Talk:Operation Reindeer

Changes to avoid "Glorifying War Crimes"
@CraigoGiarco / Talk, I have now reverted edits a few times on both Operation Reindeer and 44 Parachute Brigade (South Africa) by you. I strongly suggest that you use this opportunity on this talk page to discuss these changes you want to make to either or both of those articles, so we can attempt to gain consensus on what should be different from what is already there, and ensure we do so in a WP:NPV way that is supported by Wp:RS. Your edit summaries were disturbing at the very least. BoonDock (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Just to demonstrate what we are talking about, this is what you deleted:
 * The US representative to the United Nations would later claim that the Western Nations were a week away from gaining acceptance of their plan and the raid had destroyed those efforts. As to how many people died in the raid and whether there were women and children killed during the raid depends on whose side one wants to listen too. Figures from SWAPO and the Angolan government range from 582 to 624 killed in the Cassinga raid with 400 to 611 wounded and described as a mixture of combatants and civilians. The South African government figures ranges as high as 1000 PLAN combatants killed for Operation Reindeer with 200 captured. SADF casualties for Operation Reindeer were 7 dead and 39 wounded.
 * and this is what you replaced it with
 * SWAPO and the Angola government put their estimations of the number of casualties in a range between 582 and 624 people, mostly unarmed, murdered by the apartheid paratroopers. The South African apartheid regime in stark contrast claimed to have killed 1000 "PLAN combatants" with 200 captured. SADF's own casualties for Operation Reindeer were presented as 7 dead and 39 wounded.
 * Your change is not only not WP:NPV, it is also adding a reference to support what you say which most definitely does not ay what you are implying it says, thus violating WP:V
 * BoonDock (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Have you noticed that the entire paragraph, in fact the majority of the Wikipedia article, relies on a self-proclaimed "citizen soldier", someone who has been personally involved in apartheid-era military activities against the majority population on behalf of the illegitimate (according to international and local consensus) apartheid regime? This is problematic, to say the least, regarding WP:NPOV
 * Irregardless of the biased nature of your "source", the overreliance on one source (even if we assume for a minute that the chosen source is credible and quotable) is not in line with Wikipedia's quality expectations. For further information please see:
 * WP:RS and WP:ONESOURCE
 * Obvious attempts to vilify the civilian victims of the Cassinga Massacre as legitimate military targets ("a mixture of combatants and civilians"), are not acceptable according to Wikipedia's policies.
 * I hope this helps! CraigoGiarco (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's your point of view. It's NOT a "Neutral Point of View". It's also a WP:SYNTH of what you think. Willem Steenkamp is absolutely a reliable source, but as I said, let's wait for more voices. BoonDock (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Steenkamp's own biography, he has been involved in apartheid military activities from 1958 until the end of the apartheid regime in the early 1990s. An apartheid-era career soldier, who dedicated most of his life to white minority rule and the violent repression by military means of South Africans (and Angolans, Namibians, Mozambicans), is NOT a reliable source. Are you familiar with Crime of Apartheid?
 * This is not a matter of opinion. We don't rely on people personally involved in upholding regimes characterized as "criminal" and "against humanity" by the UN General Assembly and Security Council as the main source for accurate information about such events. CraigoGiarco (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Steenkamp does not appear to be a reliable source in this context. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How is Steenkamp not a reliable source? Gbawden (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You feel that an officer of a white supremacist government is a reliable source on the alleged war crimes committed by that government against black Africans? Reliable academics seem to trust Steenkamp just about as far as they can throw him, why should we do differently? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)