Talk:United States Air Force Security Forces/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

TRAINING VERSUS SPECIALTIES

If there is going to be two separate sections for this, then post information accordingly. Specialties should cover the countless additional jobs one can perform within this field such as Investigations, Customs, Town Patrol, Intelligence, Supply, Aircraft Security, Nuclear Security, FAST, DAGRE, Raven, CPEC, and so forth. However, the two which should be the most in depth are CATM and K9, as they are the most training intensive, and they are actually separate career fields within the larger career field. These two require in depth technical training schools and career development courses. This section is NOT the place to type a "book" about the history of the AF Raven program.

Training should first and foremost cover the actual training of the Security Forces Member. From there, you can describe some additional training which can be had, but is not necessarily a specialty such as Ranger, Airborne, Pathfinder or what have you. Jakkd07 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor correction that is probably completely unrelated to this subthread, but it's WSTI as in Wide-area Surveillance Thermal Imager, not WISTI; although the latter's spelling indicates the correct pronounciation of the former acronym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.27.58.1 (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

COMPLAINING

Please limit the juvenile remarks about the career field. Find an internet chat forum regarding the USAF or specifically Security Forces (there are several) if you are looking for a place to blow off steam. Jakkd07 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

History

Try and stay on target with the History section. This is about history, not random information about the career field. There is plenty of information which should be under the history section versus the random stuff people keep trying to sneak in. For example, SF's involvement in Vietnam, Task Force 1041, or the SF airborne jump into Iraq. Jakkd07 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the 1041st USAF Security Police Squadron (Test), for one thing, which was NOT a task force. But your point is valid. The largest battle in history involving US military police of any branch (as the primary unit) occurred at Tan Son Nhut AB the second night of Tet 68 between the 377th SPS and four main force battalions assaulting the base, (the second largest was the battle of the 3rd SPS defending against 2.5 main force battalions at Bien Hoa) and not so much as a whisper. Someone cut and pasted much of the material given in this article.--Reedmalloy (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
ReedMalloy, when I referenced TF 1041, I was referencing TF 1041 (Security Forces) via 2005 in Iraq. I was not referencing the Security Police action in Vietnam. I did however mention SP action in Vietnam as part of my statement, as did I mention the SF "jump" in the GWOT. Obviously Vietnam has some of our most important history as you have demonstrated. http://www.afspc.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123026403 Jakkd07 (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Who wrote this?

"Security Forces is often referred to as one of the few "True Military Units" left in the USAF. This is due to drastically strict leadership style of the career field and the higher standards to which all SF members, otherwise known as "Defenders", are held. All SF members are held to a higher standard than all remaining Air Force personnel because of the position of authority they hold as a law enforcement capacity and their visibility within the public view."

Who wrote this garbage?? I was CE for 4 years, T coded twice, 3 total deployments all of them in combat zone. I had more ribbons and medals that any cop I knew. Talk about disrespect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.239.7 (talk) 02:37. 31 October 2010

Well from a military stand point it is true. A member of CE in the Air Force will only be reqired to deploy on a Max. 3 month rotation once per year.Also a "Deployment" for a CE member could mean a 3 week TDY to a non forward operationing area such as Japan or Guam. A member of CE will not be reqired to mantain,carry or operate a firearm while on his or her deployment. However any TDY not in AFCENT or CENTCOM will not be concidered a deployment by a security forces Unit Deployment manager and will not be taken off a deployment rotation for after being engaged such assignments. Also Security Forces members are the only AFSC besides RED HORSE, AFSOC units or EOD, that will carry firearms ranging from small arms to anti tank weapons on an often basis. I just beleave you took the statement personally. Also unlike most AFSCs, Secuirty Forces members still use military customs such as calling their superiors "Sir" and "Ma'am" compared to most career fields who just call their superiors by their first names. 131.37.206.8 (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The intro is not sourced and is POV Preston A. Vickrey (humbly) (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree CE can't even go outside without taking off thir tops. Even when they are not working they still have their tops off. And what about those red horse hats very tactical in the AOR, I see them every day. CE needs to show some professinalism and do some real work then the primiter finces on so many bases will get fixed and build some working barriers so less SF will have to deploye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.58.138 (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Motto

Please stop changing the perceived interpretation of "Defensor Fortis" to "Defenders of the Resolute". Any reputable dictionary will yield multiple results. The two most commonly accepted in this career field are "Defenders of the Force" or "Brave Defender". Both are reasonable interpretations according to the University of Notre Dame's Latin Tranlation.

http://archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm

I took care of this. The literal translation, from a phrase translator, and the intended meaning, are both cited in the note. Latin translation is like any other--it's open to the sense of the translator as to which words should be chosen (that's why translators are often called "interpreters"). While "Defender of the Force" is the one used in the cited source, "Protectors of the Force" would be much closer to the actual DoD mission.--Reedmalloy (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Blue Beret section plagarism

If you'll compare the section describing the histiory of the beret to the same titled web page below they are identical. We need to sort this out now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.133.6 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is the author it is plagiarized from? According to the Safeside association which provides no author, the information is compiled from the public Lackland webpage. The page was originally cited from where it came (Safeside association), but one of the resident "wiki police" felt the need to remove the works cited for it as can be verified via the history of the page. Jakkd07 (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not arguing about the source, I'm saying that whoever added the section copyied and pasted it directly from the original page to this one. If i tried that with a term paper i would get nailed for cheating and rightly so. I don't have a problem with the information itself just the way it's been presented —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.117.116 (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but this is not a college term paper which requires your own thoughts and ideas regarding the presented material. Plagiarism tends to involve intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to steal or take credit for another persons work. The information was taken from a site which presented ZERO authors, yet credit was still given in form of a works cited/references, and via in text citation (APA style). However, the wiki resident "expert" took it out, and any attempts to cite that paragraph were met with repeated editing out of the material. You would have to speak with the guy who was chopping up the page about that. But as I've pointed out, the information is good. No one attempted to steal the intellectual property. Credit was given. The end. 96.19.205.125 (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It will be rewritten because much is not encyclopedic in tone. I've already started, and in the meantime have sourced the material to its origin. Somebody should have done that in the first place. The "history" section is also a cut and paste, from the AFA history of its own SF squadron.--Reedmalloy (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Blue Berets

why do they call them blue when they are clearly black? 203.105.88.194 (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Because they're not black. They're blue. Dumaka (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Carlin

Carlin wasn't an SP. He was a radar technician stationed at Barksdale AFB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.40.148 (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

History

No mention was made in this article that "Camp Gordon, GA", was an Air Police training school in 1952 (when I attended).173.2.117.131 (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

912th Air Base Security Battalion

This was a (primarily) "Colored" battalion commanded by white officers, and was involved throughout the Pacific Theater during WWII. Some of the islands included Tinian, Saipan, Guam, Kwajalein and Enewetak. Its status is most likely classified as it is believed that this unit guarded the atomic bomb in Tinian prior to its delivery on Hiroshima. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.57.156 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Page Tag

Given the amount of time the tag on the article has been here, I believe the underlying problem is fixed and propose removing it.24.192.250.124 (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Articles on GWOT

The articles on the Global War on Terrorism (Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Freedom's Sentinel) lacks content, the articles only lists casualties, no mention of the missions or impact of USAF Security Forces in conducting operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Area of Operations (AO), contrast this to Military Police Corps and Master-at-Arms. -Signaleer (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Air Force Security Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Air_Force_Security_Forces/Archive_1&oldid=1033522106"