Wikipedia

Talk:South African Defence Force

Latest comment: 1 month ago by 137.103.89.82 in topic "Integration" Section
Learn more about this page

public notice (2007)

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey people this page has a picture of an apartheid era public notice. As a military organization the SADF did indeed perpetrated crimes against civilian citizens of South Africa, but by having a public notice you're implying that its sole mission was internal (meaning civilian public interference). It seems inappropriate to have a public notice which has nothing to do with the SADF on this page (unless it is located directly in the contents of the article). It is appropriate to write about what the SADF did, but to make implications via a public notice like the one currently on this page is misuse of the idea behind the objectivity of an encyclopedia. The picture should be removed/replaced. By all means keep the history of the picture being on the page, but it doesn't belong on the page. Actually now that I think about it, the objection goes as far as having the picture in the location it is. If it was not in the main organization details box (top right), it seems fine because then you'd be identifying actions taken by the SADF and not implying it's sole mission. Also view template discussion. Rob Leach 19:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This must be wrong... or am I missing something

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under the section "Personnel" there is a line that reads: 

- Prior to the dissolution, the SADF had 1.2 kilo Newtons of force:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valroe (talk • contribs) 15:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The State President was the Commander-in-Chief of the SADF with: Should there not be a section stating the command stucture prior to the Republic being decealred--Scottykira (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

conscripted BLACKS?

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

blacks were not conscripted by the SADF, that is utter B***S***! 156.8.251.250 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I fixed this.. :-) BoonDock (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Objective summary?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Older Revision:

South African military units were involved in the long-running Angolan and Mozambican civil wars,[1] frequently supporting Pretoria's allies the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA)[2][3] and the Mozambican National Resistance (RENAMO).[4] SADF personnel were also deployed during the related South African Border and Namibian independence conflicts.[5][6]

Newer Revision:

South African military units were involved in the long-running Mozambican civil war,[7] sponsoring RENAMO (the Mozambican National Resistance) in its fight against the communist-backed FRELIMO government.[8] The SADF also intervened militarily several times in support of UNITA (the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola) in its fight against the communist-backed MPLA government during the Angolan Civil War [2][9] and in the South African Border War as part of the Namibian War of Independence.[5][6]

Conclusion

edit

OK, perhaps now it's more possible to see why there are problems with the new revision - mainly on several minor points which really don't book another page of major changeovers. First off, the section is now longer - which is precisely what I hoped to avoid when I modified that line several months ago. Right then. We keep the intro short and sweet, leave the meaty details until later. It's enough to mention the SADF's involvement in Mozambique and Angola and leave it that that.

Perhaps the altered lines would be more accurate if indeed the SADF had not intervened militarily in Mozambique. Except they did. Read later in the article - I provided sources indicating that cross-border raids were indeed carried out against ANC base camps there, although certainly on a much smaller scale than in Angola. Ever read Harry McCallion's Killing Zone? He was an operative for the Recces who was posted to Mozambique and explained that even in the late '70s, there were SADF troops clashing with FRELIMO in the Tete Province. I can also provide another additional source - "The Bush Rebels" - in which a journalist traveling with FRELIMO during the Portuguese colonial wars observes an SADF presence near some important infrastructure there. FRELIMO had already engaged this particular contingent on several occasions.

Second problem with the line: the wording is excessive. We don't need repeated references to the "communist-backed" MPLA and FRELIMO regimes; although this may very well be necessary to clarify, that's precisely my point. Again, the intro is supposed to be brief. Elaborate on the nature of the wars and the opponents later. Thirdly, I've seen "war" used four times consecutively. I tried to counter this with "Namibian bid for independence" and "Namibian independence conflict" to avoid a wordy impression. It appears - with the new revision at least - I am not succeeding.

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Have no issue with the latest order. --Katangais (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ "South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid". Overcomingapartheid.msu.edu. Retrieved 2013-02-26.
  2. ^ a b Fryxell, Cole. To Be Born a Nation. p. 13.
  3. ^ "INTERVIEW WITH PIK BOTHA (20/5/97)". Gwu.edu. Retrieved 2013-02-26.
  4. ^ [1]
  5. ^ a b Green, Sparks. Namibia: The Nation After Independence. pp. 1–134.
  6. ^ a b McNab, Chris (2002). 20th Century Military Uniforms (2nd ed.). Kent: Grange Books. ISBN 1-84013-476-3.
  7. ^ "South Africa: Overcoming Apartheid". Overcomingapartheid.msu.edu. Retrieved 2013-02-26.
  8. ^ http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/497993/Renamo
  9. ^ "INTERVIEW WITH PIK BOTHA (20/5/97)". Gwu.edu. Retrieved 2013-02-26.

Use of "inter alia" in lead

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Not sure that use of a Latin phrase like "inter alia" in the lead is either appropriate or worthwhile (or helpful). Why not replace it w/ language that's not intended for use in specialized legal context? If no one takes notice or puts forth a convincing argument for its use here, I'll just make the edit, but thought I'd be civil and mention it before diving in... JDanek007Talk 20:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Make what edit? Remove the phrase or replace it? --Katangais (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi Katangais, I was proposing to replace the phrase with more accessible language, something contextually appropriate, which I didn't believe "inter alia" to be in this case. JDanek007Talk 23:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on South African Defence 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on South African Defence 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) 15:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on South African Defence 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) 07:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Integration" Section

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Description of ANC/anti-aparthied elements that would go on to form the SANDF as "South Africa's old enemies" seems both ahistorical and biased. 137.103.89.82 (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:South_African_Defence_Force&oldid=1253468842"