Talk:Raid on Gaborone

Raid on Gaborone: Revision

Now you, Mr Kleuske, keep on reverting the article back to the biased status. Do you have a political agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HartaMarta (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Moved here from my talk-page. Kleuske (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@HartaMarta: First off, It’s Mrs. Kleuske. Secondly, you have removed anything that does not suit your particular liking and/or political convictions, while introducing biased and factually incorrect claims, such as the involvement of mercenaries (unsourced) and/or equivocating SADF-troops with mercenaries. Moreover, your contribution contains several unsourced claims and removes sourced content, explaining the background of the raid. To top it off, you are now at WP:4RR and have made not attempt whatsoever to gain consensus for your proposed changes. I object to these changes based on WP:V and WP:NPOV, both core policies of the encyclopedia. The WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus.

I get the impression, you are trying to Right Great Wrongs, which is not what the encyclopedia is for. Please keep that in mind when editing. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

—

The previous version of the article heavily relied on biased sources, such as the magazine of the former police force and Security Police of the Apartheid Government, the entity of the criminal Apartheid State (criminal as in "Crime Against Humanity" see: International Convention On The Suppression And Punishment Of The Crime Of Apartheid - United Nations 1973) responsible for the persecution, torture and murder of political dissidents and anyone opposed to racist minority rule.

It also linked to obscurre websites with a clear extremist rightwing, racist and pro-Apartheid political agenda which can be described as "Apartheid-Denialism".

In the previous version politically persecuted opponents of the racist minority regime and activists who sought refuge in exile were referred to as "terrorists", which is a biased terminology in line with the wording that was purposely used during Apartheid to vilify and demonize anyone who dared to demand equal rights for all South Africans!

The article needs a lot of cleaning up, all the remaining citations from biased sources and the corresponding content needs to be removed!

Unfortunately Kleuske is engaged in destructive behaviour. At multiple stages he / she tried to revert the article back to it's politically biased previous state. A clear warning to Kleuske:

HartaMarta (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Warning templates are for user talk pages, so I removed the one you put here.

1. The word “terrorist” did appear in a poorly sourced section. Had you removed that as “poorly sourced”, I would have had no objections, since it did not really add anything substantial to the article. It is, however, important to give a summary of SADF motives for the attack.
2. There were no websites linked of any organization, except the UN and ndr.org.za, let alone “obscurre websites with a clear extremist rightwing, racist and pro-Apartheid political agenda”. The external links mentions the UN resolution condemning the raid and an eye-witness account on ndr.org.za. Surely you do not mean those. If you are referring to the sources, the same applies. Please explain which sources you object to and how they are “clear extremist rightwing, racist and pro-Apartheid”.
3. Given your treatment of the subject so far, I have little confidence in your rewriting this article in keeping with WP:V and WP:NPOV. You are making many claims and so far, have not cited a single source. This directly violates core policies of Wikipedia.
4. Please read the text of the template you so liberally deployed, especially the bit about WP:BRD, and remember that personal attacks and assuming bad faith, such as above, are generally frowned upon. Since you are a new editor, I am treating you with kid gloves, however, continue with this attitude, and I may see no other option than to report this.

Kleuske (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

— User Kleuske (talk) has repeatedly reverted this article back to it's previous, politically biased state and has initiated an "edit war". He / she also continues to remove perfectly legit warnings that were issued by me to stop him / her from continuing this destructive behavior.

The previous state of this article referenced an obscurre website, which glorified the Rhodesian racist regime and the white Afrikaaners Apartheid Regime. This website featured a transcript of an article that was originnally released in the official journal of the Police and Security Police force of the repressive, authoritarian, criminal and anti-democratic Apartheid police state, the main entities responsible for the repression of dissident voices, including the abduction, torture and murder of South Africans proactively opposed to Apartheid policies. This is not a legitimate source of information! Hope this helps!

HartaMarta (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Repeatedly emphasizing "apartheid" rather than using the actual names of organizations is a way of inserting POV. You need to look at the reliable sources say rather than looking for sources to validate what you think the article should say. (t · c) buidhe 03:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree. It's important to point out that we are talking about institutions of the then Apartheid state, not legitimate entities representing the will or best interests of South Africa as a whole. White Afrikaner Nationalism (> the Apartheid government) was endorsed by a constituency which represented less than 15% of the actual total population of South Africa, while a majority of South Africans were deliberately excluded from casting their vote or any other form of political participation. We can discuss in the interest of syntactic and semantic coherence whether it's sufficient to mention the Apartheid allegiance of such entities and individuals only once and not repeatedly, but it's definitely useful to point out that we are talking about the then internationally outlawed and not-majority backed Apartheid government (which was characterised by the United Nations as criminal in multiple resolutions, including resolutions by the Security Council and General Assembly), not legitimate entities representing South African interest. HartaMarta (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Shortcomings of the article in it's current form

As it stands now any of my efforts to improve the quality and reliability of the article will be interpreted as "disruptive behavior" or as motivated by personal bias, even though agreement has been reached that websites like Rhodesia.nl and reports by the perpetrator of this act of violence do not constitute reliable sources. Also, we agreed that "terrorist" in reference to South African political refugees who fled persecution by Apartheid authorities, is not a neutral or unbiased term and hence should be removed. However, if I edit the article to remove these biases, I will be immediately accused of acting in bad faith, an allegation without substance. HartaMarta (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

(coming here from the ANI thread) Maybe I'm just a sunny optimist but I think if you outlined your proposed changes here, with an indication of the reliable sources you're drawing on, there'd be a fair chance that others would engage with them and a consensus could be reached. Note I'm just a passing janitor and know nothing about this subject area or the reliability of any sources involved: but using the talkpage for a sourcing discussion is always the best approach when there's a content dispute. It can be a long, dull process but it eventually gets results. Just a suggestion, take it or leave it as you prefer. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggested edits and improvements

In line with Euryalus (talk suggestions, I would invite a constructive and concrete discussion of specific improvements. This requires a basic understanding of the character of Apartheid as an inhumane form of government and social order, which can be characterised as authoritarian, anti-democratic (as in: against the will of the majority population) and as institutionally set up to maintain racist discrimination for the benefit of a minority. The article in it's current state unfortunately benefits a narrative that seeks to glorify and justify that regime.

Any opposition against this system was repressed by the security forces of the Apartheid government by means such as prolonged solitary confinement, torture and murder

Hence the Apartheid government has by the 1980s become a pariah, subject to international sanctions, a system condemned by multiple UN resolutions as "criminal" and illegitimate.

This is not a personal POV.

— The "Background" section needs to be completely overhauled, since it heavily relies on the source which we consensually identified as biased: rhodesia.nl, a biased website and an article, which depicts the viewpoint of the# involved then South African Police (in particular it's political arm, the Security Police).

— Use of the term "terrorist" - this is the term used in the statements and publications of the Apartheid government ad the Security Police and military to refer to the victims of their acts. It's not adequate to uncritically accept such terminology, which served the political purpose of vilifying and casting as legit targets anyone in active opposition to Apartheid.

— What is missing in the article?

At the time of the attack there was a Commonwealth diplomatic delegation visiting South Africa to negotiate regional stability between South Africa and it's neighbouring states. The Apartheid Government basically sabotaged their effort by escalating the situation.

One of the victims of the attack was the famous South African artist in exile Thamsanga Mnyele. A separate WP page about his life can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thamsanga_Mnyele

The surviving eyewitness detailed to the mother of the murdered refugees how the victims were trying to hide from the attackers, who eventually approached and shot the deceased: "...the South African Defence Force arrived swearing and behaving like people well-drugged and drunk, ordering George to open the door. The door was blown open. Instead of opening George and Lindi ran into his bedroom, locked the door, and pushed his portable piano against it. Lindi through herself face down in a corner. George fell over her as a sign of protection. There was nothing impossible with these murderers. They blew the door open, pushed it and the piano fell against Levi's bed under which he was hiding. God spared him to tell the story."

Witnesses and survivors of the attack later opposed the perpetrators application for amnesty during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings.

Legal and diplomatic implications of Apartheid South Africa's aggression against the neighboring states.

— Additional source material to be included and acknowledged

Unless there is reason not to do so, I will edit the article to address these identified shortcomings and add the content from the adequate additional sources. Please notify me within the next 14 days if you see any reason to oppose any of the aforementioned changes - if so, please substantiate your reasoning

HartaMarta (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

HartaMarta you dont just list changes you want to make and then say unless others disagree you will make the changes, then without waiting at all you make the changes anyway!! Let others discuss and get consensus, you do not own the article and your POV is not how articles are written on wiki. You need to have legit sources for what you claim, not just your opinions. You also dont remove parts of the article that are well sourced, again, just because you disagree. I am watching this page now and if you continue this way and keep making over the 3 reverts (as you keep doing) I will report and revert it2A00:23C4:201:5F00:80B6:B5F5:7A7E:BDE6 (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

You are acting in bad faith and make unfounded personal allegations. I have listed the legit sources, which necessitate a rewrite of the article, which at this point is significantly based on inappropriate sources, such as a report by the Apartheid Security Police which is distributed via a political fanatic website which seeks to glorify the Rhodesian and South African white minority racist regimes. Again: the Apartheid Security Police is not an independent, non-biased source and such information can therefore not be included here! We have already found consensus on this issue. HartaMarta (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Background section

@Indy beetle The sentence "The South African National Intelligence Service, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Defence, and the police all favored a raid." seems semantically out of place. What is the exact context here? "Favored" over what alternative?

Hence I changed the wording to indicate that all these different entities of the apartheid South African state were involved in the operation, avoiding the semantically out of place term "favored". This seems to be preferable! DouwnsG (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure over what alternative, but I would presume the one where they do not cross over into the territory of a sovereign nation. Military actions are not inevitable. At any rate, "favored" is the word the source uses. This is not the same thing as "coordinated and carried", an assertion the source does not support. Do not alter the meaning of sourced text without either checking the source first or getting a different source which supports what is to be said. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  "Favored" is semantically out of place in the context of this Wikipedia article and it's background section in particular. The use of "favored" in the given context presumes that at least two options are explicitly mentioned. The sentence simply doesn't make any sense. DouwnsG (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, the "let's not raid Gabarone" option. "Supported" could also work in this context. It's not currently reflected here, but the raid was a response to an increase in anti-regime activities in South Africa, including a grenade attack on two MPs, so choosing to conduct the raid was a policy decision in response to such developments. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Let's not make assumptions about the motives of the white Afrikaner nationalist minority regime, especially not assumption which are based on a narrative that seeks to vilify and delegitimise popular resistance against the criminal apartheid system (internationally acknowledged as criminal via the 1973 UN General Assembly's "Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid"). A narrative which seeks to justify and excuse an attack that led to the deaths of civilians (including children) and violated International Law, can not be the foundation of a neutral and accurate encyclopaedic account of the event.

  This is not the way forward. We have to establish WP:NPOV and at the same time reduce semantic ambiguity.

  There is no reason to retain a sentence, that is semantically out of place, just for the sake of quoting one single literary source. The only substantial information contained in the sentence is the naming of the apartheid state security entities which were involved in the attack against the South African exile community in Gaborone.

  Also, the use of the term "South African forces" leads to vagueness. The issue here is that these were forces of the white Afrikaner minority government (= apartheid regime), which was an international pariah and acted without a mandate by the South African population. In fact, these forces attacked South Africans who had been forced into exile by apartheid conditions, so they could be just as accurately characterised as "anti-South African forces".

  Hence I suggest the use of either a simple descriptive term like "attackers" or alternatively "apartheid state security forces", to discern a) the South African population which has been disenfranchised by the white Afrikaner minority regime and in many cases forced into exile and b) the aforementioned apartheid regime and it's forces, which acted in the interest of an ideological minority and to the detriment of the general South African populace. DouwnsG (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• • Jeez, now I'm an apologist for apartheid? Ok. I'm well aware of the the legal circumstances surrounding South Africa's minority regime, I wrote an essay on the Namibia case for a class on international law and I've read Allard K. Lowenstein's Brutal Mandate. Also, "policy choice" is an amoral thing, do not assume I was saying "the popularly legitimate South African government responded appropriately to terroristic threats and strategically attacked confirmed evil terrorists". It honestly sounds to me like a mixed attempt to both attack people who they thought possibly posed a security threat to them as well as an attempt to murder political opponents and intimidate people. The details are fuzzy. If you don't believe my sincerity in analyzing contentious racial discourse, please see the cleanup I've done at the Rhodesian Bush War, particularly the historiography section.

As for the situation at hand, it was not destined that South Africa would attack Gaborone. South African officials had to make that choice. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that you'd have various security institutions supporting the decision to conduct the raid (and though the source doesn't say, it is perfectly plausible that other institutions didn't think that an incursion into a sovereign country would be a good idea). Knowing that the CIA supported the decision by the US to invade Iraq in 2003 is quite key to understanding how that conflict came about, and that does not necessarily mean the CIA "planned" the invasion (I don't know if they did, but I imagine that was more the work of the US Department of Defense). I thus think the info I added is relevant and useful.

As for the "South African" forces thing, I think you're attempting to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Exactly how many governments throughout history have not had popular legitimacy? Most of them. And yet we still refer to them as Xian government of the State of X. Idi Amin's regime in Uganda was built upon minority patronage and the power of the gun, and murdered thousands. Things were so bad many citizens cheered the Tanzanians on when they invaded in 1979 and deposed him. Does this mean that Idi Amin's regime was not "the Ugandan government" and his army was not the "Ugandan Army"? Sources don't seem to think so, even when they call into question his rule's legitimacy. Basically all Burundian governments between 1966 and 1993 were Tutsi minority regimes which repressed the Hutu majority. In the latter case, thing got so bad the minority-controlled army murdered the first democratically president and committed arguable genocide on two separate occasions. Does this mean we should refer to their governments as "anti-Burundian governments" and their armies as "anti-Burundian armies"? Once again, sources don't seem to think so. I could think of more examples. As a matter of clarity, I think it's fine to say "South African government forces" or similar, since they were attacking South African exiles. But I think you're injecting moral judgements by trying to suggest that the South African government simply was not South African. That it was a racist, minority dictatorship that oppressed the majority of its citizens doesn't mean it wasn't a South African government, it was just a terrible South African government. Outside of the politicised black nationalist discourse, sources I've seen still refer to this government as a South African government and its forces as South African forces. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)