Talk:Kopassus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

notes from first cleanup[edit]

ambiguous or confusing clauses[edit]

"which support by two companies of KST( Korps Speciale Troepen)" this is ambiguous, could mean either

  • which support two companies of KST or
  • which are supported by two companies of KST - probably this one, which is what I chose

Mayor Rokus Bernadus Visser - surely this means Major Rokus...

"group 4 is intelligence and Sandhi Yudha" --I don't know what to do with this

suggestion[edit]

The content of this page needs to be approached by someone who knows more of the lingo and jargon associated with military topics.

Image could be added. May 21, 2005 JoelRichardson

Hello, the headquarter is in East-Jakarta, group III, responsable for training has their trainingscamp near bandung! cheers --195.33.105.17 19:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]



This might need some clarification[edit]

"...but brilliantly executed this fast-paced operation. One of the Kopassus commandos was shot by the leader of the hijackers, and then shot himself."

It certainly does - "brilliantly" is blatantly POV. Also there is Ken Conboy's allegation that one of the hijackers was taken alive and murdered by Kopassus in the plane on the way back to Jakarta. I'll look that one up when I have the time. Davidelit (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify...[edit]

This does not mean I necessarily agree with the contents of this edit by Starstylers, rather I'm reverting myself after accidentally hitting the rollback button. regards --Merbabu (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of NGO POV[edit]

I have edited the article to include readily accessible peer-reviewed material which invalidates the numerous unsubstantiated vested-interest NGO agit-prop masquerading as balanced reportage. I also point out, Wikipedia in English, accessed within Indonesia is also subject to near identical libel and slander laws as Wikipedia US content, thus the article now obeys Wikipedia new directives in balanced and fair reportage.Starstylers (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LATEST EDIT[edit]

I hope this edit accommodates the two conflicting POV which seem inevitable in this article. I support Merbabu in removing all NGO-nonsense and this "human rights" flotsam. It is essentially irrelevant and does not add constructively to article.
However, if human rights is to be discussed at length here- then for balance, it is only fair and abiding to the letter and spirit of Wikiepdia POV, Verifiability and Balance that discussion MUST include:

  • historically documented Australian military racism and racially motivated assaults (of course the Indoensian Army are not racist).
  • SAS abuse of East Timorese pro-Indonesian militants human rights (disproven).
  • Australian-UK illegal invasions of Indonesia and killing of its citizens in 1941, 1945, 1946-47, 1963-67 Operation claret (and the invasion of East Timor in '75 by Indonesia leaving 60, 000 innocent East Timorese dead?)
  • Austrlian use of Christmas Island for nuclear testing,(this gave me a good laugh :) Australia does not have any nuclear weapons).
  • Menzies hostility against Indonesia (So? Indonesia has been hostile to Australia on countless occassions. Get over it).
  • Austrlian purchase of F-111 nuclear strategic strike aircraft (The F-111 does not carry nuclear weapons).


I've deleted the rest because, wow, it is just brain washed propoganda that was partly amusing, but quite concerning.

POV tag[edit]

This article has gone from bad to worse in recent days. Every reference added by Starstylers needs to be verified by editors. Of the Google books references I have so far checked, the previews do not show the pages cited. Until this is all checked, then in my opinion the tag should remain. --Merbabu (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of sources?[edit]

I removed this as I cannot see how the provided source supports the information. Could the editor who placed it please point out how it supports the info? Further, it's a highly emotive and partisan piece - it's tone suggests it is not appropriate source. --Merbabu (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is sourced[edit]

I apologise for the low standard of Australian education if one is not able to follow the essential argument. The argument is simple: T majority public and academic mainstream discourse overwhelmingly proves Australian and by extension Western (as most US-UK scholarship is based on that of their Austrlian counterparts) hypocrisy, endemic bias and overall poor credibility of any and all Austrlian corroborating references- with specific reference to human rigthts abuses- as shown in the argument to be politically and economically motivated I quote Merbabu as he states on "Dave1185" user page. [[1]]125.161.130.52 (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC) I quote: "my suggestion is that the article be stripped of all dodgy info (stubbed right back if necessary). I’d rather see a short stub of quality than a whole pile of crap – no matter what the POV".[reply]

Wrong information[edit]

"During the May 1998 riots of Indonesia, renegade Kopassus members were involved in organising and carrying out acts of murder and violence against Chinese Indonesians.[6] This included involvement in mass gang-rapes of Sino-Indonesian women and girls across Jakarta. [7]"

If you check the sources referenced to this statement, there are no renegade kopassus members involvement mentioned, not even mentioning the word 'Kopassus'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.195.10.90 (talk) 07:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Red or green berets[edit]

Why the special forces adapted the red baret is not because the Dutch special forces had red berets, they had green berets, the red berets in the KNIL were the 1st Parachute company. on photo's of the Dutch Major you can see his green Special Forces beret, because he never had a red one.--ArmTheInsane (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kopassus. 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: 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) 23:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020[edit]

Change Engagements |battles= in infobox request (Infobox hidden by Melbguy05)
Special Forces Command
Komando Pasukan Khusus / Kopassus
Insignia of Kopassus.
Active16 April 1952 – present
Country Indonesia
Branch Indonesian Army (TNI-AD)
TypeSpecial Operation Forces
Role

Secondary roles:

SizeDivision (4 brigades and 1 training center)
Part of Indonesian National Armed Forces, Tentara Nasional Indonesia (TNI)
Garrison/HQCijantung
Nickname(s)Hantu Rimba (Ghost of the Jungle), Baret Merah (Red Berets), Komando
Motto(s)Berani, Benar, dan Berhasil (English: Brave, Rightful, and Successful)
Engagements
Commanders
Current
commander		Major General I Nyoman Cantiasa
Notable
commanders

Kopassus (a portmanteau of Komando Pasukan Khusus or "Special Forces Command") is an Indonesian Army (TNI-AD) special forces group that conducts special operations missions for the Indonesian government, such as direct action, unconventional warfare, sabotage, counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism, intelligence gathering and Special reconnaissance (SR). Kopassus was founded on 16 April 1952. It gained worldwide attention after several operations such as the Indonesian invasion of East Timor and the release of hostages from Garuda Indonesia Flight 206.

The Special Forces spearheaded some of the government's military campaigns: putting down regional rebellions in the late 1950s, the Operation Trikora (Western New Guinea campaign) in 1961–1962, the Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation from 1962–1966, the massacres of alleged communists in 1965, the East Timor invasion in 1975, and subsequent campaigns against separatists in various provinces.

Kopassus is reported by national and international media, human rights-affiliated NGOs and researchers[5] to have committed violations of human rights in East Timor, Aceh, Riau and Papua and the capital Jakarta. Published articles in mainstream media may include epithets such as "the notorious Kopassus" or "abusive Indonesian unit".[6][7].

}} 203.78.120.28 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to put entire infobox into talk page. State your proposal and please just register and get username. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
203.78.120.28 wanted in |battles= wording changed from "War on Terror(in 2002 general Andika Perkasa former group 5 commander and his team managed to capture Omar al-Faruq who was suspected will bombing the america embassy in indonesia" to "*Capture of Omar al-Faruq (2002) part of War on Terror". Otherwise, the infobox content was the same as was the introduction wording when protected 6 April 2020.--Melbguy05 (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ https://www.google.co.id/search?q=kopassus+di+congo&client=ucweb-b&channel=sb
  2. ^ https://www.google.co.id/search?q=kopassus+kirim+senjata+ke+Afghanistan&client=ucweb-b&channel=sb
  3. ^ https://www.google.co.id/search?q=prabowo+latih+hamas&client=ucweb-b&channel=sb
  4. ^ https://www.google.co.id/search?q=kopassus+dikirim+ke+afganistan&client=ucweb-b&channel=sb
  5. ^ Masters of terror: Indonesia's military and violence in East Timor. Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 2006. p. 218. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  6. ^ Jones, Tony; Griffiths, Emma (12 August 2003) "Al Qaeda claim could be authentic: Howard". (transcript) Lateline, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). Retrieved 12 July 2013
  7. ^ McBeth, John (14 June 2019). "Abusive Indonesian unit back in America's good graces". Asia Times. Retrieved 15 January 2020.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2020[edit]

Missions[edit]

Publicly known missions: Indonesia|Regional rebellions 1950s


}} 112.215.230.165 (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Sections[edit]

I removed some sections which are clear pov content sections. "Assassination activity" and "Militia force" stand alone sections. Sections should be NPOV and balanced, so it is the best to be inside body of an article, history section etc. Anyway, there is also one "Issues" section what can be expanded by additional content. Content needs to be, of course, sourced, with relevant and notable sources and so users don't forget this is not a private blog and to read WP:NOT policies. Cheers. Nubia86 (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both human rights stuff and criminal conducts are issues and it goes under one section even can be included under History section partially or all. Npov policies are still in place and honestly, whole pov sections are little too much. One can pass, but some editors wanna 3 or 4 different ones. I see to there is people who think to that unit is really crazy evil or so, but that is for blogs, this is one different place. Tnx. Nubia86 (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am a bit troubled by the lack of clear edit summaries by the editors who make these reverts, including Nubia86 and Melbguy05. I've looked at a bunch of edits and some of them are clearly not good, like adding a section in Indonesian, but I don't see why a list of victims would somehow be "POV". Granted, much of that list is unverified, but at least one victim is well-verified. Moreover, "vandalism" is not the right word: disruption, edit warring, IP hopping, sure--but the editor is clearly trying to improve the article. Again, removing a list of victims and a list of groups trained by these special forces, there is nothing inherently wrong with that, and removing it is a kind of whitewashing. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: I never categorised the repeated unregistered edits of the same content as POV or vandalism. I used WP:DISRUPT and WP:VERIFY. I checked the New Zealand peacekeeper in East Timor claim. The Independent article cited dated 2009 (its actual date is 4 August 2000) is disputed. The official line is that it was pro-Indonesian militia.[1] A murder trial was held for a militia group led by Jacobus Bere in Jakarta in November 2001.[2] There have been reports speculating that Kopassus was involved.[2][3]--Melbguy05 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate the note, Melbguy, and my apologies if I misread your edit summaries. I hope the IP shows up to actually make a case for their edits--but whatever you can do to improve it will be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I saw a message on my talk page. As soon as I noticed part of the content was poorly sourced and already covered in the other sections (there is one history section and also one issues section), I opened talk page discussion and I hoped to that IP user/users would show up. I tried to explain at first in my edit summaries about, but then I noticed a pattern of adding the same content over and over again without engaging in the talk page at all. I explained here about some of my concerns. I hope I didn't made some mess, but this things repeat already for a long time. I deeply apologize for my rectent short edit summaries, but this things goes from beginning of February. And almost every day, the same content, just different IP address. And this article already was protected for some days. Nubia86 (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Leonard Manning memorial, Rangiriri". New Zealand History. New Zealand Government. Retrieved 13 March 2021.
  2. ^ a b Smith, Ron (June 2005). "The Death of Private Leonard Manning" (PDF). International Relations and Security Studies, University of Waikato. Retrieved 13 March 2021.
  3. ^ Dodd, Mark (19 December 2005). "Licensed to kill". The Australian. p. 10.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notable members?[edit]

I believe we need to have standard on who is to be mentioned on Notable members section. Is it someone who is notable for being Kopassus member (such as the founder or first commander) or notable person who at some time in his life was member of Kopassus (such ministers or other high-ranking officials). Ckfasdf (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kopassus&oldid=1206399642"