Jump to content

Talk:Border Security Force

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

Unwarranted deletions by miscreants

[edit]

The rank structure column has been defaced, with government pay grade information being removed, by motivated elements. Perhaps it is because these elements wanted to wrongly state that Asst Commandants are equivalents to Army captains which they are not. Assistant Commandants and Army Lieutenants are both in Pay Band III, Grade Pay 5400. They are NOT equivalent in ANY way to captains in the army, who are in Pay Band III, Grade Pay 6100. There is no police or Paramilitary equivalent for the rank of captain in the Army.

Rank Structure

[edit]

I have edited the rank structure. There was a need to correct the numerous spelling, grammatical, and factual errors inherent in the section. I have added a column for the government pay grade that each officer rank is in, and each officer rank in the compared services is in, to make clear what the correct pay grade (and therefore rank) equivalence is, vis a vis police and defence services (Government equivalence between services is based on pay grade). Furthermore, I have added a few links to sources which authenticate this information. The portion of this section which dealt with below officer ranks contained no information at all, with just blank place holders. I have removed this section, as it was not adding any value to the article, due to its lack of information.

Fourth paragraph

[edit]

The fourth paragraph in the article is highly misleading and is a produce of baseless thoughts. This paragraph very incorrectly states the reasons for the inception (yes, inception, rather than just induction) of BSF and the replacement of CRPF. The author has put forth erroneous and biased ideas while hiding the main reasons behind replacement of CRPF from Jammu and Kashmir, such as, the bulk of the CRPF being already committed to combating insurgency in Punjab and the North-Easter states, and unavailability of more manpower from CRPF. The experience and capabilities of the CRPF against Jihadis can be seen mentioned in the article meant for CRPF. Secondly, the BSF's greatest achievements surpass something like elimination of "Ghazi Baba" by great degrees. The author should be less biased, more factual, and even more specific - sticking strictly to the BSF, and mention factual and better instances regarding the achievements. Such as talking about those in the BSF who have/has been awarded the highly reputed Mahavir Chakra during Indo-Pak war.

To keep the article sound more specific, more factual and less erroneous, I am deleting the fourth misleading paragraph from this article.

The first point about the accuracy and objectivity of the removed paragraph was valid, however the paragraph is still required to provide the context which led to the BSF, a border force, being deployed in counter-insurgency operations. Therefore, a more neutral, edited version of the paragraph has been inserted.
Wrt the second point about the achievements of the BSF: historically speaking, the Indo-Pak war may indeed be considered more important. However, what is more relevant in recent times is the BSF's role in counter-insurgency. Also note that the existing article specifies the context wrt Ghazi Baba (prime success IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR). Given this, along with the fact that the December 13 suicide attack on the New Delhi parliament is viewed by many as comparable to 9/11 in terms of its gravity, the elimination of Ghazi Baba is an important point. Plucky77 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvement Needed

[edit]

I added tags for weasel words and unsourced content to this article. I will try and find some documentation to fill the gaps when I can, but an article this in-depth with no sources and various usages of weasel words is a far from optimal situation here. Anyone else who wants to work on the topic is welcome to. Please do NOT remove the tags until the changes are made. Thank you. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 04:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) You know my dad is in BSF,and I have seen how hard it is for them to gaurd the borders,especially when there is no border fencing,when the border is divided by a river! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.96.244 (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article, particularly the "Allegations" section I just tagged, is really riddled with unencyclopedic additions, POV statements, and weasel words. It needs to be cleaned up whether your dad has a tough job or not, and regardless of your personal feelings, it needs to be as objective and comprehensive as possible per Wikipedia's quality standards. If you can't edit this article fairly, maybe you shouldn't edit it at all. And that goes for everyone active on this page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not A Global View

[edit]

The references cited may not represent global view within Criticism section. An expert on India or Bangladesh or Both may resolve the issue. Hitro talk 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Felani killedByBSF.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Felani killedByBSF.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Felani killedByBSF.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh controversies

[edit]

Tailsgreat and Darkness Shines, please stop collaborating in ways that can be seen as tag teaming. You guys have removed sensitive and relevant information and references (probably because one of you sees "a political ploy by Bangladeshi pan-Islamic terrorists to get attention" and the other sees "Op-Eds" as you have stated elsewhere). Remember, Wikipedia is not a battleground.

If you have specific issues then discuss here. That can be supprted by responsible tagging. If you are not sure, we can get the community involved. While doing that, please try to avoid involving more editors with obvious bias like Tailsgreat's stand against Bangladesh. Alternatively, I can take this to the comunity and get a consensus. That should make everyone happy. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not worry about Tailsgreat as he is about to be indeffed for sockpuppetry[1]. Please review what I reverted, There is obvious vandalism and spelling errors in the Formation section, none of which is sourced BTW. Allegations of human rights abuses section has the following sources. [2] A letter to the editor. [3] Op-Ed or personal blog, hard to tell. [4] Op-Ed. [5] Press release, fails WP:PRIMARY. english.people.com.cn deadlink. [6] A blog. A forum post[7] I think that will do for now yes? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixable. I don't think that requires a total removal. That's not how we build consensus. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Border Security Force. 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) 03:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Border Security Force. 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) 22:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image addition

[edit]

Hi, we can see an editor wants to add an image in the article. The editor has been asked to discuss on talk, but I thought to start the discussion myself, which might make things easier for him. Is it important to add this image? My personal opinion is "no", not needed. --Titodutta (contact) 02:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Titodutta That and other Wagah border images did exist on this talk page. But they were removed some time ago by another editor who said they were irrelevant here. I agree with them and did not revert the removal. I think we have enough images of BSF here. Adding another one from Wagah border that too of rangers does not make much sense here. This is the same as adding BSF photos on the Rangers article. That was removed because of the same reason. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Border_Security_Force&oldid=1211122633"