Talk:Special Services Group
|WikiProject Pakistan||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 Regarding Quality
- 2 Old Edit History
- 3 Vandalism
- 4 Copyvio and vandalism
- 5 Kargil War
- 6 Article protected
- 7 Battle for Hill 3234
- 8 Content removal
- 9 "Training" parachute course
- 10 Involvement in Soviet-Afghan War
- 11 Copyright problem removed
- 12 Comparison
- 13 Move to Special Services Group
- 14 Vandalism on this article
While frequently clashing in edit wars with great determination, editors tend to forget about the aim of Wikipedia: to provide a reliable and neutral point of view. And vandals ruin the efforts of real editors. This is not a forum to carry flame wars. I have some pointers which the editors should check out to improve the quality of the article.
1. Comparison with Green Berets Does it have any citation? If so, please add it. Any unreferenced part should be removed.
2. Siachen and Kargil War There has nothing being written about the involvement in Kargil War. If the unit was not involved in it, the section should be renamed.
3. Military operations All individual operations should be referenced.
4. Skills Citations needed for "14 fourteen primary and special missions: Asymmetric warfare,Anti piracy...."
Kenfyre 19:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Old Edit History
User:Idleguy recently copied all the content from Special Services Group over to this article to change the title. Unfortunately this also eradicated the old edit history. I'd like to revert his edits, redirect this page, then perform a proper move so that the old edit history is preserved under the new title. Any objections? - Tronno ( t | c ) 14:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I just realized that a proper move (with original edit history) is no longer possible without admin help. Since I'm too lazy to ask for help, I'm going to leave it as it is. In the future however, instead of simply copying the content manually, please use the "move" button at the top of the page to move articles. - Tronno ( t | c ) 04:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Please also remove the statement "The SSG has also conducted many operations in Siachen Glacier against Indian positions. The most noted one took place in 1987 when Pervez Musharraf (then Brigadier) orchestrated an SSG unit assault on Indian posts, but was eventually beaten back."
The citation and source # 6 does not mention anything about an SSG assault under Musharraf, which btw is an idiotic and misinformed statement in the first place. Musharraf was not in the SSG in 1987 (he got out in the 70's). This is corroborated in his book "In the line of fire" as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Turried (talk • contribs)
- I believe that line has to be read carefully. It only says orchestrated an SSG unit assault on Indian posts and the stated source #6 reveals Musharraf had patronized Gilani in 1966, encouraging him to set up the "Climbers Club of Pakistan," a front for training the Special Services Group (SSG) commandos in mountain climbing. Members of the unit were used in the 1985-1987 attacks on Indian positions at Bilafond Pass. In order to pull the strings on one SSG unit, one need not be associated with the SSG at the time the operation took place. Probably a rewording is required to better explain how Musharraf was involved in that attack's background. Idleguy 15:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
the user Idleguy removed most of the article by a simple excuse of article being lengthy which is not a sufficient excuse and editted the article to which he was satisfied with. A clear attempt to vandalise and disrupt valuable contributions made by Wiki users. Any further attempts will be reported to senior Wikipedia admins and WikiProject Pakistan users. Faraz 00:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- My crib isn't about length per se, but that it is suspiciously a cut-n-paste job AND riddled with several glaringly obvious factual errors not to forget that it's still unsourced statements. Also interesting how the few sourced statements are being removed too. please report to senior admins and they'll be able to see the exact issue. Idleguy 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do agree that many of the statements made are not cited or sourced properly but we should not speculate and completely remove the article, as we have the  key available to challenge any addition that is based on Wikipedia:OR. I will tidy up the page and add refrences from time to time to guarantee better results. Faraz 22:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not speculating, just consider that patronizing or ironic voices in WP isn't allowed. "On that fateful day" among other lines are more suited for a novel or partisan publication than an encyclopedic article. I have no objections with expanding but the version I'm removing to seems to have been penned with such tones. Idleguy 01:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio and vandalism
The para "In the 1971 Indo-Pak War, 3 Cdo Bn... cleared more than 2,000 square miles from the Indian supported rebels in the Chittagong Hill Tracts" is a selective cut and paste from  and thus has been rightly removed for Wikipedia:Copyrights violations. Also the anon 22.214.171.124 has been regularly removing reliably sourced statements despite repeated attempts to inform him. This is just for the record. Idleguy
One of the link provided by you (Idleguy)is http://www.kashmirsentinel.com/apr1999/3.9.html If you read the passage, you would come to know that Pakistan raised an elite Special Service Group (SSG) commandos in 1987, now it is upto you to decide who is trying to mislead others. If SSG was raised in 1987, then how could it have taken part in the 1965 & 1971 Wars. This means the whole article has been written by some Anti-Pakistan writer. Moreover, it says that Gen Musharraf was leading the attack, I have close contacts in SSG, and I can assure you that he never served in SSG either as Battalion Commander or a Brigade Commander or a Division Commander. He was in SSG only till he was a major and has never been posted to SSG again.
The second link provide by you isn't even working. See it for yourself. http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=400&issue_id=3101&article_id=2368659
- If you want to respond, there is no need to remove what I've posted earlier about your copyright violating editing that removes sourced statements just on what you believe to be "anti-pakistani". Anything that now doesn't fit your fancy doesn't get thrown out of an encyclopedia, is it? It doesn't work that way. As far as the 1987 thing, the source was referring to the Khapalu base, having omitted the "base" word as another source here most likely the primary one indicates clearly. And yes, that link does work in my browser. Just checked it now. Unless you don't want to read the facts. Idleguy 18:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
In the Kargil War, Pakistan Army didn't withdrew due to Indians but due to American Pressure, which the incompetent PM (Nawaz Sharif) of Pakistan couldn't resist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs)
- The Pakistani PM wouldn't have rushed to seek Washington's help if their troops were winning in Kargil. Idleguy 16:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- This was his (PM) fault, not of his armed forces, that he was still a slave-minded person taking orders from the America. The Indian Govt was pressurizing the Clinton Govt to do so otherwise they would have lost major part of India during The Kargil War.
- I find this line really amusing: Indian Govt... " would have lost major part of India". With such a "knowledgeable" take on history, I'm wondering if this is all a joke by you? Idleguy 04:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Face the realities, Don't shy off them. YOU SO CALLED KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON
Hi all. I have fully-protected this article due to continual edit-warring. Please try to resolve your differences here on the talk page as right now, the two main reverters have reached their 3RR limit and continue to do so on a daily basis. I have no knowledge of this article subject and will not judge as to which one is the "right" version. Also, the article was moved some weeks back but this talk page was not. Moved now .. - Alison ☺ 17:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Most commando operations are kept secret and what happened is usually unknown, secondly it is true that Indian Army had heavy casualties including killing of Senior Officer of Brigadier rank during Kargil. What more can be evident that indian Airforce lost two Fighter Jet like they were over Pakistan Land just to give them Target. Many non-muslim coutries too prefer to get a SSG commando Instructor inspite Indian Commando Instructor is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebadhashmi (talk • contribs) 23:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
If what happened is unknown, then how do you know it, exactly?
Battle for Hill 3234
The Soviet 9th company of the 345 Airborne Div could have not lost 3000 men since it's total manpower was 39. Fixed that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Ip are removing sourced content for no reason.yousaf465'
"Training" parachute course
can somebody please clarify the 2 sentences below, especially start of 2nd sentence; should "none SSG" be "NCO SSG"? "The course last four weeks, with wings awarded after seven (five day, two night) jumps. none SSG airborne students only have to complete a the five day jump." David Woodward (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Involvement in Soviet-Afghan War
This section mentions that six Soviet paratroopers were killed, and zero SSG operatives. This might be seen as misleading, as the overwhelming majority of the participants in that engagement were Mujahideen combatants. The SSG made up a small portion of the whole force. Consequently, they had no casualties. Besides, there seems to be doubt today as to whether they were even involved in this action at all. I suppose this should be included. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20030728205452/http://orbat.com/site/toe/toe/pakistan/ssg.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — CactusWriter | needles 05:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
'It is an elite special operations force similar to the United States Army Special Forces (Green Berets) and the British Army's SAS.'
Haha, very funny! Comparing a rag tag army's (which has no record of success) somewhat better arm with elite military units such as delta force and SAS! Heck these lame ass guys cant even be compared with US army rangers, let alone the green berets! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Move to Special Services Group
Vandalism on this article
Also i was trying to revert this edit but placed another page(that was vandalized by the same user) here, i have reverted my own edit, and ask apology for the same. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)