Talk:GSG 9

Military history: European / German C‑class

This article 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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Command Structure

The recently added sidebox says "Command structure: Directly under control of the Bundespolizei".

But on the official page of the German Federal Police I found this: "Die Entscheidung über den Einsatz der GSG 9 trifft das Bundesministerium des Innern (BMI). Näheres ist in einer besonderen Dienstanweisung für die GSG 9 geregelt." If I understand this correctly it means that the GSG 9 is directly under control of the Federal Ministry of the Interior.... Source: http://www.bundespolizei.de/cln_030/nn_483418/DE/BPOLP__West/GSG9/gsg9__node.html__nnn=true

They are part of the Federal Police but in case they shall be involved in any action the BMI (Ministery of the Interior) decides. But I'm not sure how we should write that into the box. M9IN0G 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organization section

This section could use a clean up, as it is not necessary to make such subsections and only have one sentence per section. Maybe making it a table? Imasleepviking 16:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Feuerzauber

The translation given in the article is "Operation Fire Magic", while a ...zauber is a magic spell, so "Operation Fire Spell" would be closer to the original meaning. Not sure if "Operation Fire Magic" has been used in any official texts regarding the matter - maybe someone could check that and change the article if it seems appropriate? 82.212.13.37 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that "Fire Spell" could be considered a more appropriate translation. However, "Fire Magic" seems to be widely used in the English speaking world (as far as one can consider 263 google results as "widely"; there is only one google result for "Operation Fire Spell", which, coincidentally, is this page). There also seems to be an entry in the "SAS Encyclopedia" by Barry Davies: "Assault on LH181: The True Story of Operation Fire Magic", which I take as a definite reason to stick with "Fire Magic". --80.145.124.254 10:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article Lufthansa Flight 181: "Members of the British SAS were not directly involved in the operation, as it is often reported; in fact they were only observers.". While this article states "... while members of the GSG 9 supported by two British SAS operatives stormed the plane". Probably nobody knows the truth but one should not take it as a fact either.

After a TV Documentation about the Landshut the SAS members where only there to provide technical support for the use of flash bangs (it was a new technologie and i think only britain had some) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.146.24.30 (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy for SWAT Championship

Information about this is listed twice. I would remove one, but they seem to contradict each other. Under the section "History" it says

From 1972 to 2003 they reportedly completed over 1,500 missions, with only 5 shots being fired.[attribution needed] At the S.W.A.T. championship in 2005, GSG 9 won an impressive seven out of seven events, beating 17 other teams. In March 2006, in the same competition, GSG 9 defended its championship. "Team GSG-9, the Federal Border Police of Germany, swept the competition and won all seven events."

Under "Miscellaneous" it says

The German GSG 9 team won every event at the 2005 SWAT World Challenge in Las Vegas, beating 17 other teams. In 2006 they again gained the victory with first place in four of the eight different competitions of World SWAT Challenge. However, in 2007 they only made over-all fifth place.

If someone could verify which one is correct, then delete the incorrect one. I believe the first quote was added last. This sections also has some weasel wording (in the sentence before) and peacock terms (swept away the competion) and it seems it's a POV addition about GSG 9 and I would say the last paragraph is correct. But I haven't verified. Perhaps someone with some knowledge could do that. --Fogeltje (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gsg9insignia.jpg

Image:Gsg9insignia.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Information on Cologne/Bonn Incident

I removed the information about that incident because even though I checked dozends of sources in German and English I found no evidence for the GSG 9 involved in it. To the best of my knowledge there was not even an actual storming of the airplane but ordinary policemen (no Sondereinsatzkomando) went on board of the airplane. Not only that; the information that two Somali citizens were taken into custody definitely is wrong. The German police explicitly stated that it were a Somali citizen and a German citizen born in Mogadishu. Jsde (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equipment

I think this section should be dropped as there are no references given and I doubt there will ever be. Hence most of the section is mere speculation and should be removed or referenced. Since I am no expert in this matter, I shall not do that myself. Thanks, 194.246.46.15 (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section is adopted from the german GSG9 page. U r right most of them is just speculative cause of the security but some of them are obviously, for example the MP5, MP7, G36, HK416 and the HK USP. Its a special unit, u wont find so many information about it.--84.161.84.60 (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 416 was never used by the GSG 9 'till now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.5.68 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To address this issue again - is it really necessary to have this long unreferenced list of equipment - in particular the "gear" section in this article? Most of it seems like speculation and from what I could find online and in literature it is partially even untrue. If nobody objects, I would reduce the list to the extent of the GSG9 article in the German wiki to have only the referenced content and a general statement that GSG9 uses specilised equipment. Der rikkk (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations

EOD and IED should be spelled out completely or linked to the respective (correct) Wiki article. There are ambiguation pages for both and although the connection to explosives seems to be the most reasonable one, e.g. IED could also refer to "Intelligent electronic device". Could somebody please straighten this out? Not everyone around here is a SWAT professional. Thanks, 194.246.46.15 (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion ****

"is the elite counter-terrorism and special operations unit of the German Federal Police and is considered to be among the best of its kind in the world. Many nations have modelled their counter-terrorism units after the GSG 9. Contents"

This is untrue and inaccurate, gsg9 was modelled after the SAS and many GSG9 members were trained by SAS. The SAS themselves being the unit that nearly all special forces are modelled on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.249.13 (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Yes, and it's obvious, because the unit has been created in the 70s. The text with the info concerning the modelling of the GSG9 along the line of the SAS (SAS officers even trained the first GSG9 forces) has been deleted, but I don't know why and by who. This should be mentionned in the articleJohnny2323 (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Which countrries modeled their special units....

I know that saudi-arabias SF are very close to them, because Wegener helped the king to form them.--94.218.13.238 (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Just read the first paragraph of the histroy section, where it talks about the Munich Massacare. It seems biased against Germany and their police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.155.123 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same thing. The article asserts that tense relations with Israel contributed to the police's inability to effectively handle a domestic issue. Such events seem unlikely to be related. I'm surprised it has stayed in this long. Lest I simply delete this out of ignorance, I've added a ^[how?] tag in hopes of drawing attention to it. un4v41l48l3 (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Hence I removed the claim in question. Unsourced, questionable and contentious. If anyone wants to reinsert it, please provide proper sources. Kleuske (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Its formation was based on the expertise of the Israeli Sayeret Matkal."

Is there a source available for this? This is a bit new to me and I havent read it elsewhere as well. --88.77.241.178 (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Yes there was a german documentary on behalf of an anniversary that aired 2013. There was stated from both German and Israeli officials that they trained togethernin the early days and now.[reply]

"The identity of GSG 9 members is classified as top secret"

Top secret would mean that releasing those names would "endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany [...]". I would guess it's only confidential. But as long as there is no source, maybe it would be better to write just classified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harald Meier (talk • contribs) 16:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GSG 9 is not anymore an abbriviaton!! It is just GSG 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.105.201.0 (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on GSG 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on GSG 9. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on GSG 9. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GSG 9 → GSG 9 der Bundespolizei – Official full name of the German Federal police department, see also here. 2003:E0:7700:9A21:857B:3FA6:D004:8AC (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 10:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Being the official name is not a sufficient reason to rename - see WP:OFFICIALNAME. You need to show that English-language WP:RS commonly use that name to refer to the topic. Briefly browsing the English sources on the article (e.g. BBC), it seems like they use 'GSG 9'. Colin M (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the common name is GSG 9. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Approval because the argument „common name“ doesn't really make sense, or should Federal Bureau of Investigation be renamed to FBI? -2003:E7:EF0B:269:B191:3678:F26B:407E (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting question. At least one person thinks it should. I think there's a reluctance to use an initialism as an article title if the full name is also recognizable and in wide use (which I find intuitively reasonable, though I can't point to a clear policy rationale for why it should be that way). Worth noting that BBC, CNN, and NASA exist, so having an initialism title isn't without precedent. I think those ended up that way because the expansion of the initials is not as well known and doesn't read quite as naturally. Colin M (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.