Talk:List of special forces units
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on September 21, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
This non-article page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
First of all, kudos to whoever put together this gigantic list. Anyway, I just thought I'd mention that I went through and fixed a few of the links. Some of the acronym names would send the user to an unrelated topic that coincidentally shared the same acronym. Mainly, I just added (Special Forces) to the link name, except in the case of the Polish 1st, where I added (Polish) to the name.
Here's the full list of the links I changed:
Algeria: GIS
Argentina: Albatros
Colombia: GOES, GCA
El Salvador: BESM
Norway: FSK
Poland: 1st Commando Regiment
Omnipotent Q 06:16, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Police and Elite Forces
Special forces describes them as military, but some of the listed ones are police. Should police forces be removed? -- Error 02:51, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Police units should be moved to a seperate article, like "List of law enforcement tactical units" Asdquefty 20:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
There is also a distinct difference between "Special Forces" and the slightly more conventional "Elite Forces". There are a number of units listed here that fall into the latter category. Perhaps a separate list for "Elite Forces" should be considered. Your thoughts? Dragases 12:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Dragases. Certain units are elite, but are not special forces. Marines are considered elite but they are not special forces. Asdquefty 20:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
If this is agreed as such, then the following units from Malaysia should be removed.
- Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency - as this is a Coast Guard equivalent only.
- 10th Para Brigade - elite troops, not special forces.
- UTK - Police tactical unit
However, I'm not sure whether to reclassify VAT 69 (also a police unit), as they are primarily a paramilitary outfit.
[edit] Grammar Change
Sorry I just made a quick grammar change so that the note in the Serbia and Montenegro section was correct, it now reads "Has not existed since 2003" thats all.
[edit] Acronyms
Many units are listed only by an acronym. When you add a unit, please indicate what the acronym means. Asdquefty 13:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Russia/Soviet Union
What is that gibberish under the Russia/Soviet Union section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superknijn (talk • contribs).
[edit] United Kingdom Special forces
All of the UK special forces should be included here. Its fair enough not include them on the United Kingdom Special Forces page if they are not part of the UKSF. But just because they are not in the group UKSF does not mean that they are not special forces and should not be included here.
For example the Pathfinder platoon is not part of the UKSF group but they are special forces belonging to the united kingdom and should be included on this page. 195.137.109.177 17:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- The UK does not have any SF which are not already listed; SAS, SBS, SRR and supported by JSF Air Wing, 18(UKSF) Signals and the SFSG. There are a number of highly trained personnel in other areas of the armed forces, but they're not SF. If you don't get SF pay, then you're not SF! (And parachute pay doesn't count, in fact you don't get both Parachute pay and SF pay)ALR 20:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References
Without adequate referencing this list falls victim of every wannabe whose national armed forces have a unit doing a line in cool shades and black balaclavas. It would add a lot more to require some evidence that the units identified are considered SF by official sources eg in the UK the units identified are mentioned in Hansard, therefore verifiable. Some form of required citation would remove a lot of the tit-for-tat inclusion and deletion of units. Some countries on the list appear to have someone that considers their entire armed forces, including the head cook and bottlewasher, to be SF and it's completely unbelievable, undermining any credible identifications on the article.
fwiw I don't see law enforcement as SF since they have a very limited tactical role and should probably be removed as well.
ALR 19:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clean up
We have been threatening to clean up the list for a while now so I have gone ahead as per discussion here (and it's AfD proposal). I have made the following changes:
- Remove units that are clearly Police units
- Made wikilink list headings (Army, Navy etc.) instead of nested lists.
- Remove wikilinks to armed forces pages (Navy of XYZ), because they are not of interest here links to them will be in the articles of the special force in question.
--Deon Steyn 06:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- What about historial, not active units? Example:
- Finland:
- * Erillinen Pataljoona 4 (Continuation War) <- Unit disbanded November 30, 1944. Korppi76 12:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article is bad
because it has a lot of red links leading to no articles! it is useless to list them if they don't have an article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.86 (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Bulgaria's Special Operations
Does this sound like an accurate description of what Bulgaria's special operations are capable of doing and what Bulgaria has the general ability to do? I'm not sure, but I would think that a description of Bulgaria's special operations forces would not be able to easily sound as though it was a descrption of the U.S. Army Rangers or the Russian Spetsnaz. Someone shoud look into this. — Hizrael 11:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
