Talk:Davidka

message: I just added in lots of information, largely taken from the Hebrew Wikipedia article.
Unfortunately, that article lists no sources, although I've seen much of this information in the past.
I need to do some research to find citations, but given that I've just written the entire article beyond the initial three sentences, I feel justified in bumping the date of the  tag to today, July, 2007.
Also, I've taken out the  tag because this page is starting to look like a proper encyclopedia entry.  --Eliyahu S Talk 00:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations / References

message: Should that say Formerly? Or is there a story about some rogue British officers. Moreover, why and did the British actually help attack a state that they helped set up (virtualyl immediately after doing so?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.15.59 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Led by Glubb Pasha... AnonMoos (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: British-led Arab Legion

message: I cleaned up this badly written, badly formatted article. More sourced material would be welcome.--Geewhiz (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up

message: What is the difference between the Davidka and a spigot mortar besides the fact the Davidka is an improvised weapon ? Megaidler (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question.  I think it has to do with how much of the shell fits inside the bore, but I am no expert in these matters.  Whoever put the statement in the article presumably had good reasons for expressing it as it stands, and attempted to explain the difference, but perhaps was not clear enough. The linked article is of limited help.  Unless you are thoroughly familiar with the principles involved, I would suggest not turning the statement into its exact opposite.  Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote most of the paragraph in question, and I hope that I've made things clear.  If not, please let me know and I will make a further attempt.  Also, I am currently only rarely logging in to Wikipedia (although I am using it extensively for research, as an anonymous viewer.)  Please use the email link on my User page to contact me and I will respond more quickly.  Thanks -- Eliyahu S Talk 11:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not a spigot mortar 

message: According to Jon Kimche the Haganah had 16 "Davidka mortars" on May 14 1948. Kimche, Jon and David (1960) A Clash of Destinies. The Arab-Jewish War and the Founding of the State of Israel. Frederick A. Praeger. Library of Congress number 60-6996. Page 161. Padres Hana (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number made 

message: I added a cross reference to Qassam rocket.  Both are home made weapons that have played a role in this region.--Nowa (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the comparison, really. There are lots of "home made weapons" utilized in the region.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They have been compared as having similar military value and application.  Here are some references:
*During the War of Independence, the Davidka was the equivalent of a Qassam. But over time, this primitive rocket has morphed into a long-range missile. 
*...their Qassam can't help but remind us of our Davidka. 
Others are available.--Nowa (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

text: You have anything more serious than op-eds from known partisans?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be some basis for comparison if the Davidka was a rocket or the Qassam a mortar, but they're not. It's classic apples vs. oranges. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Qassam rocket

message: There is no reason to maintain "NPOV" in an Etymology section. The only Point Of View that matters is the one of the party(ies) giving the name — in this case, the Israelis.
The purpose of an etymology is to explain how and/or why a name was applied to a person, place or thing. If the name was given by a person or persons, then their reasons, from their own perspective, are the only factors that went into the giving of the name. Their reason(s) and their perspective might have been right, wrong, or indifferent, but those are the factors behind the etymology. Arguing with their perspective is ridiculous and meaningless, because their perspective was the only causal factor behind the name. An NPOV perspective simply doesn't come in to play; they gave the name for whatever reason that they did, and arguing that their reasons were "bad" doesn't change the fact that those were the reasons behind the name.
For example, if I say that people called a certain fuzzy-faced Arab "Abu Bint" because he only had a daughter, and they felt that having only a daughter was demeaning of his manhood and wished to insult him, that's a simple etymological fact. Arguing that the term is sexist, or that it is absurd to judge "manliness" on the ability to father boys, may be true but it is also meaningless; in the view of the ones calling the Head "Abu Bint" they meant to be insulting. Period. The only etymology behind "Abu Bint" is the "insult" of fathering a daughter, and the only etymology behind the Davidka is that the Israeli inventors of the device felt themselves to be little Davids fighting against the giant Goliath. Period. Other POVs need not apply, just those who made up the name. --Eliyahu S Talk 23:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: what that make you be called abu butthurt coz ur harboring a lot of that against arabs lmao 37.238.75.44 (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needless NPOV in Etymology 

message: I have reverted the change by User:Seattle_J%C3%B6rg regarding Albert Einstein, to wit, that Einstein was not one of the "designers" of the atomic bomb.  Jörg is entirely correct that Einstein was not part of the Manhattan Project, and so I changed the intro to "proponents and designers of" where proponents is meant to refer to Einstein.  While I know as well as he that Dick Feynman and Ed Teller were more important contributors than Einstein (who was not,) I referred to the two physicists that I did for two different and related reasons.
One, in 1948, Arabs would have heard of Einstein, and probably Oppie (who was the public "face" of Los Alamos while Leslie Groves was actually running things,) but would almost certainly not have heard of Feynman or Teller.  Two, one of the cited sources actually mentioned those two by name, and so I went with them, even though that Arab misunderstanding would have been factually incorrect.
I hope that the use of the word proponent is sufficient to retain accuracy, while at the same time avoiding the need to make some cumbersome explanation or other and thereby give undue weight to a trivial side-note on the main article.  --Eliyahu S Talk 21:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view also proponent is too much. If you read the Einstein–Szilárd letter, which is probably the only aspect where Einstein can be said to have been pro atomic bombs, what he actually does is make Roosevelt aware of the possiblity that the Germans were researching it, and proposing to "have some permanent contact maintained between the Administration and the group of physicists working on chain reactions in America". He then insinuates that the corresponding person could secure uranium and provide funding for experimental research (on chain reactions). He does not propose that actual applied research into the construction of atomic bombs be performed, let alone that they are constructed. The reason that I am persistent in this regard is that in all other aspects of his live, he was always on the pacifist side of things, and he specifically regretted signing this letter. So I find it an injustice towards him to portray him as a proponent of the atomic bomb (even if it says here only that the Arabs had been told that he had been one).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattle Jörg (talk • contribs) 07:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albert Einstein 

message: should be entirely removed
its a spigot mortar, it was not a pioneering design, nothing suggest Syrian rebels were inspired by this spigot mortar to make hellfire and other improvised mortars  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.238.75.44 (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syrian rebels' copy