Jump to content

Talk:Dieter Gerhardt

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

Additional Comment post Declaration of Conflict

[edit]

WP19 Comment on current status of C.O.I. Excuse the delay in replying. Have been on holiday in the mountains! Hopefully the joining of the two additional editors, namely Guillaume2303 and UltraexactZZ on the DFG post will allow some genuine progress to be made in resolving outstanding issues. As requested by the latter I confirm that litigation is not contemplated – also that I am not in the censoring business. My only expectation is that an evenhanded approach is taken to the preparation of the article with the focus of the narrative being confined to matters of real historical relevance. After declaration of C.O.I. the opening response of a newly attached editor is to question bona fides as to identity. Difficult to involve oneself in a rational biographic/autobiographical discussion under such circumstances! I repeat – I am he subject of the post DFG and have never tried to convey any other impression. Editors are welcome to contact me via email should they so wish! I personally ceased considering myself as an Editor of the post after even the most minor amendments such as correcting my Birthdates and Citzenship Status were initially undone. Subsequently I have considered my role in the formulation of the narrative being reduced to a source of additional or corrective information with changes being proposed via the “talk” page - some of which have been implemented , almost invariably with some barbed comments tacked on to the amendment for good measure. The latter, seemingly an attempt to carry over a particular P.O.V. fitting the thought template of the average white SA citizen during the Apartheid years thus perpetuating the Apartheid regimes misinformation. Narrative material in the post is almost entirely drawn from critically pro western oriented sources retaining the negative bias and projecting an unbalanced image. I purposefully refrained from proposing references from the black SA press or Russian press as they in turn were possibly overbiased in the opposite direction. From my point of view James Sanders in his book “Apartheid’s Friends” The Rise and Fall of SA’s Secret Service has done the most careful and thorough research on the subject and his narrative is by far the most accurate on DFG published so far by a credible external independent investigator who has at no stage had any direct contact with DFG Previous corrective attempts by others with actual knowledge of the subject have apparently been undone by previous editorial staff, specifically Socrates 2008 who stands guard over content like a mother hen with it's chicks.Praiseworthy, but not always helpful to the primary objective of producing an accurate Wikipedia entry derived from multiple sources including the individual being discussed. Also temporarily included content such as Nelson Mandelas letter to DFG being removed completely from the post has resulted in the current retention of it’s indifferent rating. This approach taken thus far was to be expected and reflects a pretty standard pov from certain segments of the SA (and ex SA) white community who have seemingly in most part not grasped the meaning of conciliation and Ubuntu. As an aside, for info, the following is a recent extract from the SA press Critics remind me of apartheid media – President Zuma (www.ewn.co.za, 20120625) - President Jacob Zuma claims the level of media criticism against the ANC in Government is almost the same as the way the media portrayed the party as a terrorist organisation in the 1980s. In his address, President Zuma said current media criticism of his Government reminds him of his past. “We’re almost getting back to the old days where the ANC was described as killers, terrorists, wrong people, and criminals.” But he said some journalists are self-appointed critics. “They spend a lot of time judging people I don’t know who gave them this authority.” The ruling party is expected to discuss proposed media appeals tribunals at its National Policy this week. The following is additional recommended reading for Editors wishing to have a greater insight into DFG’s early and subsequent environmental surround. 1. “Between Crown and Swastika” The Impact of the Radical Right on the Afrikaner Nationalist Movemen in the Fascist Era. By Patrick J. Furlong ISBN 1-86814-196-9 WITWATERSRAND University press (1991) 2.”Total Onslaught” Apartheids Dirty Tricks Exposed by De Wet Potgieter ISBN978 1 77007 328 9 Zebra Press SA (2007) 3.” ANC A view from Moscow” by Vladimir Shubin ISBN 978-1-77009-546-5 Jacana Media(Pty) Ltd (2008) Also a recent somewhat non-related press article of interest http://www.citypress.co.za/Multimedia/South-Africa/Watch-We-didnt-struggle-for-a-rainbow-nation-20120611 Regarding the point raised with regard to Janet Coggin’s book “The spy’s wife” being a reliable / unreliable source suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, correspondence with her agent remains unanswered (as expected) and the Publishers have indicated that the company has changed ownership. They did however kindly indicate that the book has biographical content – i.e. It’s not an autobiography! The names of real persons are absent and at most it may be considered at most as a semi-fictionalised novel. It may convey a great deal about the author’s perceptions on interpersonal relations between individuals based on her own experiences (possibly including some of those of her two subsequent marriages and partnerships ) but it says virtually nought about the cold war or the apartheid system! From my point of view The Google Classification mentioned by Socrates 2008 is considered as erroneous and the book’s content should not be used as any form of reliable reference in the post. I will leave it to the editorial staff to propose a working modus operandi on how to proceed in future with attempts to correct the current deficiencies. Most of my primary objections to the articles content have been mentioned in previous “talk” and remain relevant Regards DFG éöàä

Vela Incident

[edit]

I am unsure that the statement that "other authors suggest that newly declassified documents increase the credibility" of Gerhardt's claims mean. What documents? His claims actually amount to very little - that there was a joint exercise with Israel - but no SA ships were involved, and that he knows nothing about the exercise. That seems to mean only that it was a purely Israeli operation. If SA was involved in planning or liaison he would, as head of the main Naval Base, have been aware of the details. He says he was not. The implication also is that no SA weapons were involved. Gerhardt is about the least reliable source imaginable. But if his claims are given any weight they go against the argument that Vela was a SA nuclear test, rather than support the claim it was one. He seems to be saying that it was an entirely Israeli nuclear test.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rank

[edit]

Gerhardt was the former Simonstown base commander, and a commodore, when he was arrested. How could his rank of rear admiral be restored later? Or had he been promoted after leaving ST? He was arrested in the USA, where he was at university. Doesn't this mean that he had ceased to be base commander, and had been promoted on leaving that post? If that is the case, he was neither the ST commander nor a commodore, but a rear admiral and a former base commander. Either way, the article needs correcting.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dieter Gerhardt. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vela Incident

[edit]

Popular Mechanics may have contended "that the mystery surrounding the incident may finally have been resolved if Gerhardt were a more credible source", however Gerhardt actually gave no information about the event. He merely claims it was a "nuclear test" involving Israel and SA, but no SA ships. That is saying very little, even if he was credible.203.80.61.102 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "other authors suggest that newly declassified documents increase the credibility of his claims" needs references. There has been no release of documents of which I am aware that suggests that Vela was anything other than a technical glitch by an American satellite.203.80.61.102 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dieter_Gerhardt&oldid=1205730255"