Talk:Battle of Dak To

Pyrrhic?

I don't think this counts as a "pyrrhic victory", just a victory with relatively heavy casualties. I think the rule of thumb is over 30% casualties and with long-term effects. So, I'll remove the word "pyrrhic" from the article until someone complains. --71.172.37.93 (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Change in article - C/2/503 under operation Greeley

I have changed the battalion participating in Operation Greeley. I was RTO for C Company 2/503 and was with the unit when it went to the rescue of Alpha Company and the Company Commander and Company Platoon leaders were disciplined. I am my own reference. But have the members of my Company to verify this correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTOWayne (talk • contribs) 23:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Alpha Company Commander was Michael James Kiley West Point Class of 1964

The information below was taken from the following link: http://www.west-point.org/users/usma1964/25405/

"Mike was assigned to the 173d Airborne Brigade in the Central Highlands, where a series of border battles with the North Vietnamese Army was being fought. In October 1967 he assumed command of Company A, Second Battalion, 503d Infantry, a unit of veteran infantrymen, which was involved in some of the most vicious combat of the Vietnam War. In a short period of time, Mike was to earn four Silver Stars, the first one being for personally going outside the perimeter, under intense enemy fire, to rescue one of his wounded soldiers. He led by personal example and professional skill throughout his brief tenure as a combat commander. His last few days typify his life of courage, honor, dedication to duty, and love of his fellow man. Two days before Mike was killed, during fierce combat near Dak To, he was wounded by a mortar fragment through his knee. He refused to be evacuated, however, and stayed with his company. He did order his executive officer (XO) to the rear, as he had been wounded in the hand and it had become infected. The XO would return several days later to help reorganize the company (twenty-eight survivors of 101). On 19 November the battalion was committed to assault NVA positions on Hill 875 and began moving up the hill in classic two-up, one-back formation. D Company was on the left, C Company, under Captain Hal Kaufman (Mike's classmate and good friend), was on the right, and A Company brought up the rear. Before long the lead companies came under intense enemy fire, so Mike had his unit set up rear security and prepare a landing zone to evacuate the wounded. Through a series of tunnels and trails, the NVA was able to surround the three companies with superior force. Captain Mike Kiley had just been hit again by mortar shrapnel in the back and was having the wound dressed when he and his command group were overwhelmed and all were killed."

Could someone update the Wiki article identifying the Alpha Company Commander during the Battle for Hill 875 as Michael James Kiley, West Point class of 1964? —Preceding unsigned comment added by StyloK (talk • contribs) 20:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant Photo Change

Under the Section 'Operation Greeley', is a photo with the caption "The II Corps Tactical Zone, the Central Highlands of South Vietnam." This photo was previously a map that fit the description written in the caption. However, this picture has been changed to a photo of some guy named Dinesh Kaushik. Mr. Kaushik is not relevant to any aspect of this article and the caption below his picture is no longer accurate. I believe the picture should be reverted back to the proper map as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.205.24 (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Who wrote this shit?

"All that prevented the company-strength North Vietnamese onslaught from overrunning the entire battalion was the heroic efforts of American paratroopers who stood their ground and died to buy time for their comrades."

This is not at all acceptable for an encyclopedia. It reads like bad military fiction. I've tagged the page for improvement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.144.88 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2015

I agree, as a former member of Co C and B/2bn 502Inf/1st Bde 101st Abn Div, this battle was fought by the C Co/2nd/502 Inf Bn/1st Bde/101 Abn Div in 1966 not 1967, in which Cpt Carpenter called in Napalm in on his own position as they were being overrun by hard core NVA with elements of Communist Chinese. Co A and B of the remaining 502nd Abn Bn and the 1st Bn and 2nd Bn of the 327 Abn Inf of the remaining 1st Bde of the 101st Abn Div, did a sweeping action to envelop the area and capture the NVA. the 173 Abn Bde was farther south doing their own operations. YOU NEED TO GET THE FACT STRAIGHT BEFORE POSTING THEM ON THIS SITE75.88.253.207 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)MSG Wm Hesser US Army(ret).

2 datum on Hill 875

"170K rounds of artillery; 2100 missions by fighter-bombers"; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC9a6_NUC5c&index=6&list=PLavFPJ2HzjdqKOyvWVCCS__LYymKq1FZ_#t=5m23s
I thought someone might want to cut this in somewhere. --BenTrem (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Dak To. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206104454/http://www.virtualwall.org:80/units/hill830.htm to http://www.virtualwall.org/units/hill830.htm

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) 15:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Pfc Kenneth Owens

Killed in this conflict 11.22.67 Prabun1640 (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

infobox

@Fustos: - with this edit, your edit summary states "reverted in bad fait. User: Thewolfchild has not interest in talk. just wants to make additions difficult. causing possible NPOV issue. You added this content with no sources or even an explanation. You have made similar edits to 3 different Vietnam-era battle articles. Two editors tried to discuss this with you and you refused to engage in any discussion. Now you complain that "no one wants to talk to you"...? You insult people in edit summaries (instead of actually explaining your edit) and kick people off your talk page when they try to help you. Now you are edit-warring on this article instead of simply following WP:BRD. Where is your source for this content? Can you explain this edit, instead of using the edit summary feature to to WP:BATTLE with other editors? Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 11:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with User:Thewolfchild. Ignoring all of User:Fustos's other breaches WP:RS must be provided for any material change. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Diversity of secondary sourcing

While this article is particular good for a C class military history article sourced from a single historiographical tendencies basis, I can see how military historians within the tendency of US military history would well see how this article lacks an account derived from oppositional forces' historiography. In particular, the historiographical tendency of US military history conducted by, for, and within the mindset of US staff associations has a long and respectable institutional history of conducting historiography from opposing force perspectives. The account of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria is a case in point. As this article lacks a diversity of historiographical backgrounds, particularly when accounting for opposing force perspectives I think it is reasonable and adequate that we allow our readers to know the absence in our account. Our readers deserve it and we as editors deserve to admit that. Whether such accounts exist in other articles on the conflict between the RVN and NFL/PRG in the RVN is beside the point: the quality of this article is the question editorially. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. All military history articles on Wikipedia are based on WP:RS that the Users have found and used. Just because either no WP:RS Vietnamese sources exist or have been inserted into the text doesn't mean that the page is incorrect or necessarily only represents one side's historiography. If any User can find WP:RS Vietnamese accounts then they are always free to add them to the relevant page(s) and revise as necessary. However in my opinion few such RS accounts exist as most Vietcong/North Vietnamese/post 1975 Vietnamese and Soviet Bloc sources are, at best, WP:BIASED and usually WP:PROPAGANDA. If Fifelfoo's approach is adopted then practically every page describing battles of the Vietnam War would have historiography tags placed on them, which I can only see as being part of an overall strategy to undermine the credibility of US (military and non-military) accounts of all battles in the Vietnam War. Mztourist (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, aspiration is not fulfilment. While it is an ought that, "All military history articles on Wikipedia are based on WP:RS" that we both agree with, this is not the case. It is only the case when our excellent good faith editors have the time, research capacity, and research access. I fundamentally disagree with your supposition regarding my good faith, as my time at featured article review and military history reviews would demonstrate. With the example above regarding US sponsored research into the Soviet Campaign in Manchuria as an example, let alone academic research coming out of the United States based on VWP archives, ought to demonstrate other historiographical perspectives exist without falling into the trap of unscholarly historical claims and thus unreliable sourcing: we ought to inform our readers of a gap in the scholarly attention which we know of. Practically other articles having similar issues is a core example of the fallacy of wp:other stuff exists; a fallacy discarded because of its irrelevance to producing a high quality encyclopaedia; in this case to a high quality article on the battle of Dak To. This is not a question of incorporating VWP/PRG sources where they are unreliable for the wiki, but of a bias towards single historiographical tendency sourcing which ought to be recognised even when it is the currently most engaged reliable historical basis of this article—such an issue would exist regardless of whom was orange and whom was blue. I seriously think you should reconsider your purporting of faith to other editors, it does a disservice to your other arguments. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I am unconvinced by your philosophical arguments. Most histories of the Vietnam War are written from the US perspective, while as I have said above, most Vietcong/North Vietnamese/post 1975 Vietnamese and Soviet Bloc sources are, at best, WP:BIASED and usually WP:PROPAGANDA and I do not accept any equivalence between US research and Vietnamese propaganda. If you wish to revise the article based on WP:RS, please go ahead, but don't just lazily tag it and expect other Users to revise it to satisfy your perspective of historiography.Mztourist (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Your inability to differentiate a historiography focusing on an agent (for instance a history OF the NFL) from a historiography with a political bent (for instance a history BY the NFL) demonstrates your bad faith. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I have asked for assessment outside our discussion at MILHIS Fifelfoo (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I would think that a well-balanced article on any topic in the Vietnam War would consult Victory in Vietnam, the official Vietnamese history. It's translated into English and seems to be readily available. Should we take it as the unvarnished truth? No. But we also shouldn't take US government sources as such, either. Parsecboy (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to have balance and the PAVN/VC perspective on all Vietnam War pages but not to the point of contrasting researched facts with Vietnamese dich van propaganda. Having read Victory in Vietnam you're welcome to wade through the "puppets", "mercenaries", bias and propaganda to see if you can obtain some facts from it.Mztourist (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Currently we use Victory in Vietnam twice, once for purported PAVN intentions, once for purported PAVN post-operational assessments. Both are adequately contextualised by preceding OPFOR assessments of PAVN decision making, and have appropriate verbiage to indicate the reliability. (For heavens sake, Dak To as a body count victory for the PAVN?) In any case, the source I would desperately like would be [J. Unaffiliated] (2017) [PAVN and PLAF Strategic and Operational decision-making: an archival reassessment]. [Oxbridge]: COUP Press. But until we get such a source, I think it is important to use ViV for claimed intentions and assessments; much less trusting of their estimates of positive political development of NFL support for example; more trusting of political cadres sent or killed during political operations for example. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

User:Quenreerer by these edits [1] has made a number of changes to this otherwise stable page. I do not believe that these are any improvement and reverted them, opinions please. Mztourist (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

i for one think black and white pictures are an eyesore. that's why i switched with one colored one in the same page, didn't remove old. i also added, the units that partook. One of the first things i like to see when i go on a battle page is which belligerent nations and which units partook. that's why i added the units; i don't want to scroll through the whole page just to find the units and put together the force then re read. it's easier to consume knowing the units beforehand. that's why i added it to the infobox. and i was careful not to overload. Quenreerer (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree that black and white photos are an eyesore. The belligerents are clearly stated. The units were presumably not stated in order to avoid overloading the infobox. The key issue here is that the page has been stable and then you came and made various changes, I did not agree with them and reverted them but instead of following WP:BRD and coming to the Talk Page you proceeded to edit war them, which has resulted in me reporting you for edit-warring. Mztourist (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The changes i made are in line with other battle pages regarding the Vietnam war. as for the black and white photos. you're right, i should have been more specific, not all are an eyesore, but the photo in the infobox is. A viewer can barely make out whats going on. As for BRD, you're obviously miss using it. This isn't about infobox overload, as I wrote, it's in line with other similar pages, the fact seems to be that you made the page to your own taste, and now trying to force BRD to keep it the way you like it. The changes i made don't change the fabric of the page or the tone of the writing, it just makes it easier to consume. Quenreerer (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a policy that all Users must follow, you simply ignored it and edit-warred. Mztourist (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BRD misuse is also a policy. i gave the reason why my changes are needed and why they are in line with similar pages, dismantling your argument of "infobox overload". at this point, you're just contradicting and your only source is WP:BRD, which makes it a missuse of BRD. Quenreerer (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Quenreerer reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Blocked for 36 hours, reverted to prior version )

just to clarify this misleading post, because it's presented as some sort of argumentative victory. i was banned because i edited once and reverted 3 times, NOT because of your nonsensical excuses of "stability" to lock down this page. your edits and picture selection are still trash. 03:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Quenreerer (talk)

Follow WP:BRD in future and stop WP:STALKING me. Mztourist (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

again, ignoring your own standards. first you ignore WP:BRD, which you brought up and cried about (and apparently have a history in using in bad faith) NOW you're the one following me, while crying WP:STALKING. You're a manipulative, bad faith, trash editor.Quenreerer (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You have been making edits to a number of pages on my watchlist and I don't believe this is a coincidence, its stalking. I don't have any obligation to defend myself to you and note from your (recenty sanitised) Talk Page that you have in your short time on WP annoyed a lot of other Users. Mztourist (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Mztourist please follow your own standard of WP:BRD before making changes.

Reverted removal of map (mistakenly wrote flag). And vote NO on removal. Reason? Other maps are complicated, which makes it harder to find the battle location. Also, infobox is not overloaded. Quenreerer (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I haven't removed a flag, I removed a map. Is that what you are referring to? I did so because it takes up a lot of space in the Infobox and conveys minimal useful information as the coordinates are there and there is a map of South Vietnam and maps of the progress of the battle, rendering the large pushpin map redundant. Mztourist (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

corrected flag, was intending map. infobox is not overloaded, it's quite small compared to others actually. Quenreerer (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree and will open RFC Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC on pushpin map in Infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to remove the pushpin map from infobox. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the pushpin map in the Infobox be retained? Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. It's makes it easier to find in vietnam.Quenreerer (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• No the pushpin map takes up a lot of space in the Infobox, it conveys minimal useful information as the coordinates are there and there is a map of South Vietnam and maps of the progress of the battle, rendering it redundant. Mztourist (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It provides valuable visual information.HAL333 00:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Not in infobox - simply waste of article space as it unnecessarily extends infobox down. If people want to include it then it should be as a separate image.--Staberinde (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WILLIAM STANLEY CARPENTER JR

This is not even near a full story of this battle, Captain Bill Carpenter was awarded the DSC and fought wounded with a light company of 88 men. Napalm Bill, ordered a strike broken arrow on his own location, his Comanding General nominated him for the MOH and the Silver Star..

He was faced with 2000 enemies.  And destroyed them and saved most his men. Lt. General William S. Carpenter Jr is a dear friend who is modest and honorable.  John w. Nelson 2601:283:4003:9A20:910:6EB9:3CE6:10E9 (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Bill Carpenter's actions were during Operation Hawthorne in June 1966, not the Battle of Dak To in November 1967, which is the subject of this page. Mztourist (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Naming of Wayne T. Winters in Infobox photo

On the same topic, same (User:Mztourist) has insisted that the individual pictured (Wayne T. Winters) isn't "important" enough to be named without justification or initial discussion here. User:Mztourist did not follow BRD in that he immediately reverted (engaged in "back and forth reverting"), thereby not following the named process. Adding my own discussion here; I firmly disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FghIJklm (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

User:FghIJklm If you actually bothered to read WP:BRD you'd see that it means BOLD, revert, discuss. You BOLDly added his name, I regarded that as trivial and unnecessary and so reverted you and then in accordance with BRD you are supposed to "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you." But you didn't do that and just reinstated your change. Mztourist (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You weren't "specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed" according to BRD, and to the extent you were ("not important"), I firmly and unwaveringly disagree. The person literally died on the hill; the least we can do is name them. FghIJklm (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

FghIJklm Wrong, you should have come here to the Talk Page and opened a new section initiating the "D" discuss phase, but instead you edit-warred this and you continue to do so by again reinstating your edit. You also need to read WP:NOTMEMORIAL - it is not the role of Wikipedia to memorialize a particular soldier who is not independently notable. Mztourist (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Please begin the formal dispute resolution process. FghIJklm (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Notability itself is established by consensus according to Wikipedia:Notability (people). We have none. FghIJklm (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The consensus was the page before you tried to memorialize one soldier. You need to revert your change and then the next step is for you to open an WP:RFC. Mztourist (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem I see with this is the photo is from the engagement at Hill 882. The majority of fighting took place later, on Hill 875. To my mind the infobox should have a photo from 875 if it's going to have a photo at all. Featuring Winters is undue weight to the fighting on 882. Intothatdarkness 20:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, also its a low quality image clearly scanned from a book and there is no certainty that it actually depicts "Wayne T. Winters" as the photo description says "This photo looks like it is of Mahlon S Jenkins." There are a number of better images on Commons and my preferences would be [2], [3] or [4]. Mztourist (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Your photo 4 has been featured on at least one book cover and is rather iconic when it comes to 875, though I think I actually prefer the one labeled 3. In any case, any of them are a better choice than what's there now IF there has to be a picture in the infobox. Intothatdarkness 15:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I'd prefer the iconic picture because it is ... iconic. So User:FghIJklm the consensus is to replace the picture. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hm, yes, I also agree with that solution (replacing the photo). Sounds good! Thanks for your input @Intothatdarkness FghIJklm (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Image changed per consensus. Mztourist (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)