Talk:Davidka

Should that say Formerly? Or is there a story about some rogue British officers. Moreover, why and did the British actually help attack a state that they helped set up (virtualyl immediately after doing so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.15.59 (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Arab Legion was originally founded and funded by the UK. When it became Al Jeish Al Arabi (The Arab Army), it still contained British officers, and it still received British funding, but it took orders from the Emirate of Transjordan. ^[1]

I would however, suggest that this part simply be deleted "In 1948, the tiny state of Israel was forced to defend itself[opinion] against the "giant" British-trained and British-led [3] professional Arab Legion.[neutrality is disputed]" William Bendsen (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Led by Glubb Pasha... AnonMoos (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The British were in favor of the Arab legion and this is well documented in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War wiki article. I suggest you remove your suggestion to delete the statement that is strongly supported by historical evidence. If you are still unsure research it before making false claims and or assumptions and then suggesting deletions. There in lies the problem with wiki politics trump facts and peoples assumptions are purported as realities. The only fallacy would be they were profesionally led. That is absurd considering the way they acted in battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.142 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The article makes the Davidka sound like a cute firecracker, yet according to a number of historians, it was often fired into civilian areas causing severe casualties. I added a reference to that effect by Khalidi. Cheers, Pedro Gonnet 11:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I read it was not an efficient weapon. But where to find this ??? If I find I add this. Alithien 08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It was horribly ineffiecient, but it could cause damage. It's bark, however, was worse than it's bite. Severe casualties would be sustained whenever any sort of artillery was fired into civilian areas, which happened on both sides. AllenHansen (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it inciteful that the Khalidi quote talks about people being "maddened with fear" by the weapon. If it had caused lots of casualties, one would think that would have been mentioned. -- Eliyahu S ^Talk 07:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article is a clear whitewash. Even DEBKAfile admits: "3. Israel’s pre-state Haganah force turned the noisy Davidka mortar into a "weapon of terror" that put Arabs to flight during the 1948 War of Independence." They liken it to the modern-day Qassams. Davidka was a terror weapon used almost exclusively against civilians. <eleland/talkedits> 21:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"a terror weapon used almost exclusively against civilians"

I don't get it. If you mean a device to scare people -- yes. If you mean dangerous -- not really, as the (lack of) casualties demonstrates. Militarily, it is arguable that in such a case, when a large portion of the "enemy" consists of poorly trained "irregulars" (read, rabble,) and/or civilians with a propensity for bloody mob activity, then this is the *best* kind of weapon -- one with low lethality but a high fear factor.

It pays to remember the context of previous Arab rioting, such as the 1920 Palestine riots, the 1929 Hebron Massacre, the 1929 Safed massacre, and the Kfar Etzion massacre. Lots of Jewish casualties were caused by Arab "lynch" mobs, as we've seen to this day (e.g. the Lynching in Ramallah in 2000.) When defenders are outnumbered by large mobs, such a weapon is appropriate to disperse them and leave the battlefield to smaller numbers of "professional" combatants. It's just strategically sound thinking, especially given the limited resources.

My "take" on the Davidka is that it was a kludge, home-brew artillery that didn't work as a militarily serious piece of hardware, and was then retrofited into a scare-tactic device for use, as I just said, to drive away irregulars and non-combatants in a relatively non-lethal way.

Not that the Haganah cared about minimizing Arab causalties, mind you, but that if it had been a serious killing machine it would have been directed at real troops like the Arab Legion. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up this badly written, badly formatted article. More sourced material would be welcome.--Geewhiz (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the difference between the Davidka and a spigot mortar besides the fact the Davidka is an improvised weapon ? Megaidler (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I think it has to do with how much of the shell fits inside the bore, but I am no expert in these matters. Whoever put the statement in the article presumably had good reasons for expressing it as it stands, and attempted to explain the difference, but perhaps was not clear enough. The linked article is of limited help. Unless you are thoroughly familiar with the principles involved, I would suggest not turning the statement into its exact opposite. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote most of the paragraph in question, and I hope that I've made things clear. If not, please let me know and I will make a further attempt. Also, I am currently only rarely logging in to Wikipedia (although I am using it extensively for research, as an anonymous viewer.) Please use the email link on my User page to contact me and I will respond more quickly. Thanks -- Eliyahu S ^Talk 11:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Jon Kimche the Haganah had 16 "Davidka mortars" on May 14 1948. Kimche, Jon and David (1960) A Clash of Destinies. The Arab-Jewish War and the Founding of the State of Israel. Frederick A. Praeger. Library of Congress number 60-6996. Page 161. Padres Hana (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a cross reference to Qassam rocket. Both are home made weapons that have played a role in this region.--Nowa (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the comparison, really. There are lots of "home made weapons" utilized in the region.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

They have been compared as having similar military value and application. Here are some references:

• During the War of Independence, the Davidka was the equivalent of a Qassam. But over time, this primitive rocket has morphed into a long-range missile.
• ...their Qassam can't help but remind us of our Davidka.

Others are available.--Nowa (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

You have anything more serious than op-eds from known partisans?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Today's Palestinian mortar is our Davidka of then Eitan Haber New York Times 2001.--Nowa (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Called the Davidka, it resembled the mortars the Palestinians are using now. San Diego Tribune 2001--Nowa (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There might be some basis for comparison if the Davidka was a rocket or the Qassam a mortar, but they're not. It's classic apples vs. oranges. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to maintain "NPOV" in an Etymology section. The only Point Of View that matters is the one of the party(ies) giving the name — in this case, the Israelis.

The purpose of an etymology is to explain how and/or why a name was applied to a person, place or thing. If the name was given by a person or persons, then their reasons, from their own perspective, are the only factors that went into the giving of the name. Their reason(s) and their perspective might have been right, wrong, or indifferent, but those are the factors behind the etymology. Arguing with their perspective is ridiculous and meaningless, because their perspective was the only causal factor behind the name. An NPOV perspective simply doesn't come in to play; they gave the name for whatever reason that they did, and arguing that their reasons were "bad" doesn't change the fact that those were the reasons behind the name.

For example, if I say that people called a certain fuzzy-faced Arab "Abu Bint" because he only had a daughter, and they felt that having only a daughter was demeaning of his manhood and wished to insult him, that's a simple etymological fact. Arguing that the term is sexist, or that it is absurd to judge "manliness" on the ability to father boys, may be true but it is also meaningless; in the view of the ones calling the Head "Abu Bint" they meant to be insulting. Period. The only etymology behind "Abu Bint" is the "insult" of fathering a daughter, and the only etymology behind the Davidka is that the Israeli inventors of the device felt themselves to be little Davids fighting against the giant Goliath. Period. Other POVs need not apply, just those who made up the name. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 23:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

what that make you be called abu butthurt coz ur harboring a lot of that against arabs lmao 37.238.75.44 (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the change by User:Seattle_Jörg regarding Albert Einstein, to wit, that Einstein was not one of the "designers" of the atomic bomb. Jörg is entirely correct that Einstein was not part of the Manhattan Project, and so I changed the intro to "proponents and designers of" where proponents is meant to refer to Einstein. While I know as well as he that Dick Feynman and Ed Teller were more important contributors than Einstein (who was not,) I referred to the two physicists that I did for two different and related reasons.

One, in 1948, Arabs would have heard of Einstein, and probably Oppie (who was the public "face" of Los Alamos while Leslie Groves was actually running things,) but would almost certainly not have heard of Feynman or Teller. Two, one of the cited sources actually mentioned those two by name, and so I went with them, even though that Arab misunderstanding would have been factually incorrect.

I hope that the use of the word proponent is sufficient to retain accuracy, while at the same time avoiding the need to make some cumbersome explanation or other and thereby give undue weight to a trivial side-note on the main article. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 21:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

In my view also proponent is too much. If you read the Einstein–Szilárd letter, which is probably the only aspect where Einstein can be said to have been pro atomic bombs, what he actually does is make Roosevelt aware of the possiblity that the Germans were researching it, and proposing to "have some permanent contact maintained between the Administration and the group of physicists working on chain reactions in America". He then insinuates that the corresponding person could secure uranium and provide funding for experimental research (on chain reactions). He does not propose that actual applied research into the construction of atomic bombs be performed, let alone that they are constructed. The reason that I am persistent in this regard is that in all other aspects of his live, he was always on the pacifist side of things, and he specifically regretted signing this letter. So I find it an injustice towards him to portray him as a proponent of the atomic bomb (even if it says here only that the Arabs had been told that he had been one). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattle Jörg (talk • contribs) 07:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

should be entirely removed its a spigot mortar, it was not a pioneering design, nothing suggest Syrian rebels were inspired by this spigot mortar to make hellfire and other improvised mortars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.238.75.44 (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)