. Fuck France. --Isequals 00:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] protected

I have protected this page since it appears that this edit war has no sign of ending soon and has degraded into IP's throwing profanity laden edit summaries at each other. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected, hopefully people will stop edit warring now. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] seal nickname

seals are not called "sharkmen" they are called "frogmen"...why do you think their called "tadpoles" in buds???(please change)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.210.179 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 October 2005.

Are SEALs really referred to as "Frogmen"? Certainly SEAL history can be traced to Frogmen units, but I was under the impression that Frogmen were ONLY Navy divers, whereas the SEALs branch into a seperate combat branch of diving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.68.161 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 26 February 2006.

Where does the word SEAL come from anyway? And why is it always capitalised? If it's an acronym, then shouldn't the full name be noted on this site?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.104.51.118 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 14 October 2005.

SEAL stands for Sea Air Land. You wouldn't call them the Navy Sea Air Land. The acronym is explained in the article I believe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bubbleboys (talk • contribs) 12:02, 14 October 2005.

[edit] Coral sneakers

What are "coral" sneakers? coral colored?--24.94.189.89 05:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

They are called "coral" sneakers because you can walk on sharp coral with them without cutting your feet Swatjester 21:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Females...

...need not apply, correct? Perhaps taken for granted, but maybe we should mention its men only (assuming what I remember reading on the topic is true). Marskell 22:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This is correct. Women are not allowed despite what GI Jane might tell you.Swatjester 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we change it to "Currently" only me are recruited into the SEAL? I for one think it might be dropped all together.

                            Traith

[edit] quality standards?

I've never seen why the navy seals page had hte quality tag. I would say its up in the top 5% of pages in terms of quality. There are many more pages which don't meet wikipedia quality standards.

Look at this talk page. That should tell you enough Swatjester 21:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So...the talk page tells me absolutely nothing I don't know. If anything, this article is like I've mentioned before one of the better pages on Wikipedia. Just go to a random page. Click random article a few times and I guarentee you, you will find at least one page which is more in need of quality standards than this article.Bubbleboys 23:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Top 5%? Look at the featured articles and tell me this can compare. This page CONSTANTLY has factually incorrect information, and the writing style needs work. Swatjester 08:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a question for you Swatjester. WHAT WIKIPEDIA ARE YOU BROWSING??? Because it sure as hell isn't this wikipedia. Bubbleboys 19:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? Did you even look at the feature article's? GO ahead, submit this one for peer review. It'll get slaughtered and a half. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navy SEALs

There is no SEAL Team Six anymore, it decomissioned a while ago. There is DEVGRU, which from what the public knows, is most likely just like SEAL Team Six.

===there were at least 5 seal operators in mogadishu...i know 5 names for sure, there could have been one or two more even, but im positive there were 5 and not 4. wasdin, olsen, nearpass, kaiser, gay.

There is a could reason SEAL is always capatilized. A seal or Seal is the animal. A SEAL is a member from the Naval Special Warfare.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven89 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 January 2006.

Actually it's ~~restricted~~ capitalized because it's an acronym ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's restricted? What are you talking about?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven89 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 3 February 2006.

oops. Don't know where restricted came up. I meant to say capitalized. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No SOF unit is the best, they're all elite in their own ways. A unit like the Army Rangers may (not saying they are) be better on ground, but Navy SEALs can beat any SOF unit in the water. No SOF unit is better - they all have their own specialties.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steven89 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 January 2006.

[edit] Discussion "Funny Platoon" transferred to Delta Force

[edit] LASIK/PRK

Both LASIK and PRK are acceptable for current and prospective members of NSW/SO, including the Navy SEALS. Reference NAVMED P-117, Manual of the Medical Department at http://navymedicine.med.navy.mil/Files/Media/directives/MANMED%20CHANGE%20126.pdf.

[edit] What happened to SEAL Team NINE?

What happened to SEAL Team NINE? Anthony Appleyard 07:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1,3,5,7 on the west coast 2,4,8,10 on the east cost

4 in each. 9 isn't commissioned yet.

SEAL TEAM SIX is decommisioned, however recent news article mentions a murder/self defense trial commited by member of TEAM SIX.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taikei (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 April 2006.

[edit] These are the scores that trainees are frequently urged toward by instructors:

Does this seem oddly phrased or out of place to anyone else? Every instructor urges their trainees to higher standards, do they not? I haven't been to BUD/s but I'd be willing to bet that the instructors urge the trainees to sit at the bottom of the pool for 4 days straight too.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joliver11b1p (talk • contribs) 07:30, 22 March 2006.

[edit] Weapons List

It's a little pointless since we a) don't know what they do and don't use and b) they have a lot of individual discretion anyway. Lets just delete this list and put in a paragraph that says they are given great leeway in their selection of weapons and hence are not bound to the standard issue in the US Military. Notable uses like their adoption of the Stoner 63 series might deserve a mention.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmx1 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 4 May 2006.

[edit] Two notes

First - where's the source for use of MARPAT? Given the Corp's (what some might call fanatical) attachment to it's beloved Eagle/Globe/Anchor, would they let the SEALs use it? I want to see a factual source on this.

Second - Despite what people will tell you, Jesse Ventura is NOT a SEAL and never was - he was in the UDT.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.3.87.124 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 16 May 2006.

Incorrect- Although Ventura served his active duty time at UDT, he served his reserve time at SEAL Team ONE. He earned the Budweiser, he's a SEAL. Roundeyesamurai 04:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RAID Camo

I de-linked the "RAID" camoflauge link because it forwarded to the IT term (Redundant Arry of Independent Disks) and I have no idea where to link it otherwise. Perhaps we need a "For other uses of RAID..." link at the top of the IT term's page? JD79 02:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda names and redirects

Please note wikipedia policies: Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other).. There is no need to keep them here unless propaganda is the topic. Thank you. Añoranza 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

oh lookey, it found a new page to cite, although only the parts that apply to its own agenda ← Ecophreek 21:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not get dragged into anything, be bold Ecophreek, if you see something you think needs to be edited, do so. I will be on the look out for the same. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this user will participate in the discussion on the page, instead of selectively quoting an ongoing talk. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, of course, I shouldn't let the actions of a ... whatever, get me uptight. Thank you for reminding me ← ΣcoPhreek _contribs ^talk→ 22:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You are again misrepresenting facts in order to discredit me, User:Zer0faults. As the link clearly shows, I did not "selectively quote an ongoing talk." I quoted an established policy. Añoranza 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

YOu are quoting a policy on article titles if you did not understand what you are quoting, its established in the first 6 words. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I ask you do not accuse me of anything again, as we are to be assuming good faith. Also please I ask you again to participate in the discussion at WP:MILHIST talk page. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, as the link clearly shows, I did not "selectively quote an ongoing talk." I quoted an established policy. I ask you to leave it and try to get a consensus if you want to change policies. Your continued perfidious tactics attempting to discredit other users have been noted at your RFC. Añoranza 22:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again the policy is not related to what you are attempting to change, why are you failing to see that the policy is in regard to article titles, its the 5th and 6th words in the quote you keep using. It does not have to do with operation names in articles, just titles ... Again I ask you to participate in the discussion on the WP:MILHIST page. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you selectively quoted an established policy of a Wikipedia Project dedicated to military history, not an actual Wikipedia Policy. The sentence after that which you quoted states: "This can be ignored for the most well-known operations (e.g. Operation Barbarossa), but note that even Operation Overlord redirects to Battle of Normandy." And further, your interpretation is wrong. It does not even imply there is no need to keep them unless the topic is propaganda, but instead touches on the point that operation names generally are poor descriptors of the actual event. Also note the words "should" and "generally" rather than "must" and "always." However, in the case of this, we are not even talking about what to name the articles themselves. It appears you are editing out the operation names from an article dealing with the US Navy SEALs. It is appropriate to do the links in the style of [[Iraq War|Operation Iraqi Freedom]] because we are dealing with one side and their participation in different conflicts. To call this POV is wrong, it is contextually supported and appropriate. Rangeley 22:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that we are describing one side of the conflict does not mean we need to use the propaganda of that side. You are right, operation names generally are poor descriptors of the actual event, that is part of why we need to avoid them wherever possible. Añoranza 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is self descriptive. As per the discussion as long as the link goes to the appropriate location, it is fine to use the operation name without the need for even a footnote. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"As per discussion"? As you know very well, several users think that propaganda names need to be avoided for the sake of neutrality. Añoranza 22:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you do not want to participate in a discussion on the WP:MILHIST page? A centralized discussion on the issue is more appropriate then 38 on various talk pages. Please participate in it, it was created in hopes of addressing your concerns, and of the greater issue. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

When I last looked at it, the issue you see had not even brought up. The policy as it is supports my position. Añoranza 22:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried, your unwillingness to participate does not negate the results of it. I hope you will not complain afterwards if it does not go in your favor. Furthermore, for the final time, you are quoting policy on article names ... I however believe that you know this as its been pointed out numerous times, and the 6th word in the quote is titles. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning of the policy as well as NPOV support my position, please leave it. Añoranza 23:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my above statement. And I will not participate further as you are clearly ignoring that your quote is not about the topic. If you choose to bring up something more then, the quote which is about titles, I will be more then happy to continue, unfortunatly this is just the same back and forth with different text. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree to disagree, discussion pages are so that a consensus can be reached and to quote you yourself: "I just tell you that wikipedia does not work if single editors like you decide that all others are stupid and should be ignored" ← Ecophreek 00:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the quote made by Añoranza at the top of this discussion section is from the Military history WikiProject Guidelines — it is not "Policy". Specifically, that quote is from a subsection of the main "Guidelines" section. The Guidelines section states (verbatim quote):

"The guidelines presented in this section are intended to be guidelines only; while they are well-suited for the vast majority of military history articles, there exist a number of peculiar cases where, for lack of a better solution, alternate approaches have been taken. These exceptions are often the result of protracted negotiation; if something seems unusual or out-of-place, it may be worthwhile to ask before attempting to change it, as there might reasons for the oddity that are not immediately obvious!"

So, it is clear that this guideline recognizes exceptions and the need for consensus. Therefore, the need for discussion on this topic is not obviated by the guideline. Also, note that since this issue is applicable to many articles, there is a main discussion, as pointed out above. —ERcheck (talk) @ 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality disputed

As the neutrality of naming conflicts by propagandistic operation names when there is no need for it is disputed, the tags need to stay. Añoranza 02:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing neutrality dispute tags is vandalism. Añoranza 02:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

So is misuse of tags. --Mmx1 03:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a dispute, so the tag is correct: Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism: Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Añoranza 03:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the conclusion they came to is that operation names were fine for military operations if the operation name links directly to a location that doesnt have the operation name as a title. So these are fine cause I fixed the redirects. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to keep operation names that were decided to be only redirects for the sake of neutrality in a list where other conflicts have common names. Añoranza 04:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrectly summarizing the consensus that has been reached on this page. Operational names are appropriate for use in miliary articles. — ERcheck (talk) @ 04:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no consensus here and I was not summarizing any, just stating my opinion that it is not neutral to use propagandistic operation names. This is backed by the fact that those I removed were renamed to neutral descriptive titles. Añoranza 06:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up References and External links

An anonIP deleted, without edit comment, a number of external links. I've restored them. But, it has lead to the observation that there are a lot of links that may not be necessary. The External link section is not meant to be a comprehensive listing of all online references. I'd like to request that the major contributors to this article review the External links, references, etc. and format per MOS. Thanks. —ERcheck (talk) @ 15:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The first external link on the page was as listed below. It has been part of the article since its creation on 2002-02-25. The URL no longer exist. However, there is a copy on archive.org, which I have substituted. The most recent date in the archive is 2006-03-03.

Navy Fact File: Navy SEALs. San Diego, California: Naval Special Warfare Command–Public Affairs Office. 1996-03-16.

—ERcheck (talk) @ 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrus Kar

The Cyrus Kar article indicates he was a SEAL, as do approximately half of the webpages I have seen about him. The habeas petition put together by the ACLU does not mention his status as a SEAL and indicates he only served three years.

Is he a SEAL? If so, should he be included on this page? Erechtheus 00:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I found one letter [2] that seems to indicate the seal thing was constructed. I don't know about the navy in general. --24.94.189.11 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a team?

"A Navy SEAL Platoon consists of 16 men (2 officers, 14 enlisted men). This can be easily split into 2 squads or four 4-man fire teams for operational purposes. The size of each SEAL “Team” is larger, ranging between eight to ten Boat Teams per SEAL Team."

This confuses me. The team in quotes represents support staff? Are the support staff not part of the platoon? --24.94.189.11 22:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SBS Sniper School?

i heard somewhere (ill find it but i forget) that the Navy SEALs sniper school was run, or at least set up by the British SBS. is this true, i know the two forces often train together but i dont know whether the SBS train SEAL snipers.

Pratj 17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC) The Seal training has its own sniper school, which is based largely upon the the british school since the british school has been time tested and revered as one of the best in the world. The two do train together as often as possible and exchange many new innovations. Hope this helps you out. Jmsseal 03:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pull-ups

i was just wondering weather SEAL's have to complete over-arm or under-arm pull-ups, as royal marine commandos have to complete 16 over-arms pull ups. As the master chief stated to us before taking the test, "there are no such things as under-arm pull-ups" They are all over arm ;) Jmsseal 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a standard for "famous" under "Famous Navy SEALs"?

And if there's a standard definition of "famous", does Chris Osman qualify? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris Osman - CEO of Tactical Assault Gear, a California based military and police equipment manufaturer

[edit] Sanity-check, please

Does anyone know if this edit is reasonable? My impulse is to be suspicious of any uncommented, uncited edit by an anonymous user, which just changes random numbers in an article. As a more general thing, would it be possible for someone to add references for these training figures? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

These seem very reasonable. As a Naval officer I can tell you the the PRT maximums are 101/101 (for men) so it would seem very reasonable that a "competitive score" for SEAL candidates at BUD/S to have this. Keep. --ProdigySportsman 03:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Although the list is not complete, what is there is an up-to-date chart. Jmsseal 03:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC) I did find the tests on http://www.navyseals.com/community/navyseals/navysealworkout_main.cfm and they seem to match.

[edit] Non-POV in introduction paragraphy

"They are considered second only to USMC Force Recon." is most definately non-POV and will be removed shortly. --ProdigySportsman 03:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've again removed the "considered second best statement". This uses weasel words and is POV and potentially inaccurate. Who considers it second best? What is the criteria for this statment? What about those that disagree? Where are the citations and refrences? Etc. Please don't put it back in without clearing up these issues. NeoFreak 08:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elite within SEALs?

I've heard about some kind of "elie of the elite" within the SEALs, and that their insigna looks a little bit different from the original. Instead of the eagle holding the trident and the gun, this one is made out of stylized wings with a trident, hold by a claw, in the middle. Does anyone know anything about this, if it's true or false and what this "elite" is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William atom (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_States_Navy_SEALs_859d.html"

Categories: Start-Class United States military history articles | United States military history task force articles | Start-Class military history articles