Jump to content

Talk:Givati Brigade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[unnamed section]

[edit]

Currently the article starts with The Givati Brigade is one of the IDF's infantry brigades. It was formed in December 1948 and placed under the command of Shimon Avidan.. It's not clear what the IDF is, it's not clear where and when I could find the Givati Brigade. Kokiri 13:59, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mistake

[edit]

Givati brigade of 1948 is not the same Givati brigade of nowadays. The "old Givati" brigade is now a reservists brigade #5, while the "young Givati" brigade, formed on 1982-3 just got the name of the old brigade. Flayer 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's often the way it is with military. There are many squadrons that were once this or that but are now something different. It is the history that follows the name. Proxy User (talk)


Gvati doesn't really merit the honorific "amphibious". Shayetet 13 seems to do everything involving naval-infantry tasks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.210.195 (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more work

[edit]

I've tweaked some of the wording and references, and added a few fact tags. The whole thing needs a more thorough copy-edit and more sourcing, especially for some of the more contentious material. There are also NPOV and balance issues in my view, but I'm not going to get overly involved in the detail of that if I can avoid it. Hopefully someone else can pick up some of the issues from here. --Nickhh (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santised warfare

[edit]

Just noticed the removal of any reference to the depopulation and distruction of villages in 1948. 08:41, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Givati Brigade ‎ (Seperate article required to discuss village destrcutions. The focus of this artical is the Givati brigade, not general actions taken by the Israeli army as a whole.) (Tag: references removed). ShamePadres Hana (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous anti-Israel bias

[edit]

Two soldiers accused and punished for an incident with a Palestinian boy is absolutely irrelevant for this article. Doesn't give any valuable information about the Givati brigade. It's a total nonsense.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted per BRD. You shouldn't have breeched 1/rr but you also shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. A single line (with the 2010 subheader) might make some sense. Of course, 2 out of a whole brigade? That seems a little ridiculous to highlight. Cptnono (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain me what is BRD? (I want to learn). Thanks.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It is not mandatory but it certainly helps things go a little smoother. Basically, someone made an edit. You reverted. They should have popped over to this talk page and discussed their reasoning for inclusion. Instead, three editors were reverting. We have 1/rr and there has also been accusations of editors ganging up in the topic area so extra use of the talk page (with actual interest in fixing things and not just bickering) is preferable. Cptnono (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two out of a whole brigade is WP:UNDUE and really has no place in an article about the Givati Brigade.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convictions for such abuse are rare enough in any army that they should be mentioned, it has received a fair bit of coverage. Agree with Cpt doesn't need it's own section, but perhaps in the bit about Cast Lead. Note also exonerations on such charges are in the article.--Misarxist 11:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This incident has been widely covered in the mainstream press, both in Israel and abroad; see for instance Ynet, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, BBC, Vancouver Sun, Bloomberg. There are countless more examples. As Misarxist notes above, such convictions are rare, and we note previous acquittals on similar charges. There is no case for excluding this information, so long as it is not given undue weight. Accordingly, I intend to write a couple of sentences and insert them into the Cast Lead section of the article. RolandR (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[personal attack & commentary on user redacted] How about you draft some lines both here and there since it is obviously contentious.Cptnono (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your offensive personal remarks are unnecessary and unacceptable. Please strike them out. RolandR (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with JJG and nono, this is UNDUE. I also think adding this back just after reporting someone for 1RR (with the implication of edit warring) while discussion is ongoing is pretty bad form. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above there are multiple sources so it's clearly relevant & the acquittals cases are noted in the article. Please address these arguments rather than just just reverting & agreeing with other users who also haven't bothered to address them.--Misarxist 12:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is one acquittal mentioned in the article, of Captain R, which I also think isn't necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) I did not make my edit "just after" reporting another editor for 1RR, but 36 hours later. 2) My edit was not a revert, but an entirely new edit. 3) In what way is this undue? Simply asserting this, without explaining, does not justify the exclusion of the material. 4) Considering that we have 100 words above on an acquittal on similar charges, my 50-word edit on a conviction can hardly be considered undue. If you think both are unnecesssary, why did you only remove the conviction? 5) This is clearly notable and rtelevant. There is no doubt that this will eventually be included in the article; so why edit war over this? It gives the impression that you wish to hide the case. 6) I am also considering adding details about the Givati officer suspected of blocking an inquiry into the death of a Palestinian woman;[1] would you consider this too to be undue? And what about the investigation into the head of the brigade, accused of ordering the bombing of a building in which 21 civilians died?[2]. It looks to me as though there may be sufficient basis for a section on "Criminal charges against Givati Brigade members". (Sorry, forgot to sign earlier) RolandR (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As is too often the case, editors are mis-citing WP:UNDUE. WP:UNDUE is a policy dealing with fringe, minority viewpoints, such as the concept that the Earth is flat. Two soldiers being convicted is not a fringe viewpoint—everyone agrees that the soldiers were convicted; no reliable source makes the claim that they were acquitted. Is there any actual policy-based reason to keep this information out of the article? ← George talk 13:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus, UNDUE despite what you claim, recentism and WP:ENC to name a few. The actions of individual soldiers are not the scope of these types of articles, whether they are convictions, and acquittals, listing soldiers who've won medals of valour, or discharged for being caught in the women's section on base. Unless there is consensus to have a section of such random, individual information limited to one liners and references for more info. I think that is the only solution. So the pro-Israels get the aquittal, the anti-zionists get the conviction, and historians get a few dozen Israeli military decorations#Decorations. Do American units serving in Iraq have listings for issues that soldiers have done? OTHERSTUFF might sway my opinion. --Shuki (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you interpret WP:UNDUE differently than how it is written, I would be very interested to hear about it on my talk page. WP:CONSENSUS is fairly meaningless at this stage, as we don't yet have a consensus one way or the other. Neither WP:ENC nor WP:RECENTISM is a Wikipedia policy, but something I'm opening to discussing further. I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about with regards to "pro-Israels get the aquittal, the anti-zionists get the conviction" or what it has to do with anything. Are you seriously arguing that there are reliable sources that say that the soldiers in this case were acquitted? I would very much like to see those sources.
Part of the issue I think, and you touched on this, is that we are discussing a single, relatively recent case. There are a few other notable cases involving the Givanti Brigade (a couple cases where soldiers were convicted of similar crimes in the late 1980s; and a spat of suicides in the early 1990s), and those also warrant some mention. Regarding your request for similar cases from the Iraq war, the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse article is probably the most similar to a case where a soldier was convicted of a crime and subsequently demoted. ← George talk 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
George, just an observation that certain people are only interested in inserting negative information and not don't really care to improve the article otherwise. You know, NPOV. Is that a policy or just some guideline? There are two kneejerk responses here, the 'pro' want the unit to look good, the 'anti' want to paint the unit black, and we are missing the third that can NPOV and include real relevant information. --Shuki (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, the neutral viewpoint can include negative information. The neutral path here is to include the brigade triumphs and their follies, their commendations and their convictions. Neither making the group "look good" nor "painting it black" are acceptable behavior from any Wikipedia editor. ← George talk 18:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some people broke rules. It was dealt with according to the rules. That's neutral and relevant isn't it ? The readers can decide for themselves whether that makes them look good or bad or both or neither. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the Abu Ghraib article doesn't mention the unit (372nd Military Police Company (United States)), though the unit's article does mention Abu Ghraib (unfortunately, it is about the only distinct, notable event they've been involved in -- we don't know specifically what they did in WWII or more recent deployments). So, I'd say Abu Ghraib doesn't provide a good example. There were many cases of crimes and discipline in American units during WWII which are not mentioned in their articles, as I am sure is the case with every military unit in the world. I would think that unless the only notable action of the brigade was abuse (as is the case, unfortunately, for the 327th MP Company) then I would merit discussion. Otherwise, it's simply the criminal actions of a few soldiers who happen to be in the unit. --Habap (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE, as written, directly addresses this: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints—also to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material, as well. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

Not sure who I'm replying to here, but I don't think any honest commentator can say that the two sentences that were added to this article are "disproportionate" to their overall significants to the topic. What percentage of the mentions of this brigade in the last two years are related to this incident? I would bet most. ← George talk 18:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I'm looking at several similar articles about American battalions [3] [4] [5] (I'm not an expert on the American military, these are just what I could find off the top of my head), and there is no mention of specific charges against specific soldiers. This article is not similar to the one dedicated to discussing Abu Ghraib. This is a general article about a battalion, not an article dedicated to a specific crime. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the pages on the people and units involved in Abu Ghraib (such as the 372nd Military Police Company (United States)), which do mention the controversial incidents and individuals. ← George talk 18:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There should at least be some coverage of OCL related issues as they were significant as far as RS were concerned (and the UN + others of course). OCL was a significant event in the history of the brigade. That isn't evident from the article. In addition to these recent cases there was for example, the reprimanding of Brigade Commander Col Ilan Malka for violating IDF orders by authorising the artillery attack that hit the UN compound during OCL. There is an undue weight issue but it seems to be the other way around via absence of information. Perhaps it would help if editors imagined that this article was about other organizations like Human Rights Watch or Hamas and considered whether their arguments would be the same or different. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More recentism. The brigade has more of a history than OCL which was actually a relatively short and uneventful operation.--Shuki (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eventfulness is measured with respect to the presence of information in RS. If you find it difficult to address this issue in a neutral way you should just step away from the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@RolandR. The Givati Brigade has a 62-year military history characterized by bold military initiatives, tactical achievements and purity of arms. Now you want to prominently feature a relatively minor, isolated incident that resulted in no injury to anyone and that involved just two soldiers out of an entire brigade, and under its own sub-heading to boot!? That constitues WP:UNDUE and also violates WP:NPOV--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland - It's not just the presence of the information, but whether it is notable. Perhaps it belongs in an article about the incident or about the two soldiers, but not in an article about their unit. I would feel the same way about an article on Hamas, though if people from Human Rights Watch were busily violating human rights, that might be different....--Habap (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that including this information in a separate article may be a better course. ← George talk 18:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite follow what you mean. Article content is determined by compliance with WP:NPOV (i.e. due weight) rather than WP:N per WP:NNC. As long as the information is verifiable we just need to decide whether its inclusion is merited per due weight. Perhaps that amounts to the same thing as notable in the sense that you used the word. If you haven't looked at the Hamas and HRW articles for comparison I suggest you do. They are both large organizations and they both include information pertinent to individual events and members of those organizations. The reason I picked those 2 will be obvious to several of the editors objecting to the inclusion of material in this article.Sean.hoyland - talk 19:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sean, my apologies. You are correct. I should have be arguing using WP:UNDUE instead of saying it lacked notability. I don't see a similar passage in either of those articles where the wrong-doings two low-level members receives attention. Could you identify it for me? --Habap (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember you arguing against inclusion of criticism of Human Rights Watch on that article. You also argued against including information about Mark Garasco by saying, inter alia, that it raises issues of "due weight, recentism, not news, not a battleground and all sorts of other issues" Is that what you meant? Maybe it would be helpful if you pretended this is an article about HRW. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Habap. compare the coverage of OCL in the Hamas#Gaza_War section with this article, see Hamas#Statements_by_Hamas_members_and_clerics and Hamas#In_the_USA for examples of information related to individuals of lower importance. This shouldn't be about the status of members though because weight ranking is a function of the treatment and coverage by RS rather than wiki editor imposed rankings or military ranking (..if it was about military ranking then the Brigade Commander reprimand would qualify simply on that basis and including it for that reason alone would be inconsistent with policy in my view). For the HRW article example read on. NMMNG, you are misremembering. See this edit by IronDuke followed by my edit for due weight for example and the discussion on the talk page. I didn't oppose inclusion of material related to Garlasco in the article. The issue eventually received widespread coverage and therefore qualified for inclusion. It's unfortunate that you rely on your memory rather than evidence. You shouldn't do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sean, in each of those sections of the Hamas article, the only individuals named are senior members and leaders. I'm not arguing that the information doesn't belong in Wikipedia, but that the actions of two relatively low-importance members of the unit do not indicate the normal actions of that unit, nor is it significant in the overall history of the unit (WP:RECENT). If the Brigade Commander had ordered their actions, or even if the Brigade Commander had committed the actions himself, it says a whole lot more about the unit than if two soldiers committed these acts and were punished for them. --Habap (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one has suggested that we name the individuals, the two staff sergeants, as far as I'm aware. That isn't necessary or appropriate in my view or even possible and consequently it wasn't part of the edit that was reverted. For similar information see Hamas#In_the_USA, the contents starting 'In the On August 20' and 'On February 1, 2007'. No one has said that the cases indicate the normal actions of that unit nor is there a policy based requirement for content to only indicate the normal actions of the unit. I think the question 'is it significant in the overall history of the unit ?' is the relevant question because it determines the weight but as I said, wiki editor rankings of the importance of a member of a set of things aren't relevant to content decisions. Weight can only be determined by RS. The way to answer that question is to look at how the sources treated it.
  • JPost
    • "one of the most high-profile criminal cases from Operation Cast Lead"
    • "Military prosecutors had requested that the court impose lengthy prison sentences and demote them to the rank of private for violating the boy’s human rights and the IDF’s code of “purity of arms.”"
    • "The IDF probe was opened based on information in a report compiled by a special UN representative appointed to investigate matters involving children and armed conflict"
  • BBC "It was reportedly the first such conviction in Israel, where the use of civilians as human shields is banned."
  • Bloomberg Comment by HRW "“Under the laws of war, using civilians as human shields is a war crime,” Bill Van Esveld, an Israel-based researcher for Human Rights Watch, said in a phone interview. “It is hard to see how a demotion and a short suspended sentence are adequate to the gravity of that offense.”"
I think this goes way beyond recentism. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having read your arguments and reviewed the text that was originally inserted [6] as well as the 2004 section of the article, I withdraw my objection to mentioning the convictions and punishments. --Habap (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you seriously just just describe a war that killed over 1,400 people (including some Israelis), has had more coverage in reliable sources than the Givati Brigade received over in its 62 year history, and has a longer article on Wikipedia as "uneventful"? The article on that event has 446 references; this article has 9. I'm not sure prolonged discussions on this topic will be fruitful if editors have such warped views of history and allow their own nationalistic ideals to trump the betterment of Wikipedia. ← George talk 18:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does 1400 have to do with this unit? This page is about Givati, not Cast Lead. This page is might include information, if significant, about Givati in Cast Lead. If there is nothing notable about this brigade's action, then there is nothing to include in the article except maybe a blurb about taking part, in the framework of Southern Command. --Shuki (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing with Israeli wars and other military operations (I assure you Cast Lead was not a war according to the Israeli Ministry of Defense), OCL wasn't big deal, for many reasons, not just the number of deaths (wars fought by Israel had several thousands KIA among enemy lines). Besides, this is an article of a specific brigade, so if there isn't enough information about the brigade's performance during its participation in Cast Lead, I don't see any reason to talk here about those two individuals allegedly punished for their behavior in the Gaza War. In any case, accusations of war crimes committed in OCL should be specified only here, but dedicating an entire paragraph to isolated individual crimes in an article of Givati is, at least, an edition with suspicious intentions. (My English is clear enough or too difficult to understand?)--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OCL was a huge deal. New technology and tactics is just one aspect that has nothing to do with casualties. We even have sources about this specific brigade over at that article so a few lines should be easy enough. That has nothing to do with what started this conversation, though.Cptnono (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The commander received a reprimand during the operation. That seems notable to me. A single line on it might be useful. Thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

It appears common to use insignias or other symbols as the identifying image in the lead for military units. Would the current lead image be better in the body with the insignia or flag up top?Cptnono (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any comment on this? A less contentious change might be a breath of fresh air.Cptnono (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, putting their insignia up top is a great idea. The image of them praying does not demonstrate them performing their primary mission as soldiers, so should appear only in an appropriate section. --Habap (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can use the original emblem currently used in the article or we can upload the current one and slap on a FUR. The only version I can find is a little small (top right corner). Either one work or do we need the current one for better identification of the subject?
Side note: There are some cool images over at commons. If the article is expanded those should go in. Cptnono (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask someone who has made a few before. --Shuki (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just found this at the infobox page: "image – optional – an image of the unit insignia (cap badges, tartan or colours), if available; other images may be used if this cannot be obtained. The image must be given in the form 300px; in particular, the thumb attribute must not be selected." I think we should go with one of the insignias but the flag could work instead.Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sayeret Rimon

[edit]

Anyone been following the news about this unit?

Reportedly, the unit's in the process of reestablishing itself as a pluga in Giv'ati right now, on its way to becoming a brigade unto itself some time in the near future.—Biosketch (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade? חטיבה? don't you mean Battalion (גדוד)? Poliocretes (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I meant battalion. I get these terms confused a lot, especially at the level of כיתה, מחלקה, פלוגה – I can never seem to keep track of the corresponding English terms.—Biosketch (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Givati Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Givati Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2023

[edit]

can someone please expand that last section? or at least link to something more specific than "Israel-Hamas war", please? Irtapil (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Givati_Brigade&oldid=1207433127"