Talk:Civil Cooperation Bureau

Edits reverted

The following edits by Phase4 made 6 May 2007, 14:36 have been reverted:

• Removed Craig Williamson's name from the list of associates - no sources cited and several unproven theories on who killed Palme see these theories
• Donald Acheson reverted to Donald Acheson because the existing wikipedia entry refers to a different Donald Acheson Suidafrikaan 18:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on Craig Williamson: he's been reinserted under the "See also" section. On Donald Acheson, the TRC spells his name Aitchison. Maybe we should do a disambig on the Acheson spelling?Phase4 23:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Aitchison disambig: Good idea. Spelling on TRC records, have left it as is but is most likely a 'mis'-spelling by the transcriber. --Suidafrikaan 00:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted See also section There is no rule that I am familiar with that suggests this section must only consist of existing wikipedia articles; therefore I am re-inserting them because they provide the reader with the ability to see the CCB in a wider context.--Suidafrikaan 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See also ("compare to")

It clutters the article – nor make sense – to have a section entitled "See also" (now changed to compare to) where one can't actually look at the topic listed, because it is a redlink. According to Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also it provides "list of internal links to other articles in the Wikipedia". But these articles don't exist! Furthermore, some of the topics listed (for instance "31 Battalion") are entirely unrelated to the CCB, they were just another Batalion in the SADF during the "Border War". At the moment it's just a mass of redlink to non-existent pages basically describing anything related to the South African Apartheid era military/police... net very useful and a function better performed by categories.

Furthermore, the Guide to layout states: "Related topics should be grouped by subject area for ease of navigation." It further adds: "Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent".

I will create some sub headings and again remove unrelated links. --Deon Steyn 08:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Y I have clean up the See also section:

• Renamed to See also as per Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions
• Removed unrelated links (with edit comments in each case providing reason).
• Added some structure by grouping like links (as per Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also).
• Provided explanations of many links (also as per Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also).

--Deon Steyn 09:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Deon thanks for pointing out the 'See Also' rules. My bad.--Suidafrikaan 13:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. It takes times to stumble onto all the little Wikipedia details. I see you removed the short description of some of the links (also suggested in guidelines)? They would really help, since it's not immediately clear how some of these articles relate to the CCB. --Deon Steyn 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Youth Power

Although Jeugkrag translates literally as Youth Power the official English name of the organisation was Youth for South Africa.Suidafrikaan 15:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Jeugkrag ("Youth for South Africa") and National Student Federation which can not by any stretch of the imagination be lumped with – or classified as "similar to" – the CCB (or even Third Force). A bunch of students informing on or influencing other students is completely different to violent operations conducted by trained and armed security force personnel (assassination etc.) or arms smuggling and chemical/biological weapons manufacture. --Deon Steyn 07:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Deon

Like you I was also an officer in the SADF. We have a lot of the context in our heads. Many who will be reading this article for the first time do not. To them it may seem as if murder was the only tool that the government used, which creates the impression that the brass were just a bunch of unsophisticated, boors who only knew how to use hammers to kill flies.

The "forerunners and contemporaries" section establishes that

• There were many precedents for what the CCB was doing, not only in the military
• The military used a wide range of well-conceived tactics (viz. NSF/JK) to pursue the SP's Total Strategy
• Many of these were not conventional military operations.

I do agree with you about the way the original was phrased. The words "there were many other covert operations which were similar to the CCB" does make it sound as if JK et al were of the same type and magnitude as the CCB. What I am trying to get across is that the difference between the CCB and NSF/JK/IFF was one of tactics, not one of strategy. I will rephrase the original paragraph to bring this meaning out more completely.Suidafrikaan 18:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Force

Mandela first used the words third force in 1990, 4 yrs before he became president. see http://www.csvr.org.za/papers/papolv90.htm

=Amendments to edits by Bsrcrgrieve and others

• The changes to the goals are an improvement
• The comparison to SOE is unreferenced and casts a POV light on the organisation
• It was not a long-term project but an organisation with a hierarchy and 10 divisions as indicated in Malan's submission to the TRC

Suidafrikaan (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Suidafrikaan (Deon)

Thanks - you are right it was an organisation - it was also a long term project which I will provide you with a reference to - but hey "Tomatoes" "Tomatoes". I attended a discussion with Gen Meiring at SADF HQ, where he advised me of the modelling on the SOE - and I don't think it puts the SOE in a bad light - they were after all both successful - also if you look at the SOE page I referenced you will see remarkable similarities. The structures and goals were clear and also similar to those of the SOE. I am in process of using this information and appreciate your diligence. I was also in the SADF as I understand you were - The link I provided to Gen Malans submission should not be lost as I understand most documents are not generally (excuse the pun) available to the public through the TRC website. I also think your additions ( that operated beyond the stipulations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, resulting in the assassinations of non-combatants and civilians such as sociologist David Webster and Namibian activist Anton Lubowski; the attempted killing of cleric Frank Chikane and an unsuccessful assault on ex-Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari.) about the whole organisation operating outside boundaries is unfair unreferenced and uncalled for and puts those individuals and Special Forces members who actually conformed to the letter of the law in a bad light. Yes there were bad apples - there were in the ANC too - but not every individual was bad....one only has to read the full 28 pages from Gen Malan - as he did, I am simply trying to be factual without stirring others up...(if that is possible...).

Deon, I hope you are ok with my contribution - I think it is valuable and the comparison of aims is necessary -

I am a beginner at editing, so thanks for your help in straightening things out editorially. I will get there in the end, necessity is the mother of invention.

I am grateful for your correction - thankyou / dankie!

BSRCR 08:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

BSRCR Thank you for your response.

• I should clarify my remark "casting the CCB in a POV light" By comparing the CCB to SOE while calling the latter highly successful suggests that the CCB was also highly successful. Besides the fact that it is an unreferenced statement, judgements on the success of a military organisation are highly subjective regardless of the source making them. As you may have experienced, kill statistics may not be accurately estimated, recorded or communicated. Once they are reported in public there is invariably an element of propaganda involved. Second, when the actions of such a military organisation (the CCB, that is) are widely deeemed to be in gross violation of human rights, the notion of success cannot be dealt with without bias towards one side or the other.
• On re-looking at it I think you are quite right that the intro is unfair to special forces members who responded to legal orders and acted within the prescripts of the 4th Geneva Convention. The article needs a formulation that is both brief and balanced. Perhaps we can work on something together, bearing in mind that many known operations targeted civilians and non-combatants and therefore fall outside of the 4th convention.
• The Malan citation: I think it is preserved in footnote 12. If not i'd be happy to put it back.
• Lastly perhaps we should discuss large revisions on this page before making them so that we can avoid this.Suidafrikaan (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Deon,

Thats fine - I will consider large edits carefully first, but in the interests of free speech I don't want to feel that I have to run them through a censor - .

I will communicate with you on what I think are important aditions or large amendments.

Keep up the good work of independence - its not easy I am sure!

219.88.87.180 (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)