Talk:Delta Force

ACE moniker

@TristanHeller:: Please stop reinserting the claim that Delta is also known as ACE/Army Compartmentalized Elements, into the lede of the article. As we've already established in the body, that reporting comes from a single source in 2010, (Marc Ambinder, of the Atlantic) who subsequently rescinded the claim as being a mistake. Notably, none of the expert authorities on Delta (Ambinder, Harp, Naylor, Haney etc.) claim this is or was Delta's name. Further, no former Unit members or operational support have ever come forth saying that was the name (e.g. Van Sant, Glover, McPhee, etc.). There are no reliable sources independently verifying the claim that ACE is, or was, officially a name of the unit (and certainly none separately and independently from Ambinder's now retracted claim). You've provided nothing but unreliable sources thus far.

• Britannica is not usable as a source in this case per WP:BRITANNICA
• American Special Ops is not a reliable source, lacking any of the typical indicia of reliability and does not unambiguously make the claim that Delta was ever referred to this way other than as rumor ("This super-secretive outfit goes by / has been rumored to have used various names:").
• GenDischarge is also not a reliable source; also lacking any indicia of reliability, it is primarily a commercial retailer, blog, and youtube channel that explicitly disclaims responsibility for the content it posts (much of which is AI generated).

You need to stop disrupting this article by repeatedly introducing factual errors. You got off to a bad start with misidentifying Bill Cronin as Mike Vining, despite us having a FAQ explicitly on that point right here on this page, which you claimed did not exist; you're now using unreliable sources to push an unsubstantiated claim into the lede of the article, which contradicts the reporting of reliable sources already in the body of the article. I'm not sure what kind of POV you're trying to push here, but you should not be starting from the perspective of "I want to put this thing in the lede" and then scraping the bottom of the barrel for any scrap of a source you can find to justify it; we should be reporting only what reliable sourcing says in the first place, in accordance with our pillars, not seeking to center our own voices here. And you're not going to get anywhere lecturing an administrator with nearly two decades of experience on this project about when reverting is appropriate or not, certainly not by linking an essay that holds no weight or binding authority. Knock it off. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)