Talk:Koevoet/Archive 1

message: I have combined the previous version with the recent edits by User:Phase4 into a more balanced section (see WP:Neutral point of view). Can we please guard against politicizing thise page any further, because the article refers to only one unit used during a military conflict (whether it was legal or not) and I think this section now describes the background sufficiently and wikilinks and refers to enough additional articles.
--Deon Steyn 06:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background / History 

message: I have removed the Craig Williamson link from the See also section as I can find no link whatsover between him and Koevoet. Unless he served with them or interacted with them the connection is too far removed to be useful. --Deon Steyn 06:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: This article says (paraphrasing) the South Africans were involved in a defence of Western values and interests against commies interested only in minerals and influence.  Another author could easily write the freedom fighters were interested in liberating the oppressed and enslaved masses against the evil apartheid regime backed by the USA and UK who were interested only in minerals and influence.   Each is POV.  This article takes the former view.  I would also complain about the latter.  More balance required.  Paul Beardsell 10:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworked the intro and will look at the rest of the article (for POV problems). I agree that we need to keep it as apolitical and unbiased as possible. It is still quite young, let's see where we can tweak it. --Deon Steyn 10:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been more than sufficiently re-worked for the POV tag to be removed. I've therefore now removed it.Phase4 20:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: I still don't quite feel comfortable with the phrasing in the intro, but I do suppose it – sadly – is a prominent part of what makes them notable/known. Perhaps my following thoughts could provide fresh impetus, ideas or at least be considered by future reader of the article. My reason for the "discomfort" is simply that a few stories showing untoward behaviour, by some parties are enough to warrant such a label for an entire unit (of over 3,000 at a given time) actively engaged in war then surely this label would apply to almost all military units? 
*Sadly, it is common in wartime.
Just as an easy to reference current example: this type of phrase is not part of the US Marine article, yet 7 servicemen have recently plead guilty to kidnap and murder of a civilian,  while others are accused of killing 24 civilians in reaction to a roadside bomb,  there is also a group of soldiers (101st Airborne I think) charged with raping a young girl and killing her family,  German soldier posing for photos with a skull,  etc. etc.
Comparatively - as macabre as it is to make such comparisons - the allegations against Koevoet don't rise to this level, but even if the severity of these acts are not relevant, the fact is that the entire units/organizations mentioned above are not tarred by these events?
*Specific incidents
#Some incidents where the bodies of enemy (SWAPO/PLAN in this case) were transported tied over vehicle mudguards are often mentioned. Of course this was a propaganda gold mine for Koevoet's adversaries, but it has to be seen in the context of a small group of soldiers 50–100km from their base in a combat zone, in the bush (few roads) in cramped armoured vehicles in which they had to transport themselves, their wounded comrades and POW s (some wounded) and dead bodies. They didn't have GPS (to easily record position), they didn't have massive air support or large convoys, where would you put the bodies to transport them back to base???
#Mention is also made of a bounty for kills, but this also should be seen in the context of a command incentive for soldiers to return bodies of enemies for intelligence purposes... how else do you motivate them? A similar case are the snipers in vietnam, who weren't paid, but could only count a "kill" towards their total if they examined the body to complete a "kill sheet" with intelligence information... different motivation, same command goal.
#Two former member's testimony at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings mention one firing two shots into a dead body and another of executing a prisoner during interrogation. Although completely unacceptable it doesn't amount to proof of systemic atrocities and in fact it mentions in the one incident (shooting dead body) that the soldier in question was severely reprimanded by a superior officer.
*Neutrality
The source of many allegations and interpretations of events came from adversaries or entities sympathetic to them. Propaganda is part of war. Of course one can not simply dismiss all reports as such, but the source of a report has to be taken into account, especially in situations of war that are notoriously difficult to assess and record accurately.
Where to now? The article currently covers the basic technical aspect of the unit, the conflict, structure and so on. Perhaps we could add a section called something like "notoriety" (or "accusations of brutality") with a similar, but abbreviated description?
--Deon Steyn 06:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the article and I agree that another section could be added as you mention. However, it would need to be short and concise yes, and all mentions of brutal use of force (or similarly, to the contrary) should be well-cited, balanced according to due weight proportional to the reliability of the source(s) used, and without any POV adjectives or descriptive phrases. But you have a good idea, I would give you the go-ahead. --WickedHorse 07:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "brutal and indiscriminate use of force"? 

message: Removal of the CCB link from the "See also" section was reverted since it was made on the following erroneous assumptions:
'CCB was not related to Koevoet'
* The CCB (like Koevoet, SAP's Internal Stability Unit and Special/Security Branch) was an arm of the South African security forces responsible for dealing with terrorists/freedom fighters. Some dealt with SWAPO, others dealt with the ANC/PAC/AZAPO/SACP/UDF. The similarity lies in what they were meant to do.
'CCB had nothing to do with Namibia' (all of the proof below can be found in the CCB article
*CCB had an entire division/region devoted to South West Africa/Namibia
*CCB agent implicated in the death of Anton Lubowski a Namibian national
*CCB implicated in several acts of harassment of anti-apartheid activist and founder of The Namibian newspaper Gwen Lister a South African/Namibian
*CCB operatives planned a hit on Martti Ahtisaari during a visit to Namibia
*CCB plans existed to deal with Namibian activists: Theo-Ben Gurirab, Hidipo Hamutenya, Daniel Tjongarero, Andimba Toivo ya Toivo
--Suidafrikaan 14:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koevoet, CCB and Namibia