Talk:Battle of Cuito Cuanavale

Equipment section

The chart and list of military hardware in the equipment section is uncited and unnecessary. Some of it also appears to be blatantly inaccurate, as well; for instance, there is no proof that FAPLA deployed Engesa trucks and BTR-40/152 APCs anywhere near Cuito Cuanavale, or that the SADF utilised Eland armoured cars and Westland Wasp helicopters during Ops Moduler, Hooper, and Packer. Yes, this equipment was in their respective inventories at the time, but none of it was actually used in the battle. Elands were replaced by the Ratel-60 and Ratel-90 in all external ops after 1984, and I've found nothing to indicate Westland Wasps were ever flown over missions in Angola. All the FAPLA trucks photographed and documented during the campaign were GAZs or Urals, and the very elderly BTR-40/152 series went out of service in the early 1980s, being last spotted during Op Protea in 1981. These are two examples; I could name others - such as the Walther pistols and the minibuses - which are also uncited and appear to be the product of original research.

I say the chart and the equipment list must go, although a general summary of the equipment can be allowed to remain under that section header. --Katangais (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Only include these details if its both correct AND useful. Sometimes, less is more. Wdford (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring and Warning to all editors regarding SADF casualties.

I have changed the SADF casulties back to 86, the claim is backed here
[Here https://books.google.com.pe/books?id=LzfEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT170&lpg=PT170&dq=Casualties+of+the+Battle+of+Cuito+Cuanavale&source=bl&ots=N_88VvjjOA&sig=t-6MvP7oSGY3pQmcSkeS8hyQt-8&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt-MDegMnNAhVP5GMKHbhiB2E4FBDoAQgZMAA#v=snippet&q=Casualties&f=false]
. 79 dead at The Battle , +3 (On 11 Nov 1987),+3 (15 Nov 2987),+1 (25 Nov 1987) for a Total of 86.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Some problems arise. First, why do you title this thread "Edit warring and Warning"? What kind of attitude does that reflect? Second, Polack openly admits that all reliable sources place the SADF casualties around 40, but then adds the line "although other information suggested that at least 71 soldiers had been killed during that period ..". He doesn't explain who are the sources of the "other information", so readers cannot assess the reliability thereof. Are we expected to take this comment as fact? Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. A passing comment attributed to uncited sources, in a book written by a lawyer in a colonial tax haven, is not good enough to out-weigh the reliable military history sources on the subject. Wdford (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

All views should be considered so. Not Just the "Oficial" version.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. See WP:RS, which states that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Polack actually mentions some of the reliable historical sources, admits that they all argue around a number of about 42, but then throws in the line that "other information suggested" a much higher number. He does not state where that other information came from, what it was based on, or how reliable it is. Then he assumes the "other information" is more correct than the reliable sources, without clarifying why he does this. Per wikipolicy, in these cases the article must be based on the information from the reliable sources, not on arbitrary uncited "views". You have been in enough edit wars to know that already. Please don't edit-war on this article as well. Wdford (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Read page 168 at the link.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Page 168 is based on page 167, where he admits that the reliable sources state 42 casualties, and then he throws in the line that "other information suggested" a much higher number. Read pg 167 as well. You cannot over-turn the reliable sources with an uncited anonymous "view". Wdford (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I will only repeat this once, the book give deep details about the losses suffered by the SADF during the Battle, with names, dates locations and circuntances. If you dont like the fact that 86 South African soldiers died hence more reported losses than the oficial 31 dead, thats no reason to revert them. Thats VANDALISM if you think the author is not a reliable because it gives a higher tally than SADF officers gave at that time, thats your POV. And all your rethoric is just that, empty.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Extract from the book: "The SAAF casualties for the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale from Sep 1987 to May 1988 were 4 killed with 1 severy wounded, with SADF losses seventy five....." , "..a total of 79 South African dead", "..there was a increase to eighty-one", " there were three aditional deaths", "...together make it eighty six".Mr.User200 (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Read all majority and significant minority views at WP:RS, so dont revert my last edit User:Wdford.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll repeat this yet again - Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not arbitrary rumors. The list of named casualties in the book adds up to 42 - as you well know. The book admits that the reliable sources cluster around that number. Then the book adds the line that "other information suggested" a much higher number, without clarifying where this information comes from. On the next page it says "with SADF losses seventy five", as though this is now established fact, but it has no basis for this number except for the "other information suggested". This anonymous information is thus NOT WP:RS, and thus it doesn't qualify for Wikipedia articles. On the other hand, numerous official sources agree on the number of 42.

Where WP:RS says all majority and significant minority views, it means reliable minority views, not arbitrary anonymous rumors. Even if this was a reliable minority view - which it isn't - you would need to say something like "the majority of reliable sources state that casualties were a maximum of 42, whereas one reliable minority view says 86". You cannot state the 86 number in isolation, as though its an uncontested fact.

Please explain why you titled this thread "Edit warring and Warning"?

Wdford (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment I agree with Wdford that Polack is not a credible source for the claim of 86 casualties. Unless Polack specifically names and specifes the time, place and circumstances of each of the casualties the claim has no real credibility. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

https://books.google.com.pe/books?id=LzfEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT170&lpg=PT170&dq=Casualties+of+the+Battle+of+Cuito+Cuanavale&source=bl&ots=N_88VvjjOA&sig=t-6MvP7oSGY3pQmcSkeS8hyQt-8&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt-MDegMnNAhVP5GMKHbhiB2E4FBDoAQgZMAA#v=snippet&q=Casualties&f=false

As has been pointed out to you many times already, this book cannot match the proper historical works as a reliable source. Please stop edit warring. Wdford (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Linking CODESA to battle of Cuito Cuanavale

This comment, which I'm copying here from my talk page for further discussion, refers to this edit. Greenman (talk) 10:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't wish to get involved in an edit war over the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale. I produced a TV series, Death of Apartheid, which was written by Allister Sparks. I think the CODESA negotiations followed from De Klerk's decision to release Mandela and unban the ANC and SACP. The CODESA negotiations did not follow from the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale in 1988. The cited info, Shaking Hands With Billy [1] does not look like a history book which is comparable with Tomorrow Is Another Country, the book Allister Sparks wrote while I was collaborating with him. Mick gold (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I reverted as the view seems fairly widespread (it's even mentioned in the lead), and was sourced, so I don't see it as WP:OR as per your edit summary. I agree it's not particularly well-sourced, so further/better sources should be found. Rather tag with than remove. Greenman (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Greenman: What the Lead states is:

Today, the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale is credited by some with ushering in the first round of trilateral negotiations, mediated by the United States, which secured the withdrawal of Cuban and South African troops from Angola and Namibia by 1991.

This is undoubtedly true. Cuito Cuanavale did lead to the Tripartite Accord (Angola). That is not the same thing as claiming Cuito Cuanavale led to CODESA, which I still believe to be an instance of WP:OR Mick gold (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is quite clearly written with a South African (Apartheid era) bias. It will be wearisome to address and source but it's probably necessary, as the insistence that the battle resulted in continued stalemate obscures the associated Geo-political consequences - the withdrawal of SADF forces from Angola, and soon afterwards from Namibia, all important for themselves as well as for the ramifications in South Africa. The loss of its ability project military force across southern Africa was central to the South African government's realization that apartheid was no longer sustainable. This perspective represents the consensus of most regional analysts. When my calendar clears next month, I'll start to assemble the citations. RobotBoy66 (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

History

To what extent did the consiquences of the battle of the cuito cuanavale influence political changes in South Africa in the late 1980 41.13.246.63 (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)