Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Ia Drang/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Arbitrary editing

Recently Dino nam has been arbitrarily deleting cited materials pertaining to Commanders at operational control level (theater). Cited sources indicate they met in person and gave direct order to field commanders during the Battle of Ia Drang. He even deletes references used and urls which allow on line access to the documents.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The notion of "theater" is used in the Battle of Khe Sanh (C-class rated) infobox. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

  • The "citing" of user:Tnguyen4321 are in fact the distortion of the info from the source, thus constituting OR. It also should be noted that he himself was the one who removed the name of those commanders.
Distortion? which way? There was a before and after regarding the removal and the restoration of the names of those commanders with the introduction of the notion "theater". Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Making up terms like "operational control", "theater commander", which have not been mentioned by the RS themselves for a single time, what else can I call your conduct? Dino nam (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I did not make up those terms. The problem stems from your limited knowledge of US military terminology. Wikipedia tells you to write the content in your own words with cited source as not to infringe on copyright. I had already told you that I have been warned about this avoid the excessive use of quotations from non-free works. Btw: when I quoted "finish'em" you changed to "finish them". You better learn more about the Wikipedia editing culture. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material. (Wikipedia). Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The notion of "theater commander" is applied in Battle of Khe Sanh does not mean it can be applied appropriately in this article. First, it was not supported directly by the sources he cited, as I've just said. Second, in fact, if the ARVN commanders were put into the box as "theater commander", who would be their subordinate field commanders then? There were ARVN "theater" commanders, but no ARVN troops or field commanders, is that ridiculous? This problem is not witnessed in the article about the Battle of Khe Sanh. Third and moreover, even if his point somehow worked, the use of a Wikipedia article as a reference for another like what he has done would still be prohibited by WP:CIRCULAR regulation.
First, it was supported directly by the cited source. Have you done a proper verification? It was a joint ARVN-US operation; How is that "ridiculous"? I did not use a Wikipedia article as a reference, just a "precedent", a model since the Battle of Khe Sanh has been rated A-Class. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • First, you have the burden of proof. I have given evidence to prove that you've distorted the source. In contrast, I have asked you to provide full text (on this talk page, not the article), but the only rep is your refusal.
  • Second, joint ARVN-US operation, so what? Operation Junction City was also a joint ARVN-US operation, but in the Battle of Ap Bau Bang II, which was part of the operation, the ARVN was still not a belligerent.
  • OK so stop talking about Battle of Khe Sanh here. It's just irrelevant. If you're right here, in this context, then the info will be retain; if you're wrong it will be deleted. The other articles have nothing to do with this. Dino nam (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • He blames me for deleting the cited materials, but what he has done is just the same: he has deleted my materials cited from Vinh Loc, page 119. Dino nam (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Your cases and my case are not that similar. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
How they aren't similar then? Dino nam (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, I give up again dialoguing with you. You know why. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Insertion of South Vietnam in infobox

If nobody objects, I propose to put the following into the infobox:

"Supported by:
 South Vietnam" Dino nam (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you copy catting my format? You should ask Tiderolls if this is the way he wants you to do. In your case you should make a formal RfC, after withdrawing your current RfC.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC (renew): ARVN involvement

There is no consensus in this RfC. I recommend that editors open a new RfC as suggested by Tnguyen4321 if the dispute is still unresolved. Cunard (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Please comment about whether South Vietnam should be included in the infobox as a belligerent. user:Tnguyen4321 tried to add it, but through using distorted materials from the RS. I think this constitutes OR. Dino nam (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: @Tide rolls: I really hope to see your opinions there. Dino nam (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - Based on the sources, especially Moore, Kinnard, and Vihn Loc, the ARVN only played a supporting role in the battle and did not directly engage the NVA/VC themselves. If they are added to the infobox, it should note their role. I wouldn't exactly call it OR, but it is a misinterpretation of the sources. However, the ARVN did play a significant role in other battles of the Pleiku Campaign. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
ARVN II Corps Command was involved in the Battle of Ia Drang at the operational control level (which is more than a supporting role), not at the operational command level, just like 1ACDF CP (involvement nevertheless). The operational command was held by LTC Hal Moore over 1/7, 2/7, and 2/5 AC at LZ X-Ray, and by Captain McDade over 2/7 AC at LZ Albany. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - This RfC is not well formulated by Dino nam, it is a "non lieu" and should be dismissed. Here is why: there are two different sections in the infobox: Belligerent and Commanders and leaders. Dino nam and User:Sturmgewehr88 appear to have no problems with the ARVN involvement, only with its role which should be addressed in the second section, Commanders and leaders. Re: commanders who did not play a direct role in the two battles at LZ X-Ray and Albany (Vinh Loc, Kinnard, Chu Huy Man, etc.), their names have been removed.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not just about the commanders. Chapter V of the book Why Pleime gives no accounts of any ARVN action at the Ia Drang Valley from 27 Oct to 17 Nov. The book does describe ARVN involvement in other phases of the campaign, but that's another story, because this article is about the battle (14-17 Nov), not the campaign. user:Tnguyen4321 has given sources to "prove" the participation, but his info, as User:Sturmgewehr88 has indicated, is misinterpreted and distorted; it's not reference but self-made derivations, which constitutes OR. For instance, user:Tnguyen4321 has talked about "joint ARVN-US task force", a phrase which is not mentioned by any source he cited for a single time. In fact, he rudely refused every time another editor asks him for the full text from the RS he cited. Dino nam (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You contradict yourself: Please comment about whether South Vietnam should be included in the infobox as a belligerent (section Belligerent) and It's not just about the commanders (section Commanders and leaders). You should removed this badly formulated RfC and replaced it with a better formulated one. As Tide rolls advised, seek help in its formulation if needed. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You still don't get it, do you. II Corps Command took an active participation in the campaign and the battle of LZ X-Ray and Albany. I gave you specifically two instances of ARVN involvement at LZ X-Ray with RS: II Corps Command gave directly (not through his brigade commander) to Moore the intelligence in Mandarin about the enemy's situation the eve of the air assault. II Corps Command made sure the enemy did not position anti-aircraft guns and heavy mortars on hillsides overlooking the landing zones. Besides II Corps Command made up the operational schedule for the entire campaign including the battle at LZ X-Ray and Albany: All the Way, Silver Bayonet I, Silver Bayonet II. II Corps Command specifically determined and arranged for the Nov 14 air assault, the Nov 15 B-52 strike, the Nov 16 withdrawal of 1/7 AC, the Nov 17 withdrawal of 2/7 AC to LZ X-Ray, of 2/5 AC to LZ Columbus, the Nov 17 B-52 strike over LZ X-Ray. Are these facts enough to prove the ARVN involvement not only in the entire campaign but also at the battles of LZ X-Ray and Albany? As a matter of fact, you cannot separate the Battle of Ia Drang from the campaign. Its raison d'être was the entire campaign. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You are making false accusation regarding the matter of request of full reference that I had already given you a response and don't see the necessity to repeat it here. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Some clarification and precision concerning the modus operandi adopted in the joint ARVN-US Pleime campaign: ARVN II Corps Command had the operational control for the duration of the entire three phase Pleime-Chupong-Iadrang campaign. US IFFV Command had the operational control over 1ACD. At the Pleime camp, Major Beckwith had the operational command; at the ambust sites, LTC Luật had the operational command. During the Battle of Ia Drang, the 1ACDF CP had the operational control, LTC Hal Moore had the operational command over 1/7, 2/7 and 2/5 at LZ X-Ray, Captain McDade had the operational command of 2/7 at LZ Albany.During the Silver Bayonet II/Than Phong 7 operations, II Corps Command assumed both operational control and command over ARVN Airborne Brigade; Captain Tullly had the operational command over 2/5. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you don't only understand what Tiderolls has said, but also fail to even understand what you yourself are talking about. There's nothing conflicting between clarifying whether the ARVN was a belligerent and whether its commander[s] should be in the "Commanders and leaders" box or not. I'm here talking about the former, and it's irrelevant when you bring suddenly bring the latter into the discussion and claim that it's contradicting with the former.
  • The only thing that I and user:Sturmgewehr88 require you to clarify, is the full text of the sources you've given, not your own wording. But the only replications are repetitive refusal. It just further prove that your claims are baseless and are not explicitly present in the RS you've cited. Dino nam (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
These two paragraphs are out of place, which is for others to comment about whether South Vietnam should be included in the infobox as a belligerent. Please move it to its proper place and just reformulate another RfC. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Irrelevent comment and strike.Dino nam (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
checkYHope you heed to the following advice: Also, do not edit other's comments as you've done a few times to Tnguyen4321's. The proper way to "strike out" off-topic or inappropiate comments is with Template:Hat. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC). Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hope you too. Dino nam (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
That advice was not addressed to me. It only concerns you in particular.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Don't say it's not for you when you have done the same. Dino nam (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Incorrect point. The Kingdom of Laos participated in the Battle of Ban Houei Sane, which is considered part of the Battle of Khe Sanh. The suvivors from the camp at Ban Houei Sane even were present at the Battle of Lang Vei when the Lang Vei camp was attacked. It's totally different from this case, in which the South Vietnamese had no combat troops in the Battle of Ia Drang. Dino nam (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - How about: the Battle of Ia Drang is considered part of the Battle of Pleime? The camp of Ban Houei Sane is not even on the soil of South Vietnam. The Battle of Lang Vei is not the Battle of Khe Sanh. The Laotian from the camp at Ban Houei were present at Lang Vei camp as survivors, not as combatants, as participants. There were no Laotian troops - and especially Laotian commanders - of the Republic of Laos at Khe Sanh. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 07:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The infobox of the Battle of Khe Sanh provides a very simple word that would help any layman to understand the US military term "operational control" that I have not been able to explain to Dino nam: (theater). I hope Dino nam finds it self-explanatory and close this futile RfC. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - The North Vietnamese Communist staged the attack of Pleime from Chu Pong-Ia Drang. The South Vietnamese staged the counter-attack of Ia Drang Valley with the American assistance from the ARVN II Corps Headquarters. Isn't it silly to question the presence of the ARVN as belligerent and deny the introduction of the South Vietnamese flag in the Belligerent infobox? No wonder there is so far quasi no comments from other editors. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 08:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Based on the comments, especially that of user:Sturmgewehr88, I think it's possible to keep South Vietnam in the box, but their units (intelligence and supporting units) shall be added to the "Units involved" section. That would be the best compromise among the different opinions stated here. Dino nam (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I think I should change my opinion a little bit. As user:Tnguyen4321 has claimed, there are no "supporting units". In some degree, I was wrong because the source only says "joint intelligence and supporting activities". So I think I should change it into the format as such is much more appropriate:
Supported by:
 South Vietnam
This will fit the meaning of the sentence in Vinh Loc, page 119 by the most.

p/s: I've restored this RfC as suggested by user:Tide rolls. Dino nam (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you have changed your mind in thinking it's possible to keep South Vietnam in the box, but their units (intelligence and supporting units) shall be added to the "Units involved" section, what is exactly your RfC about? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
OK for clearance, South Vietnam can be put to the box but in a specific format, as a concession to your stubbornness. It's you who have claimed that "supporting units" is not a right thing, so I change it. If you claimed that this means the RfC is unnecessary, then OK I'll close it but I will still retain that it should be written as a "supporting" belligerent. Dino nam (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
That's not what you are asking the other editors to comment on: "Please comment about whether South Vietnam should be included in the infobox as a belligerent", not a "supporting belligerent". You need to withdraw this RfC and make up a new one, if that is what you want the other editors to comment on. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321: I'll agree to close this, but you have to agree with my newest proposal, otherwise you have to reason your point. The other editors would not allow editing before reaching consensus. Dino nam (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't ask you to close it (Tide rolls told you: "You cannot close an RfC in which you are involved unless you withdraw the request" ). I only suggest that you withdraw it and make a new RfC on your idea of "supporting belligerent" - that by the way appears silly and uncalled for in the infobox space. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2016 (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.

Prima Dona Complex

During the Pleime Campaign, General Vinh Loc, General Kinnard and General Knowles (specially Kinnard) jousted for the highest seat in the commanding hierarchy totem (see General Westmoreland' history notes @ http://www.generalhieu.com/iadrang_westmoreland_notes-2.htm). 72.89.83.175 (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC) oops forgot to sign. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: I placed the tag because this needs to be explained in the article; the average reader will see the term and have no clue what it means and would not check the talk page. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Linking to Prima donna would also not be helpful. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Fine, I just remove it.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Or do you prefer to keep it in the article with an explanation in the article itself?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321: Yes; if I wanted it removed I would have removed it instead of leaving a tag. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. But before I rewrite it, may I ask you to do it instead. You would phrase it better than me and the average readers would understand it right away.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Synthesis again?

I think the info in the section Battle of Ia Drang#General Westmoreland's crucial role are synthesis. User:Tnguyen4321 put info from various RS together to make a conclusion that the air strike must involved him. Dino nam (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope. The main source is Melyan, Wesley R.C. (15 September 1967). Arc Light 1965-1966. HQ PACAF: Checo project, Tactical Evaluation Center, backed up by General Westmoreland's History Notes (29 August-29 November 1965).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
"If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." - WP:SYNTH Dino nam (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
"Westmoreland's crucial role" is not a conclusion from the synthesis of various sources. It's in Melyan, Wesley R.C. (15 September 1967). Arc Light 1965-1966 which states: "COMUSMACV was the approving authority for B-52 airstrike".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The source neither says "Gen Westmoreland had had a crucial role" nor that the ARVN III Corps had the "intention" to bomb the area. In fact, McChristian, page 6 says that intention was of the J3 MACV, meaning that you've conducted an OR again. Dino nam (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
In your particular case you should ask for comments re: your opinion of 'synthesis' from other experienced editors in the talk page and get consensus prior to editing or tagging a template at the article page.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
A tag doesn't need consensus to insert; it's you who need my consensus to remove it. Moreover you've got the intention to wage edit warring by reverting my tagging. Dino nam (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I won't mine if you used the tag (disputed, discussion) but not this tag (synthesis) which implies that there is an OR. In your particular case (of an inexperienced editor) you to have to establish there is a synthesis and get consensus from more experienced editors (as Tiderolls had warned you) in the talk page first.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You're showing you yourself are the one who lacks experience. Anything suspicious can be tagged for further discussion. If someone has consensus that it is synthesis, the result is complete deletion, not a tag, because the thing is prohibited by Wikipedia. Dino nam (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, I only know that an admin had told you he is convinced you are not qualified to edit in this article (that is why he warned you to seek help from experienced editors and in your editing and get consensus before editing something. You are right in claiming that tagging is not editing; then, please, be logical in not accusing that removing a tag is engaging in war editing and demand others to get your personal permission. Furthermore, your assertion that "Anything suspicious can be tagged for further discussion" is right in general, but not in your case of an "inexperienced editor" who has shown to perceive anything coming from me to be suspicious and engage in tagging abuse behavior toward me. Again, don't you see other editors so far have not behave like me toward me (not that they don't care, mind you, or less keen or intelligent than you; they so far have shown disinterested regarding your multiple RfCs, haven't they)?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Before you used the theory of OR and created havoc to the article, are you now attempting to do the same harm with your theory of SYNTHESIS -which is another word for OR?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
You did conduct OR and SYNTH and it has been proven by other editors on this talk page. And now you are conducting it again. Dino nam (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any synthesis, but I removed the word "crucial" from the section title as that wasn't claimed by any sources. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You beat me to it: I intended to substitute "crucial" with "major or significant or key or highest approval authority" role to avoid the appearance of OR/synthesis. But strike it out altogether as you did seems better.72.89.83.175 (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC). Oops forgot to log in. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sturmgewehr88:
What about this:
  • "The ARVN II Corps' intention to use B-52 airstrike to destroy the NVA B3 Field Front forces in the Chu Pong-Ia Drang complex[1]"
But when you check the source here,[1], you'll see no info stating that it was "ARVN III Corps' intention". It says that it was J2 MACV's intention. This can be nothing else but an OR. Dino nam (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In September 1965, prior to the Pleime attack in October, the J2/MACV's intention was to bomb the Chupong bases only. The idea of destroying NVA B3 Field Front forces along with the bases was the ARVN II Corps intention. The planning of the ground/air combined operation only started after the Pleime attack with Operation Long Reach. That is why the B-52 airtrike operation was named the Plei Me/Chu Pong campaign.72.89.83.175 (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC). Oops, forgot to log in. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
First, that story is not stated in McChristian, page 6. Second, even in case it was stated in another RS, such conclusion you made would come from two different sources, meaning that it would be a synthesis. @Sturmgewehr88: I think you should make a point on this. Dino nam (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Again, I don't see synthesis; there is a possible OR or weight issue if there's no source that states that II Corps had separate intentions than MACV. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In one sentence he has used two different sources (McChristian, page 6 and Meiyan, page 18). From those sources, he has reached a self-made conclusion that the "intention to use B-52 airstrike to destroy the NVA B3 Field Front forces in the Chu Pong-Ia Drang complex required the direct involvement of General Westmoreland". This is why I claim it a synthesis. Dino nam (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Did the II Corps independently identify the NVA B3 units as a target? If yes, then there is nothing wrong with the statement. Any desire of theirs to use American air assets would have required authorization from the American officer in command of those assets, which is a fact. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the II Corps did. In general, the B-52 targets were identified by the J2/MACV then the J3/MACV notified 3A/SAC bombardment Wing for the strike. In the Pleime/Chupong case, II Corps identified the targets with its intelligence source (from J7/JGS), monitored the movements of the mobile targets and arranged for the scheduling of the strike then had the J3/MACV notify the 3A/SAC at the appropriate time to execute the bombing (the targets are fixed by the insertion of 1/7 AC and remain immobile to accommodate the slow reaction of the B-52 bombers). Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Please specified the RS (including pages) from which you've got the above info. Dino nam (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
This is side-bar discussion in the talk page, not the content in the article page. Please make an effort to gain a deeper understand of the editing process of Wikipedia so that not to make unreasonable request such as this (you are expecting verbatim quote, while Wikipedia wants to use your own words for copyrights concern. I have said this several time in the past to you, but you don't seem to quite understand). Again I don't want to argue with you until I am blue in the face.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a content discussion which you are attempting (unsucessfully) to deflect by hiding behind the wrong Wikipedia guideline. Wikipedia wants you to "use your own words" in the article; if something is being disputed it is more than welcome to be verbatim-quoted on the talk page. It is not an unreasonable request at all, after all that's the entire purpose of WP:RSN and WP:ORN. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Dino nam are talking about RS to this "In general, the B-52 targets were identified by the J2/MACV then the J3/MACV notified 3A/SAC bombardment Wing for the strike. In the Pleime/Chupong case, II Corps identified the targets with its intelligence source (from J7/JGS), monitored the movements of the mobile targets and arranged for the scheduling of the strike then had the J3/MACV notify the 3A/SAC at the appropriate time to execute the bombing (the targets are fixed by the insertion of 1/7 AC and remain immobile to accommodate the slow reaction of the B-52 bombers).", not to the content in the article. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Look, I don't ask you to provide the exact words from the source; I ask you the name of the sources and the pages where they state such, so the others can check it for you, as a requirement of the WP:V regulation. Please try to understand language before claiming that you understand the Wikipedia rules. Dino nam (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
As I already stated and reiterate here: This apply for sources of material posted in the article, not info mentioned in a side-bar discussion of the talk page.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't we stop this discussion here since Sturmgewehr88, whom you asked for help, had already rendered his verdict, "I don't see any synthesis"?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

No, while there may not be synthesis, I'm beginning to suspect undue weight on the part of the ARVN. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
So be it. But now the burden is onto you to prove there is "synthesis" (use A and B to come up with a C conclusion that is not stated in A and B). Please keep in mind that you have deleted the word "crucial" that was suspected to be a conclusion in Dino nam's mind. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Otherwise, if you want to discuss something else than "synthesis", then please open a new section for that topic.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Terminology in B-52 airstrike

There are several special terms used in reference to B-52 strike that are unfamiliar to the average readers. Some look alike, but have a different meaning such as B-52 airtrike and B-52 airtrikes; B-52 airstrike program and B-52 airstrike missions. I don't want to appear pedantic and don't want to make a fuss about this matter. I think it is ok in the Wikipedia space.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but the only difference between "airstrikes" and "airstrike" is that one is plural and one is singular. There is no such thing as an airstrike "program" unless we're talking about a research program for munition development/testing, which we're not. We're talking about airstrike missions, AKA sorties. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Let's put aside the difference in meanings of the word in question in singular and in plural (to avoid engaging in a possible lengthy semantic or grammar debate), and consider "B-52 airstrike program". It is not my invention, it is Westmoreland's own expression. Allow me to quote him: "I discussed the B-52 strike program with General Co and specifically insured that he was aware of the strike scheduled for 2 September on Ho Bo Woods and the ground follow-up by an element of the 5th division." (General Westmorland’s History Notes (29 August-29 November 1965), Sunday 29 August).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Westmoreland was definitely not discussing "munition development/testing" with Co. Furthermore allow me to point out that you err in stating that "missions" is AKA "sorties". In Wesley R.C. Melyan, Project CHECO report, Arc Light 1965-1966, 15 Sep 67, it is noted that the B-52 airstrike achieved:
  • -In June, one mission (p.14)
  • -In July, 6 missions, 147 sorties, dropping 2,811 tons of bombs.(p.14)
  • -In August, 10 missions, 169 sorties, dropping 3,232 tons of bombs. (p.16)
  • -In September, 20 missions, 326 sorties, dropping 6,227 tons of bombs, (p.21)
  • -In October, 23 missions, 292 sorties dropping 5,577 tons of bombs. (p.21)
  • -In November, 39 missions, 296 sorties dropping 5,654 tons of bombs. (p.23)
  • -In December, 39 missions (p.29), 306 sorties, dropping 5,368 tons of bombs. (p.14)
It is interesting to point out that Vinh Loc did not use the term "missions" but "bombardments" instead ("the B52 stratofortresses had also taken part in the battle with five daily bombardments of the Chu Pong massif")(p. 92) and 96 sorties (p. 97).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

In light of these clarifications, should I leave alone your edits or reverted them or you will revert them instead? As I said I don't want to make a fuss of this. I leave it to you. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of Roles of ARVN and US at Pleime Campaign and Battle of Ia Drang

  • During the entire Pleime Campaign (Pleime phase, Chupong phase and Iadrang phase), the ARVN II Corps Command (Vinh Loc) assumed the role of operational control (shared concepts of operation and intelligence) together with the US 1ACD FC (Knowles). In the Pleime phase, the ARVN Armored Task Force (Luat) assumed the role of operational command and the US 1st Air Cavalry Brigade (Clark) the role of support. In the Chupong phase (Batlle of Ia Drang), the US 3rd Air Cavalry Brigade (Brown) assumed the role of operational command without ARVN supportive role. In the Iadrang phase, the ARVN Airborne Brigade (Dong) assumed the role of operational command and the US 2nd Air Cavalry Brigade (Tully) the role of support. That is the ground battlefront; if you take into consideration the air battlefront, then the ARVN JGS Command (Thang)assumed the role of operation control (shared concepts of operation and intelligence) together with the COMUSMACV (Westmoreland), the 3AC/SAC (B-52 Bombardment Wing) assumed the role of operational command while the supportive role was assumed by the ARVN II Corps Forces (Vinh Loc) together with the US 1st Air Cavalry Division (Kinnard).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It must be repeated that what you've claimed below does not go with any supporting materials from any RS (the term "operational control" is not mentioned in the RS for a single time); it's simply self-made derivation and should be considered OR. Presuming your so-called "definition" was right, then Ho Chi Minh, Lynndon Johnson, and the South Vietnamese president would have been considered those who really obtained operational control. I must also repeat the definition of operational control by the US DoD.[2] None of the ARVN commanders satisfied this definition (in the case of this article), because they had no "subordinate forces" to command.
  • You have to understand "operational control" in the context of Pleime, not recent US DoD definition. About "Ho Chi Minh, Lynndon Johnson, and the South Vietnamese president", you have to consider the "theater vs local" commanders notion. Westmoreland, for example should be in here. But then we are discussing about editing the section "Belligerents" of the infobox, not the section "Commanders and leaders". Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong. Just google "operational control versus operational command", you will find plenty of RS, i.e. https://www.army.mil/article/38414/Understanding_OPCON.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321: Interestingly, the source that you yourself have given states this: "OPCON "is the authority to perform those functions of command over subordinate forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission."" Dino nam (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Because there's no other reliable info from the RS to support the participation of the ARVN in this battle, except Vinh Loc, page 119 (mutual "intelligence and supporting activities" throughout the campaign), then concluding the role of South Vietnam as supporting is the best acceptable solution. It moreorless satisfies the WP:BLUE rule.
  • "In the Chupong phase (Batlle of Ia Drang), the US 3rd Air Cavalry Brigade (Brown) assumed the role of operational command without ARVN supportive role." → According to this point made by you yourself, South Vietnam must be removed from the infobox of this article immediately. Dino nam (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321: see Mission Command. The ARVN was not directly involved in ground or air combat operations at the Battle of Ia Drang; they had a supporting role. You are getting the battle mixed up with the campaign. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
No I am not. In this matter you are referring to the wrong protocol Mission Command. In the Pleime Campaign and the Battle of Ia Drang the particular protocol adopted in the joint ARV-US operation specified: "The operations had been conducted through a close cooperation between ARVN and US Forces: that was the latest procedure ever put into application since the second World War. It is characterized by: - Joint intelligence and support activities; - Commonly-shared concept of operations and results; - Separate TAOR; - Separate command; - Separate deployment of forces; - Separate conduct of activities; - Separate reserve. The above procedure has brought many good results, especially in a country such as ours where the psychology of the people is charged with complexities and subtleties. I also find in that procedure a real competitive spirit between the two armed forces and between units." (Why Pleime, page 119) Both in ground and air operations, the ARVN got directly involved in the design of the concepts of operations and the providing of intelligence (from J7/JGS. At that time the American intelligence apparatus lead by BG McChristian, J2/MACV was still in its infantile development stage; He lacked Mandarin dialect intelligence specialists). Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321: I referred to Mission Command (which was only invented in the last 5 years) because it falls under "support". The same with Military Intelligence; they support the mission. Unless the ARVN has a Combat Arms unit on the ground and actively engaging the enemy at the Battle of Ia Drang, they were supporting the American units. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
We are talking about Pleime here. The ARVN II Corps Command assumed the operational control of the battle as well as the campaign and of the ground as well as the air operations because it carried out the concepts of operation (planning) and detained the intelligence source; it was nevertheless a "command" role, rather than a "support" role. The ground "support" role you are referring to here pertains to the other roles of "Separate TAOR; - Separate command; - Separate deployment of forces; - Separate conduct of activities". I know, it is hard for an average reader to grasp the nuance in these special military terms that changed even with time from the Pleime period to the last 5 years, similar to the notion of "Prima Dona Complex".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321: Whatever you say, it must be refered to in any RS to be legitimate, instead of baseless self-made derivation like you're doing. Dino nam (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Didn't I always provided RS? Your assessment in this case shows that you still are an inexperienced editor who needs to seek out help for experienced editors in your editing.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Look, Dino nam, I don't want to have to go through arguing with you until I am blue in the face again.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you give us RS in your citations and self-made stuff in the contents. Remember that you're the only person here who thinks you're right, so forget about "experience" stuff. Dino nam (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321: We are not talking about Pleime here, this article is for the Battle of Ia Drang, which the ARVN played a supporting role in. Yes, during the overall Pleime Campaign they were equally a belligerent, except during this battle. As I said before, you are mixing the two up. You have sources for one and are trying to use them for the other, but it doesn't work like that. The II Corps did not have combat units engaged at the battle and they were not in command of American units, therefore they were only supporting the battle. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I hear you. I am also talking about the Battle. And you are been mixing the two sections "Belligerents" and "Commanders and leaders" of the infobox. We have already established that ARVN should be inserted in the "Belligerents" section box, right? According to your argument you might as well removed the presence of the ARVN from that section altogether.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you admitting that in "Belligerent" aspect, South Vietnam only played supporting role?
  • "Belligerents" and "Commanders and leaders" are interrelated. If there's no subordinate force, there's no commander. [3] Unless you were able to point out the exact unit(s) which those ARVN commanders are in charge of, your ideas would be nonsense. Dino nam (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No.
  • In the Battle of Ia Drang, which is a joint ARVN-US operation, ARVN II Corps Command played the role of co-operational control with US 1ACD FC (the reason why General Knowles' Headquarters was co-located with II Corps Command's Headquarters, Pleiku and not at US1ACD's Headquarters, An Khe, which was nearby. The ARVN II Corps Command planned and co-executed the Battle of Ia Drang (it dictated when to insert the 1/7 AC, when to have the 2/7 and 2/5 AC reinforced and how (by air or and foof respectively), when to withdraw the 1/7 AC on 11/16 to camp Halloway, then the 2/7 and 2/5 AC on 11/17 to LZ Albany and LZ Columbus respectively; all those ground maneuvers in coordination with the 5 day B-52 airstrike scheduling commencing with the first bomb drop at precisely 1600 hours on 11/15, and eventually at LZ X-Ray on 11/17, when to have the ARVN Airborne Brigade take over the fighting starting 11/18, etc). That's command stuff not support stuff.
  • I can't believe I am still been able to talk to you when I am blue in the face already. Less both stop arguing to each other - we had said enough to each other - while waiting for comments from other editors, will you? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I will because it seems that everybody now see what kind of "source" your points come from; I don't need to talk anymore because you've show up yourself. The only person who won't give up arguing here is you. Dino nam (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
A dirty blow under the belt before agreeing to arbitration? Whatever. Great, anyway.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Insertion of South Vietnam

This RfC was closed as it seems that after one month there is consensus for the proposed use of "supported by" in the infobox to describe the role of South Vietnam. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Because South Vietnam only played supporting role, without any particular description from any RS. I suggest that we should insert it into the box like this:

United States United States
Supported by:
South Vietnam

Please leave a comment about this if you have one. Dino nam (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

In this battle ARVN II Corps Command co-command the operation with US1AC FC at operational control level as indicated by the special modus operandi adopted in this operation. The US 1st Air Cavalry Division was attached to the ARVN II Corps, not the other way around.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - From my fairly quick read through the article, the first sentence of the lead informs us that the article is about the actions at LZ X-Ray on 14-15 November, and LZ Albany on 17 November. The article then goes into great detail about these actions, in which there is no mention of any ARVN contribution. The first mention of any ARVN contribution appears in the Aftermath section, with the deployment of the ARVN Airborne Brigade at LZ Crooks on 17 November, which did not see any action until 20 November, i.e. 3 days after the timeframe of this article, based around a location which the Americans moved to once the battle described in this article was over. Relevant wikipedia policy and guideline in this matter can be found at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects and MOS:INTRO (specifically the section on Relative emphasis, and bearing in mind that the infobox is part of the lead). FactotEm (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You did not take into account the air action. The 5 consecutive day B-52 airstrike from 15 November to 19 November with a direct strike at LZ X-Ray on 17 November was planned and dictated by the ARVN II Corps Command. This air operation was named Plei Me/Chu Pong Campaign.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. I've read the discussion below, but I don't understand what relevance the wider campaign has, other than setting context, to an article which is quite clearly limited in scope to a specific battle within that campaign. FactotEm (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Try to understand that the air action and the ground action were co-ordinated. The 1/7 Air Cavalry Battalion was inserted at the LZ X-Ray to fix the target for the B-52 airstrike. It was withdrawn on 16 November to allow the B-52 bombers to strike the LZ X-Ray. And it was the ARVN II Corps Command who planned and scheduled the B-52 strikes in coordinating the air and ground actions.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the other editors have been very accommodating in trying to reach consensus. If the only ARVN role was one of command then a mention in the Commanders section is justified (though personally I'm still not convinced that campaign level command has any relevance at this battle level), but the complete lack of any ARVN combat forces in the actual battle itself, other than in a marginally relevant aftermath action, means that, in my opinion, even a mention in the Belligerents section is not justified. FactotEm (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The mention of the ARVN in the "Belligerents" section had been agreed upon. The discussion at this phase pertains only to "supported by". By the way, should the Viet Cong (NFL) be removed as belligerent? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
We are discussing the section "Belligerents" of the infobox, not the "Commanders and leaders" section. It has been established that the ARVN was a "belligerents". The qualification of "support" or "command is not appropriate in the "Belligerents" section, only in the "Commanders and leaders" section. In this section, the ARVN was involved at the control ̣level(theater), although not at the combat level (local). Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support The article is about the battle, there were no ARVN combat forces in the battle. Please let's get back to the battle itself, that is what most folk want to read about. Any further info regarding the campaign should be in a separate article. David J Johnson (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't the folk want to know that the battle evolved around the coordination between the B-52 air action and the 1ACD ground action? All the maneuvers of the 1/7 AC (when to go in, when to get out) was dictated by the timing of the B-52 strike, specifically by the dropping of the first bombs at precisely at 16 hours on 15 November at YA 8207, and on 17 November at LZ X-Ray? Furthermore, doesn't the folk want to know that the tactical moves of the 1/7 AC were dictated under the ARVN leadership?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Apologies accepted. But shouldn't you act after being certain first?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't understand that. Certain of what? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
That only an uninvolved admin can close an expired RfC. You did well by making a subsequent request for someone knowledgeable about the rules to formally close it. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
For too long editors have had to put-up with. Since when are you the spokesperson of the editors?
From two "editors". Are you implying that these two "editors" have less editing rights than the editors?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I've requested an admin familiar with MILHIST to formally close this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

checkY Clarification - There are two distinct topics of discussion. Editors are not requested to comment on

  1. South Vietnam as belligerent, the Rfc of which had been closed and archived (see Archive 2). Editors are asked to comment this time around on
  2. United States United States Supported by: South Vietnam

Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2016 (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.

NFL H-15 main local force battalion

The NFL H-15 main local force battalion did not participate in the battle at LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany. It only took part in the siege of the Pleime Camp and remained around there (being a local unit) and did not withdraw with the NVA 32nd and 33rd Regiments to the rear bases in Chu Pong. Some VC combatants fighting at LZ X-Ray were misidentified - in the book "We were soldiers once, ..." - by some 1/7 air cavalry combatants as belonging to the NFL H-15 main local force battalion actually belonged to the 7th or 9th Battalions/66 Regiments just because they wore the NFL black uniforms in disguise. At LZ X-Ray there were only the NVA 7th and 9th Battalions; and at LZ Albany, 1st Company/1st Battalion/33rd Regiment; 2nd Company/1st Battalion/33rd Regiment; 6th Company/8th Battalion/66th Regiment; 7th Company/8th Battalion/66th Regiment; and 8th Company/8th Battalion/66th Regiment.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Give any RS that proves the "misidentified" thing you've said above. Dino nam (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
That's my own words to avoid copyrights infringement as dictated by Wikipedia. McChistian, page 14 pinpointed the H-15 Battalion at Pleime. Furthemore, McChistian, Kinnard, Moore (official after action report) and Nguyen Huu An did not identify the H-15 Battalion at LZ X-Ray and Albany. "We were soldiers once, ..." is a semi-fiction book. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Every book that is a fiction would say about it at the introductory page. Tell me the page in We Were Soldiers Once...and Young says it. If there's no e-book version, take a photograph and give me the link.
  • McChristian and Nguyen Huu An did not say about them doesn't mean that they weren't there. Since We Were Soldiers Once...and Young is the only RS basis, then any relevant allegation shall take it as the basis. Dino nam (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Tell you the page that says what?
  • Not only McChristian and Nguyen Huu An but all the other RS, such as Vinh Loc, Vĩnh Lộc, Kinnard, Moore (after action report). As said We Were Soldiers Once...and Young being a semi-fiction (together its movie version) contains a lot of inaccuracies and thus is not a RS.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

When the NVA soldiers were dispatched to the South in August 1965, they were ordered to wear the NFL black uniform instead of the PAVN green uniform. General Hoàng Văn Thái told Colonel Hoàng Kiện 304th Division (minus - 66th Regiment) Commander: "But in fact, from this moment on you now belong to the National Liberation Front Army - Nhưng trong thực tế từ giờ phút này các đồng chí đã thuộc quân số Quân giải phóng miền Nam". (General Nguyễn Nam Khánh, Hồi Ký).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This point doesn't prove that the H15 Battalion was not there. It's just like from clause A "Pictures of ghost are hoaxes" to conclude clause B "Ghost doesn't exist". Dino nam (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
This point is not intended to prove that the H15 Battalion was not there, it just indicates why the air cavalry troops misidentified a 66th regiment unit to be the H-15 battalion because the VC combatants wore black uniform instead of green.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

No consensus reached yet

A consensus is not reached yet. Three out of five editors said there were no ARVN units at the battle. How could they possibly supported the US troops?

  1. the complete lack of any ARVN combat forces in the actual battle itself, other than in a marginally relevant aftermath action, means that, in my opinion, even a mention in the Belligerents section is not justified. FactotEm (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  2. No South Vietnamese military units were involved. Smallchief (talk 14:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  3. there were no ARVN combat forces in the battle. David J Johnson (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

You mustn't refactor the RfC. If you want to complain, you should follow the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE procedures. Dino nam (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, reverting a closure by an uninvolved admin hardly seems appropriate. The RFC was open for a month which is ample time and to me the bulk of the comments seem to have explicitly supported the proposal. Regardless, if you think the closer mis-read whether there was a consensus reached please use the procedure for requesting review. Anotherclown (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Question re: Westmoreland's attribution of success of the battle

I've tagged the statement that Westmoreland "...attributes the success of the Battle of Ia Drang (that he designates as the "latter phases")..." I can't find in the source provided at the end of the sentence any support for that specific assertion (of designation). FactotEm (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Quote: "From the standpoint of employment of joint forces, the Plei Me battle was a classic. The signal successes of the latter phases could, perhaps, never have been realized had it not been for the judgment and foresight of Vietnamese leadership. The initial preparatory effort on the ground, paving the way for the introduction of the 1st Air Cavalry Division, was accomplished by Vietnamese forces. Similarly the very successful final phase exploitation was accomplished largely by the Vietnamese Airborne Brigade. The effectiveness of this highly organized, closely integrated, cooperative effort has not often been emulated in modern warfare."
Note - "Latter phases" of Pleime-Chupong-Iadrang campaign encompasses the Batlle of Ia Drang.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you not see that the need to add that Note only confirms that the source does not support the assertion? We are required to use sources that "...directly support the material presented in an article...". That's a core policy. The assertion is that Westmoreland considered the battle of Ia Drang to be part of the latter phases. The source, which you quote above, does not say that. FactotEm (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes it does not. Westmoreland prefaces the book, Why Pleime, which describes the Pleime Campaign. The Campaign comprises three phases: Pleime, Chupong and Iadrang. The latter phases of Pleime are Chupong and Iadrang. The battles at LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany occurred in the Chupong phase. Further down the article at Westmoreland's role, it is written: "At the end of the Battle of Ia Drang, on 26 November 1965, General Westmoreland attributed its success to "the close coordination and cooperation between US forces and advisors and the Vietnamese".[77]"Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems like you are not familiar with the Pleime campaign. You might want to read the article Pleiku Campaign.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia core policy demands that statements are supported by reliable sources that directly support the material being presented. The article states that Westmoreland designated the Battle of Ia Drang as part of the latter phases. I appreciate your attempts to enlighten me here on the talk page, but Wikipedia still requires a source in the article to support that statement. The current source does not support that statement. FactotEm (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't agree with you on this point. However, if you want to delete this sentence, be my guest.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. If it's Wikipedia policy, then you can disagree with it all you like, but we are all required to abide by it. If, on the other hand, you are disagreeing with my assertion that the current source does not support the statement, then can you please point me to the text in that source that says Westmoreland designated the Battle of Ia Drang to be part of the latter phases? FactotEm (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

And about that statement "At the end of the Battle of Ia Drang, on 26 November 1965, General Westmoreland attributed its success to "the close coordination and cooperation between US forces and advisors and the Vietnamese" ". Can you see that there is also a sourcing problem here? The way that sentence is written leads us to believe that "its success" refers to the Battle of Ia Drang, but the source states "On Friday we had our regular Joint US/GVN Council Meeting which featured a military status report by General Vien. I was asked to comment following the briefing by a member of Vien’s staff which I did to the effect that thought it was an excellent analysis and stressed one of the reasons for the success was the close coordination and cooperation between US forces and advisors and the Vietnamese." Nowhere in that source does it specifically mention the battle (in fact, it's not clear to me what success he's actually referring to at all). FactotEm (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

OR

I've tagged this sentence from section "General Westmoreland's role" as OR: "He further strengthened the ARVN-US joint command structure with a special modus operandi based on "Joint intelligence and support activities; commonly-shared concept of operations and results; separate TAOR, command, deployment of forces, conduct of activities and reserve"." As you can see from the source (Vinh Loc, page 119), it has nothing mentioning about General Westmoreland as well as "ARVN-US joint command structure with a special modus operandi". Dino nam (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Ia Drang. 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) 17:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary info

@Factotem: Don't you think that this section should be removed, or at least most of it should be removed and the rest are moved to previous sections? It repeats about the fight at LZ X-Ray, which has already been mentioned in previous sections. Dino nam (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean the section "The 1/7 Air Cavalry assault at LZ X-Ray (14-16 November)"? It does seem out of place and repeats information already described in the preceding narrative, but I'm not sure what information there can be saved and incorporated into the rest of the narrative and what can simply be removed. The postponement of the B3 Field Front attack on Pleime seems relevant, the rest - not so sure. But @YahwehSaves: is doing a fine job of improving the article; maybe they can have a look at this section? FactotEm (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

5/30/2017 Vandalism

Dino nam deletes a lot of well-sourced info additions. He also resorts to editing tricks to render restoration difficult.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the scope of this article?

What is the consensus on the scope of this article? The first sentence of the lead says it's the engagements at LZ X-Ray November 14-15 and at LZ Albany November 17. The sources seem to support this: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Agree? Disagree? FactotEm (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Strong agreement with your opinion above. For too long this article has been spoilt by constant edit warring and attempts to widen the article by an "editor" into policy and actions in the area, rather than the battles at LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany. David J Johnson (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Support. Same opinion as User:David J Johnson. Dino nam (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. I've tagged the section "Two battlefronts at the Ia Drang Valley" as possibly off-topic. It's one thing to set the battle in the context of the campaign, but this article does seem to be suffering from attempts to transform it completely into an article about the campaign. I don't understand why those efforts are not made in the Pleiku Campaign article itself. Surely that is the more appropriate venue? FactotEm (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Completely agree with FactotEm actions/comments above. David J Johnson (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. The scope should be where it's supposed to be, which is not the entire Pleiku Campaign. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 09:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

So it's been a while now, and no opposing argument, so I suggest the following...

  • the entire section "Two battlefronts at the Ia Drang Valley" is deleted on the basis that it just seems to go off on a tangent and bears little relevance to the main subject;
No, it does not "go off on a tangent" and does bear much "relevance to the main subject" in light of the recent multiple info added that show the various activities related to the B-52 strike battlefront in coordination with the ground battlefront happening at LZ X-Ray on Nov 14, 15, 16 and 17 and at LZ Albany on Nov 18.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, in light of the recent added info pertaining to Westmoreland's activities pertaining to the battle at LZ X-Ray and Albany on Nov 16 and 18, meeting with Moore and his troops, with Brown and with the LZ Albany wounded troops at the hospital, as well as Vinh Loc and Larsen to discuss about the battle, I am restoring the deleted section with some editing.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • remove the text from the lead that starts "The Pleiku Campaign was named "Pleime Campaign" by Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) II Corps Command..." until the end of the 1st paragraph, and the second paragraph in its entirety, which all seems more relevant to the campaign than the battle;
  • Remove all mention of Viet Cong on the basis that none of it is sourced;
  • Remove all theatre commanders from the infobox list of commanders.

I'm also not sure about the section "The air assault of the 1/7 Air Cavalry Battalion at LZ X-Ray (14-16 November)" - is there anything salvagable there? Finally, does the background need to be so long? As far as I can see it needs...

  • a paragraph about the general situation in Vietnam (which is what the current section goes into to too great length);
  • a paragraph setting the battle in the context of the Pleiku Campaign;
  • a paragraph about the development of the US Air Cav

It's a shame that we appear to have lost @Tnguyen4321:. They seemed knowledgeable and passionate about the subject, and that has to be respected, however misguided their efforts seemed to be. It seems to me that they could be an absolute asset to the project's coverage of the campaign, in the right place. FactotEm (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

So I went ahead and implemented the changes listed in the first bullet list above. FactotEm (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Factotem: Sorry for not having appeared earlier but I think the NLF H15 Battalion shall be retained in the infobox. There are various mentions about it in We Were Soldiers Once...and Young.[15] Besides, there has been so far no RS evidence to deny their appearance on the battlefield. The rest of your points is great. Dino nam (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I've also restored the name of Nguyen Huu An. He's in fact a field commander, not a "theater" one, and his role has also been clearly elaborated in the book. Dino nam (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem, but can you add a source to the article to support that assertion (preferably in the body of the article where the statement that the Viet Cong were present rather than the infobox)? Otherwise I will remove it again as unsourced. Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I've tagged it again. @Dino nam:, it really needs to be mentioned in the main body and sourced there too. Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
And now I've removed it again. If the presence of Viet Cong forces at this battle is added back into the article, it must be sourced, otherwise I will just remove it with no further tagging. FactotEm (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

user:Tnguyen4321 has restored deleted info; however, no new info has been added to prove its significance, and moreover, its verifiability. For instance, there's nothing McChristian or Kinnard say that confirms the existence of the B-52 strikes as an independent "battlefront". Or there's nothing in Westmoreland's note that confirms his role of "coordinating" the air strikes at Ia Drang (or J-2). Therefore, the sentences "There were two battlefronts at the Chu Pong massif areas: a ground force operation, code-named "Operation Long Reach", conducted by the 1st Air Cavalry and an air operation carried out by the USAF, code-named "Plei Me-Chu Pong Campaign"" and "During the execution of the airtrikes, Westmoreland frequently visited the various allied Headquarters in Pleiku, Nhatrang, and An Khe to coordinate the action among General Vinh Loc of II Corps, General Larsen of IFFV, and General Kinnard of 1ACD. At the highest allied command level, he coordinated the B-52 airstrike missions with General Nguyễn Hữu Có and General Nguyễn Đức Thắng, Chief of Operations and J-3 of the ARVN Joint General Staff respectively." are merely examples of WP:OR. I'll restore the article to the version prior to April 8. Dino nam (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Since April 8 there are more than 150 sourced data added, it would be considered vandalism - deletion of sourced info - if you do that.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
It is wise that you resort to seeking opinions from other editors in wanting to delete the section that you consider OR.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321: If you don't agree, then I'm gonna tag them. Dino nam (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Your recent change from OR tag to "dubious" tag sounds more reasonable. But, honestly, I don't quite understand its meaning; however, I can live with it.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Importance of section "Two operations at the Ia Drang Valley"

The Battle of Ia Drang is the centerpiece of Operation Long Reach and the raison d'être of the insertion of air cavalry troops at LZ X-Ray was to facilitate the 5 consecutive day B-52 airstrikes over the Chu Prong Ia Drang complex. All sourced data contained in this section are relevant to the understanding this specific B-52 airstrike operation in terms of its purpose, planning, preparation, execution, results, officers involvements in particular General Westmoreland.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Without these relevant sourced info contained in this section pertaining to Operation B-52 airstrike, the narrative of the Battle of Ia Drang will be severely inadequate because it would only tells half of the story. Furthermore, it would not explain the sequential and perplexing maneuverings of the air cavalry troops, such as why only insert two battalions, why the 2/5 bn was marching stealthily from LZ Victor to reinforce the 1/7 bn at LZ X-Ray, why the 1/7 bn was helilifted out while the 2/7 and 2/5 marched out of LZ X-Ray, etc.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: There's no "half of the story" here. The air strike played only supporting role, so it's inappropriate to write too much about it in accordance with WP:N(E), especially by making a section with only primary sources (contrary to WP:GNG and WP:PSTS) and repetition of what has already been mentioned in other section. The claim that the air strike was the main reason that led to decision of troop movement is baseless; it's not supported by any of the sources. Same thing with the involvement of Gen. Westmoreland; the info contain too much details that were irrelevant or insignificant (e.g. "On 18 November, he flew to Pleiku to visit the 1/7 Air Cavalry Battalion and praised Colonel Hal Moore and his men for their heroic action at the LZ X-Ray in the morning, then in the afternoon he flew to Qui Nhon to visit the wounded cavalrymen from the battle of LZ Albany in the hospital."); some were even self-derivations that are found nowhere in the sources (e.g. "The planning and execution of B-52 airstrike at the Chu Pong Ia Dramg complex where LZ X-Ray and Albany were located required the direct involvement of General Westmoreland because by September 1965 the COMUSMACV was the approving authority for B-52 airstrikes which were previously detained by CINPACCOM."). Doubtlessly, the "importance" that you've indicated are based on self-derivation and distorted intepretation of the primary sources, which have constituted either WP:SYNTH or WP:PSCI. Dino nam (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Why is it inappropriate in in shedding light on the operation just because it played a supporting role?
@Tnguyen4321: Because the regulation WP:N(E) doesn't allow your way of "shedding light". Dino nam (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Let me rephrase: why is it inappropriate to provide additional pertinent sourced data to the topic.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
It presented facts under another perspective. It's not repetition.
@Tnguyen4321: Your perspective? Then they're certainly WP:SYNTH. Dino nam (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
No, not mine. Looks like your are obsessed with "synth"!Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
No comments on the rest of your statements. You might want to seek opinions from other editors.Tnguyen4321 (talk)
P/s: You can add this to the RfC instead. Dino nam (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by this.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I have fulfilled the requirement of establishing the importance and relevance of all sourced data and thus am allowed to remove the template. Besides one template for the section is sufficient in seeking comments from other editors.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321: Both templates are relevant to the RfC. You cannot remove them until consensus is reached; that would be the time when the "importance" was established (if there were any). Stop your disruptive editing and read the regulations. Dino nam (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Whom do you expect would care to act in establishing the importance? Not from the general public, fore sure. You can only make a request for comments from other editors.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321: Then I assume that the burden of proof lies on you. The dispute will remain pending unless you can establish it. Once again, stop your disruptive editing. Dino nam (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment First, this RfC addresses no newer issues than the one I've addressed. Second, sincerely, this RfC isn't well-factored enough for answers. Dino nam (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Then I do not need to request comments from other editors.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: Stop moving the info around from the section. You're not allowed to do that until consensus reached. Dino nam (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on what regulation am I not allowed to do that? The template states: Please help improve this section by clarifying or removing superfluous information and nothing forbid me to add sourced data to the article [User:Tnguyen4321|Tnguyen4321]] (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore you fault this section for containing "repetition of what has already been mentioned in other section".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Didn't you tell me this: All right then the info should appear in the "Aftermath" section rather than an independent section like this. Dino nam (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC) ?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tnguyen4321:
  • You didn't remove the superfluous info. You just moved them to another section.
  • WP:DE prohibits all kinds of unilateral editing before consensus reached. You must wait for consensus before doing anything with that section.
  • I didn't mean the whole section. I mean your idea about "lesson learned from executing the B-52 airstrike during the Battle of Ia Drang, in particular the airstrike that occurred at LZ X-Ray on November 17".
  • I've reported your case on WP:AN/I. Dino nam (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Both Tnguyen4321 and Dino nam have been blocked for edit warring on this article for 48 hours - this is a reminder to them that when this block expires, I expect them to not be directly editing the article, and instead using this talk page to reach a consensus (which means not just the two of them arguing as seen above). If this edit war continues, then I strongly recommend a lengthy block and a topic ban -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Another unnessary info

Another paragraph that I suggest to delete is in the LZ Albany section: "On this day, General Westmoreland and General Cao Van Vien, visited the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry. They were briefed by Lt. Colonel Moore about the battle at LZ X-Ray. Westmoreland told them they were being recommended for a Presidential Unit Citation. They then flew to the 3rd Air Cavalry Brigade commanded by Col. Brown who gave them a briefing and they flew over the operation area. Before leaving Pleiku, they also had a meeting with General Vinh Loc, II Corps Commander and General Larsen, IFFV Commander who were involved in the battle at corps level. In this session, with Col. Brown's presence, they reviewed and agreed that the execution of the Battle of Ia Drang was in line with the National Campaign Plan developed by General Thang and General DePuy, the two J-3’s of the JGS and MACV. They then flew to Qui Nhon and went to the hospital to visit the troops of the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry who were wounded in the LZ Albany engagement." This thing is just marginal info, which plays no importance in describing the course of the battle itself. Dino nam (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

  • All data in this paragraph are relevant to the Battle of Ia Drang. They makes mention of the 1/7 and 2/7 AC Bns, Lt.Colonel Moore, Colonel Brown. General Westmorland and Vien were briefed about the battle by Moore and Brown; and they flew over the battlefield. Beside, all of these activities occurred on November 18, the last day of the Battle of Ia Drang. Furthermore it shows how important the battle was in the overall military planning of the US-ARVN Allied Forces. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • As a compromise to your objection that this paragraph plays no importance in describing the course of the battle itself, I move it to section Effect and aftermath which is a more appropriate location.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ McChristian, page 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ia_Drang/Archive_2&oldid=1161015147"