Talk:44 Parachute Brigade (South Africa)

Splitting page
I suggest splitting out the info about 1 Parachute Battalion and creating its own page. Your thoughts? Gbawden (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

44 Pathfinder Platoon
I just noticed 44 Pathfinder Platoon, an almost unsourced lengthy article about a small sub-unit of this brigade. I suggest merging it with this article - there isn't that much sourced content to merge in the first place. Huon (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That content was recently split from this very page. I still don't think the Pathfinder Platoon is notable enough for an article of its own and suggest re-adding the content to this article, but significantly shortening it. Huon (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The split was done wrong anyway - at least a short summary must be left behind because a section cannot contain only a link to another article. In any case there are serious style and content problems being introduced by one or more inexperienced editors. I've raised the issue elsewhere but I might as well say it again here: The content is written like it comes from personal stories by people who are/were in the units. They mention far too many names (of non-notable people) and the "I was there narrative" style generally is not correct for encyclopedia articles. If you want to see what a military unit article is supposed to look like please take a look at South African Special Forces Brigade and Cape Town Highlanders Regiment. Roger (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Rodger, I am open to amending the split as you recommend and will commence with this in the next day or two. The reason this was split is because another Admin (GBowden) noted that 44 Parachute Brigade Wiki page was two long and hence 1 Parachute Battalion, 18 Light Regiment was split from the main 44 Parachute Brigade article. 44 Pathfinder Platoon also has sizable content and I have subsequently also commenced splitting this off. I will look at the other site references you make note of and re-hash the content according to suggested guidelines. I put the original 44 Parachute Brigade page together and as you can see from the numerous references many contributed content and there were many different styles that were contributed. Getting this all to a standard will take time but it will be done. For many months no one noticed or took interest in 44 Parachute Brigade beside admins who ripped certain pics off. I am open to working with the various admins and also seek guidance on putting content up as I have tons of pics members from the Brigade have contributed. Looking forward to with the admins and getting assistance from all Smikect 04:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be awesome, I'd be happy to help out occasionally, I'll keep an eye on developments but can't promise to be involved very much in the near term. Luckily there is no deadline <- this link is well worth reading. You can reach a number of highly experienced editors with an interest in military topics by posting on WT:WikiProject South Africa. Roger (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Roger, thanks I'll take a look at the link 91.72.134.108 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Low quality of the article
Large sections of the current article are unsourced. When sources are provided, they are mostly biased. The terms used to describe the operations of the Brigade are euphemistic and affirmative of the questionable conduct of the apartheid era security forces. Let's not ignore the fact that the United Nations Security Council resolution 264 condemned the continued presence of South African (para-)military forces on Namibian soil.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 428, which condemned the illegal incursions of South African troops into Angolan territory and the atrocious attacks on refugee camps, also has to be taken into consideration.

In it's current state the article reads like a glorification of apartheid military force and denialism of the atrocious track record of the apartheid era security force. There is no balance and no neutrality present.

To conclude: the article needs some serious re-editing to meet Wikipedia's editorial standards. CraigoGiarco (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Attempts to improve the accuracy and neutrality of the article, in light of issues that have been previously identified, were met with hostility by @BoonDock, who engages in random reversion of the article. The author, due to his openly confessed previous involvement in apartheid-era military activities, apparently wants to construe a narrative, which is motivated by a personal need to sanitize this history. Hence, we ended up with a biased article, which in it's current form mostly represents the POV of the previous Apartheid Regime, it's "Department of Information" and sympathizers of that regime and it's (para-)military.
 * This narrative fails to take into account how the international community, independent investigators and likely the overwhelming majority of people in the Southern African region view the military and paramilitary complex of apartheid-era South Africa, as forces of repression against anyone resisting illegitimate apartheid rule and occupation. This raises questions of WP:NPOV with the article in it's current stage.
 * These two UN Security Council resolutions represent the then international consensus about apartheid military and paramilitary activities in illegally occupied South-West Africa (Namibia) and against Angola, illegal acts according to International Law:
 * https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/71630
 * https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/90763
 * In order to improve the accuracy and integrity of the article, the involvement of the 44 Parachute Brigade in one of the most significant and notorious atrocities of the Southern African region, the Cassinga Massacre, can not simply be omitted. It's also not plausible to describe the event, that has been recognised and condemned by various bodies of the United Nations (see links above) as a serious atrocity and war crime against mostly civilians, as just another regular military operation. The regional and international consensus about the atrocious nature of the event, which is primarily denied by those personally involved or sympathetic to the perpetrator, has to be integrated into the article.
 * Applying the same high standards for accuracy, thoughtfulness and integrity, that we expect from articles dealing with atrocious military and paramilitary units in the context of other past repressive and authoritarian regimes (for example: Nazi SS units or Latin American death squads), there is no reason to accept a lesser quality in articles dealing with apartheid-era South African death squads and paramilitary formations involved in war crimes against civilians.
 * I suggest that we develop the article further, addressing the aforementioned issues. Also, I would like to call for @BoonDock to suspend destructive reverting. Please see WP:ROWN for further recommendations. CraigoGiarco (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you posted this here and didn't reply on the Talk:Operation Reindeer page. I can copy that across for you if you like where the stark examples of your attempt to restate things to support your particular point of view are clear, as is your use of references to sources which in no way support the statements as you've made them. BoonDock (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gbawden, @Dodger67 do you know how to get an admin involved to go deal with a dispute? BoonDock (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, my point of view is that of United Nations Security Council resolutions 428 and Resolution 264. I assume you prefer the POV of former apartheid-era (para-)militaries turned hobbyist writers, which you use as the main sources for your articles?
 * Are you implying that such are more reliable sources than academic researchers, independent commissions of inquiry and the foremost supranational bodies, the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council?
 * Again, familiarity with WP:NPOV wouldn't hurt your future endeavors as an editor! CraigoGiarco (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to wait for some neutral eyes to take a look at this, not descend to . BoonDock (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that someone with neutral eyes needs to take a look. I just don't have the time and have lost some of the passion for WP so i am not going to volunteer. I am concerned that some editors don't regard Steenkamp as a reliable source. Perhaps Cassinga needs an article of its own where the differing view points can be offered? Gbawden (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @BoonDock@CraigoGiarco@Gbawden See Battle of Cassinga which covers the controversial aspects of the topic quite well. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)