Jump to content

Talk:Duvdevan Unit

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

Category:Israeli Combat Corps Special Units vs. Category:Special forces of Israel

[edit]

Category:Special forces of Israel is itself a category within Category:Israeli Combat Corps Special Units. — Robert Greer (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should refactor the entire structure. For example, we don't need a category for naval SF units, of which there are 1 (other special units in the navy are not SF). I think there should only be one category, 'special forces of Israel'. Also Israeli Combat Corps Special Units is not for a unit like Duvdevan, which is a command-level SF unit (not part of a corps). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125931#.U1G2PVVdUdU. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

removed unsourced

[edit]

I removed some unsourced material that may compromise OPSEC as it was insider material that is not sourced anywhere in the public domain.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duvdevan Unit. 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) 21:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-“terrorism”

[edit]

Calling the Duvdevan unit a “counterterrorism” unit basing this terminology off the IDF (which considers any Palestinian armed resistance to be terrorism) is incorrect. In reality, the dundevan unit engages in perfidy, dressing up as civilians and operating in occupied territories (where Palestinians have the full right to armed resistance - not “terrorism”) and terrorises people, extrajudicially executing suspects including those who are surrendering and murdering an 80 year old woman after raiding a town perfidiously disguised as an ambulance. This isn’t “counterterrorism”

the whole article in general glorifies this unit, it needs reworking but specifically that part The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're not basing it off the IDF's terminology. We're basing it off the description from multiple reliable sources that refer to it as counterterrorism. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are the IDF, an Israeli based source that attributes it to the IDF, and a person embedded in and romanticising the IDF.
Wikipedia already has a very rigid criteria for “terrorism” (MOS:Terrorist) which Palestinian armed resistance in an occupied territory is not. These sources are idf/israeli and Israel throws around the word “terrorist” to describe any Palestinian they don’t like
this also omits the context that this unit operates in an occupied territory and has commited acts that are considered closer to “terrorism” to what is being labelled “terrorism” in these sources The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jpost, I24News, Israel Hayom, Ha'aretz, The Foundation for Defense of Democracies etc. -- all refer to Duvdevan either directly as a counterterrorism unit, or its operations as counterterrorism operations. None of them refer to it as "terrorism" and none of them refer to it as counterinsurgency, as you attempted to edit previously. This is not "basing the terminology off the IDF". This is how following reliable sources works. Further nothing about the unit's operations in "occupied territory" is ommited -- it's a central point of the article (which needs expansion) and their undercover status and operations among Arab populations is quite literally mentioned in the second sentence. Your statement that Duvdevan's actions are "considered closer to terrorism" is not supported by any reliable sources, nor have you provided any. Inflammatory POV assertions are not helpful to this discussion. Additionally, MOS:TERRORISM is very clear that it refers to negative value-laden labels that may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject; a military unit's role being counterterrorism is neither a contentious opinion nor a value-laden label, and even if it were it's widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject; and as a reminder nothing about that portion of the MOS mentions Palestinian resistance specifically. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 15:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The first four sources are Israeli and quote the IDF which throws around the word “terrorist” like confetti, the last one is a pro Israel neoconservative think tank. Again, terrorist has a specific definition which the Palestinian resistance in the occupied West Bank does not fulfil as their armed activities are legal under international law The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A source being Israeli does not mean it is unreliable; and the assertion otherwise is frankly shocking and concerning; particularly because those outlets have already been widely determined across multiple PIA-related articles as being acceptable, let alone at WP:RSP. Regardless, your personal dislike for Israel does not constitute evidence of unreliability of the sources in question. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn’t about reliability, this is specifically about the usage of the word “terrorist”, which in the case of Israel is a blank meaningless word it throws at any Palestinian resistance
    The dundevan unit’s actions, being shooting geriatrics disguised as ambulances, and extrajudicially executing surrendering suspects aren’t “counterterrorism” just because the entity committing these acts says it is The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And cherry-picking individual examples of misbehavior as being representative of the organization's broader mission, without providing any reliable source support for your claims, is not helpful, and indicative of battleground editing behavior. These are not the entities committing these acts "saying it is", with the exception of the IDF's own self description (which is acceptable as WP:ABOUTSELF). These are reliable external sources, and your naked assertions to the contrary that they're not, and wrong, are insufficient to change the widespread (and in some cases, project-wide) consensus. There's really nothing further to discuss; I'm not going to keep repeating myself if the result is going to be IDHT. Start an RFC if you have concerns about the sourcing -- you know how this works, and you know that this is not the right way to go about it. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Classifying systemic crimes of this unit including dressing up as civilians and murdering unarmed people and elderly civilians as “misbehaviour” is nonsense.
    again, you’re missing the point. The word “terrorism” has a very specific MOS on Wikipedia which armed Palestinian resistance is not, and a perfidious organisation disguising itself as the most vulnerable groups in societies does not fulfil the definition of “fighting terrorism”
    Again, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?redirect=no&title=MOS:TERRORIST The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors aren't doing the 'classifying'. It's just a label produced by compressing labels from RS into a single term. As long as it represents a decent sampling of sources (which inevitably will be skewed towards the Israeli source end of the spectrum because the unit is Israeli) it complies with the rules. There's nothing stopping people from expanding the article to give a broader overview of this units role and activities in Palestine. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case the word “terrorist” is already controversial on Wikipedia and you’d notice that articles even on more extreme terrorist groups are hesitant to use that label
    Remember the country that is calling its operations “counter terrorism” classifies any Palestinian resistance as such, and labels people who are journalists, doctors, people who were killed days before the “targeted attack”, and single digit age children as “terrorists” The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duvdevan_Unit&oldid=1291100032"