Talk:Special mission unit

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

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Seal of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Disagreement between this "Special mission unit" page and "Joint Special Operations Command" page

The special mission unit page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special_mission_unit) is linked from the section on "special mission units" from the JSOC page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Joint_Special_Operations_Command#Special_Mission_Units), but the two have different information. JSOC notes that there are 5 identified special mission units (though the bulleted list includes six); the special mission unit page notes that there are 4 identified SMUs. The two additional units in the first list are The Army's Regimental Reconnaissance Company (RRC) (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Regimental_Reconnaissance_Company) and the Joint Communications Unit (JCU) (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Joint_Communications_Unit). The RRC's site notes it is designated as an SMU, while the JCU site does not specify.

128.244.87.109 (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this inconsistency. I noted this also (below in another section) but you noticed this more thoroughly, and before I did. I guess that we are asking that some knowledgable people familiar with this particular military area please clarify this information. Apparently it has been two and a half years since this problem was first identified, so I will not be holding my breath for a clarification any time soon. L.Smithfield (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct Terminology

Regarding the Army's " Intelligence Support Activity"

"maintained" and "direct control" are meaningless, non-doctrinal terms that do not in any way accurately depict the command relationship of the ISA. This should be clarified or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.104.23 (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

US Special Mission Units (SMUs)

The text says that there are seven SMUs that have been specifically designated as such. What are these? The text is not clear about what the names of these seven units are. Five of these seem to be clearly mentioned, but what are the other two? Why cannot the authors just list the seven units in a numbered list, so that the names of the seven units are completely clear? OK, a bullet list is fine, but it has to be entirely clear, using seven bullets. Can this please be fixed (cleared up)? Are there indeed seven clearly specified (revealed) SMUs or was this number (seven) a mistake in the first place? L.Smithfield (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. - wolf 03:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. L.Smithfield (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

What about ...

... G.I. Joe (the code name for America's daring, highly-trained, Special Mission force)? 2605:8D80:680:A9EC:85BC:1F2A:B042:826B (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source? - wolf 11:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Florida State Guard -SMU

Move from my talk page:

Hi, I've reverted your edit about the Florida State Guard -- while referenced, it is inappropriate for inclusion on the Special mission unit page, as that page is explicitly about military special operations forces; the Florida State Guard is not a military special operations force, regardless of whether they title themselves as such. The material is fine to include on the Florida State Guard page. Please note that [[WP:ONUS|While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} Thanks for your consideration. Best, ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! I re-reverted bc FSG is legally/technically an SDF and under state and federal law SDFs are a military force, even though they might not have full time NatSec/HomeSec duties. And while I did not explicitly state the Florida or it's SG/SDF has an SMU, including it on the page's US section as its own non US Mil section should suffice to say that it has an SMU and is appropriate for inclusion (ex: Listing Australia as a section header and listing it's SMUs within. FSGs SMU is a unit of the FSG and is Florida's designated SMU by law and designation. Tejano512 (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You may have a good point here, Tejano, but this discussion should probably be on the SMU talk page, not here. I would suggest you move it over there, and use the {{Moved to}} and {{Moved from}} templates along with it. (jmho) - wolf 10:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Tejano512 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

We should probably qualify it more directly then. SMUs in this article's context are special operations forces; in the U.S. that has a defined meaning as being under the direct control of U.S. Special Operations Command, meaning that while a state SDF may choose to call itself an "SMU", it's not the same type of SMU as what this article is referring to (and presumably should be handled in a hat-note). In comparison, Australia's usage of the term is for their top-tier special operations unit (the USSOCOM portion doesn't apply to them, but are otherwise directly comparable). The FSG has no combat capability, do not perform any military special operations, and do not fall in any capacity organizationally under USSOCOM. We really shouldn't be giving a fringe usage of a term overly undue weight. Searching for reliable source usages of the term with regard to the FSG, I'm finding almost zero usages (as a descriptor OR as a unit identification) that aren't originating from the FSG itself so there's reliability issues at play here as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

No disagreement here. - wolf 10:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Just a thought; how about adding the FSG SMU to the "See also" section here? (right after creating one) It is, after all, a military unit, in the U.S., called a "special mission unit". I realize that is a tenuous connection at best, and there are several differences between to the two. But it exists, it's now noted in that WP article, though briefly, and it should be linked to this article. Ideally, the FSG SMU should have more detail about that unit (perhaps Tejano512 could get on that?). That info that should compare and point out the diffrrences between the FSG SMU and the JSOC/Tier One SMUs noted here. Then the "see also" note would complete the circle, and readers would be a little more informed, and conveniently so. (jmho) - wolf 11:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)