Talk:DEVGRU

Do Not Merge[edit]

SEAL team Six and Devgru are two totally and completely different things, whose different names represent different periods of operations, objectives and leadership. You made a mistake when you merged the two together. Hopefully it not too late to recover SEAL team Six previous page which discussed their Red Cell activities with Commander Richard Marcinko. Recover it if possible. Otherwise, welcome to stupidville Moderator-Geeks.

SAS Disambiguation[edit]

Does the link to SAS refer to Special Activities Staff (US, CIA) or Special Air Service (UK)? SeventyThree 17:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it refers to the Special Air Service of the UK.

Merge?[edit]

Should we merge this with SEAL Team SIX? I see no reason for two separate pieces. Bbpen 18:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. SeventyThree 19:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Certainly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.42.97 (talk • contribs)
Merge --The Rob Liefeld troll —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Liefeld Troll (talk • contribs)
MERGE THEM together —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.204.205 (talk • contribs)
Merge --OneEuropeanHeart 01:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --[[User:H--Habap 14:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)abap|Habap]] 19:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Swatjester 23:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Nkcs 04:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --Darklegions 04:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Merging would be a mistake!! Because 1) The DEVGRU is not a component of the Naval Special Warfare Command (COMNAVSPECWARCOM) which commands following units:

*Special Warfare Group ONE 
*Special Warfare Group TWO 
*Special Boat Squadron ONE 
*Special Boat Squadron TWO 
*Naval Special Warfare Center 
*Special Warfare Development Group

but NOT the DEVGRU. 2) DEVGRU and Delta Force are components of the Joint Special Operations Command, which is responsible for military counter-terrorism operations worldwide and stands on the same level as the COMNAVSPECWARCOM. Considering the chain of command and the DEVGRU`s special focus on CT and hostage rescue, it is obvious, that DEVGRU is a separate unit. (MARK S. 02:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think the way it is set up now - with redirects from DEVGRU and Seal Team Six both going to U.S. Navy Special Warfare Development Group works best. The opening paragraph explains the controversy about whether DEVGRU is Seal Team Six, a successor or completely separate. --Habap 14:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Merger![edit]

This unit is a different beast from Team 6. The stuff that is repeated here about Team 6 should be removed since the SEAL Team SIX link provides the same material. This section should be kept to capture what their new mission and make up is (once this is revealed to the public) Removing this section would be the same as removing the Central Intelligence Agency link because there is an Office of Strategic Services section. --SFjarhead 03:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend retaining both articles, with Seal Team Six being the historical focus and DEVGRU going forward from its redesigantion. SEAL Team Six is too well known to be purged completely, while DEVGRU has not yet gained popular fame. Paulmeisel 18:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not use a redirect?

Not the Same unit... ST6 no longer exhists. DEVGRU is a R&D Team.

-Merging this would be like merging UDT and SEAL... Temporal issue.

So, DEVGRU is the current name for a unit that was not disbanded, but, rather, renamed from SEAL Team Six? Both articles state that it is the same unit under two different names. Just like Orpah Winfrey can't tell Wikipedia what belongs in her article and what doesn't, neither can the US Navy. Either we change the articles to explain how they are different or we merge the articles.

Both the OSS-CIA and UDT-SEAL arguments are not valid. Both of those original organizations had disappeared before their descendents appeared. SEAL Team Six was renamed, not dissolved. (or both articles are wrong) --Habap 19:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]