Talk:Phoenix Program

Killing of insurgent civilians

I edited a line in this article to delete the assertion that "killing of civilians, whether insurgents or not, is against the Geneva Convention." The reason I made this change is that the original assertion is logically inconsistent, and as such may approach non-NPOV.

Specifically, if a person is not a uniformed member of an armed force, but commits acts as part of an insurgency, then that person is not categorized as a "civilian" per the GC. Rather, that person may in fact fall under the classification of spy or saboteur, who receive much less protection than either civilians or soldiers under the GC.

Therefore, to say that "killing civilians who are insurgents" is inconsistent, as the class of civilian and the class of insurgent are mutually exclusive (when analyzing status for Geneva Convention purposes). --Ryanaxp 20:07, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Sophistry. you're saying that if they're dead they must have been guilty of something. Typical uhmerican logic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.70.166.156 (talk • contribs) 5 October 2006.

I disagree, I find that the logic is sound. Also, to refute an argument as 'sophistry' and then to follow with an out-of-hand mis-characterization of that argument is itself poor logic. To follow such a refutation with an slur against a nationality renders, to this editor, the argument biased and quite questionable. 70.119.208.234 00:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of a Free-fire zone in Vietnam? Or the common tactic of bombing entire villages in Iraq and Afghanistan to kill 1 "insurgent" (another man's freedom fighter)? That is why the coalition / USA will lose the war on terror and that is one reason why the Vietnam war was lost. If one studys history they might learn from their mistakes. Also it helps to receive information from more than 1 source, thus i think you are violating NPOV by only listening to the Pro-American sources. Ever been to Vietnam? I have. Cia are crap in comparison to the KGB anyways, if they were any good at their job there would not have been 911. I mean arabs going to flight school but not wanting to learn how to land? and CIA funded osama in the 80s... So was he an insurgent in the 80s? or a freedom fighter?

Bart Osborne quote

The quote by Bart Osbourne is in the Congressional Register, which is of course not available online. It was quoted in both the references I added. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 23:02, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please elaborate becaus I have not found this quote. Be specific. TDC 00:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

This certainly is an important issue in the context of the article - please do do this (it's been 5 months!) 213.78.82.220 15:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's quoted in "The Phoenix Program" by Douglas Valentine. Do you have a copy? It was re-quoted by Andrew Stromotich in The Advocate here, and by Nick Schou here. It was originally listed in the Congressional Register, headed "U.S. Assistance Programs in Vietnam," page 53. Hope this helps. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 07:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

---

you should merge this with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Phoenix_%28Vietnam%29

-Zuck

Domestic Operation Phoenix

Perhaps some mention should be made of the radical elements within the VVAW organization attempt to set up an assassination plot of pro war senators? 69.118.247.101 22:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

I hit upon this page by accident. Especially the introduction does not really strike me as NPOV. As an example, VC units are neutralized (and support the "North Vietnamese war effort"), while "Southern patriots are shot in the back" (while being loyal). It becomes better later on, but the first part reads like a propaganda piece. --Stephan Schulz 09:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Crappy post

The author of the post about the Phoenix Program is obviously biased and his text reeks of propaganda.

This would be a more accurate description of the program: «In Vietnam in the 1960s, under its hellish, Top Secret Phoenix program, the American CIA and U.S. Army helpers abducted, murdered, and unmercifully tortured tens of thousands of victims. Estimates range between 20,857 and 40,994 Vietnamese men, women and children were killed. Many were thrown into inhuman cages, starved into submission and finally bludgeoned or shot to death. Some were drowned, others thrown out of helicopters. Young women and children were not spared. CIA op Kenneth Osborn said Phoenix became a depersonalized murder program. In Hostages of War, Don Luce examined the perverse Phoenix Program, recounting its massive and unjustifiable use of torture, repression, and assassination. Most victims, he notes, were innocent, brought in only after a neighbor or family enemy falsely reported them to authorities as a potential threat to security. Many were accused of saying something they shouldn't have said, or of "insufficient support" for the political system. Operation Phoenix detainees were tortured with electric shocks applied to their genitals, while women prisoners were typically raped, occasionally with foreign objects. A particularly infamous interrogation technique involved flinging a blindfolded prisoner from a helicopter while threatening to do the same to the remaining passengers. Some had had bamboo splinters shoved under their fingernails. One was deaf from having soapy water poured in his ears, and his ears pounded. The women students had been raped as well as tortured." "I never knew in the course of all those operations any detainee to live through his interrogation," Bart Osborn, a former CIA agent, told Congress in 1971. "They all died. There was never any reasonable establishment of the fact that any one of those individuals was, in fact, cooperating with the VC, but they all died and the majority were either tortured to death".

And another thing: «Phung Hoang» is not «derived from the Vietnamese word meaning coordination», it just means Phoenix, the mythical bird. What a pile of rubbish this guy can issue.

—This unsigned comment was added by Sickduck (talk • contribs) 17 Feb 2006.

This article is subjective to the point of being disingenous (or perhaps it is just disingenous). Will go over it myself when I have time if nobody beats me to it. But where to start! —This unsigned comment was added by RobertLewis (talk • contribs) 28 March 2006.

Dubious edit. "Blyadskii Zhopa"

Not a topic on which I know the relevant level of detail, but this anonymous edit without citation got my attention. Since there was no clear citation on what was there before, either, I leave it to someone more knowledgable to sort this out. "…allegedly referring to him as a 'Pale Horse's Ass'" was edited to "…allegedly referring to him as a 'Zhopa'". If the latter is true, then unless that translates to something interesting there is no point to saying this at all. If the former was true, then it is clever, and worth keeping. And citing for. - Jmabel | Talk 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Unaddressed after 2 weeks. - Jmabel | Talk 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, "Blyadskii Zhopa", transliterated, untranslated Russian is useless in an English-language article. This has nothing to do with politics. And, as far as I can tell, the Okamoto passage has nothing to do with this. As far as I can tell, my issue is still completely unaddressed. - Jmabel | Talk 16:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Okamoto discussion to a separate section so as not to confuse it with the discussion about "Blyadskii Zhopa". I tried unsuccessfully to translate "Blyadskii Zhopa" from Russian to English at several free online translation sites:

• http://dictionary.reference.com/translate
• http://www.freetranslation.com/free
• http://translation2.paralink.com
• http://www.translate.ru/text.asp?lang=en
• http://www.systransoft.com --Timeshifter 12:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted Blyadskii Zhopa from the article. I put back the original wording:

• (allegedly referring to him as a "Pale Horse's Ass") --Timeshifter 12:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe "Blyadskii Zhopa" is a transliteration anyway, since there are Russian language characters not found in English. Just guessing. I would like to have the exact Russian phrase using Russian characters. I was unable to get any translation at all using "Blyadskii Zhopa" in the Russian to English sections of the above linked search sites.--Timeshifter 13:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I know Russian, this word is filth involving the word "bitch" ask any person who knows Russian well, blyat! is also frequently used to say "shit!" but in this context it means bitch, the ending "skii" refering to a male. That is not related to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.43.215.227 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Speculation paragraph deleted

But this one I was comfortable cutting for lack of citation:

In the larger context of a 'reciprocity concept' - for example, Castro attacking Batista in Cuba about a week after the Shah was restored in Tehran 1953, or, perhaps more applicable here, Noel Field being forced into defecting which in turn led to purges across eastern Europe replacing nationalist communist leaders for Moscow thugs exactly as Joe McCarthy was exposing 'Red' infiltration of the American government - there is speculation "Phoenix" was a mechanism to eliminate all possible opposition to the eventual rule of the North Vietnamese in South Vietnam.

"There is speculation" is not a citation. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vincent Okamoto quote

Reinstated quotes cut without reason. They were sourced, relevant. Despite TDC's Edit Summary, Okamoto is very easily confirmed in the book Patriots: the Vietnam War remembered from all sides. Using Amazon.com, it took less than 2 minutes to confirm this: cut-and-paste book title into Amazon.com. Click on "Search inside this book." Search for "Okamoto" (begins p.357). Search again for "April Fool" to confirm the quote -- it is p.361, as stated. WP:NPOV demands balance, not the censorship of anything that is critical of US citizens overseas. Note to future Wikipedians: therer is a pattern of POV here, and this pattern is relevant to improving the content of Wikipedia articles. See also Talk:Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency), User talk:TDC, Talk:Barry Seal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added May 20, 2006 by 208.59.121.177.

• If it is citable, please put the citation in the article. This isn't rocket science. - Jmabel | Talk 00:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Amazon.com citation link has been in the article in the quotes section for some time now.--Timeshifter 10:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Here below is the quote as it was in the article just before its deletion by TDC:

"The problem was, how do you find the people on the blacklist? It's not like you had their address and telephone number. The normal procedure would be to go into a village and just grab someone and say, 'Where's Nguyen so-and-so?' Half the time the people were so afraid they would say anything. Then a Phoenix team would take the informant, put a sandbag over his head, poke out two holes so he could see, put commo wire around his neck like a long leash, and walk him through the village and say, 'When we go by Nguyen's house scratch your head.' Then that night Phoenix would come back, knock on the door, and say, 'April Fool, motherfucker.' Whoever answered the door would get wasted. As far as they were concerned whoever answered was a Communist, including family members. Sometimes they'd come back to camp with ears to prove that they killed people."

-- Vincent Okamoto, combat officer (Lieutenant) in Vietnam in 1968, and recipient of Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest award conferred by the U.S. Army. Wounded 3 times. He was also an intelligence liaison officer for the Phoenix Program for 2 months in 1968. Quote is from page 361 of the hardback 2003 first edition of the book "Patriots: the Vietnam War remembered from all sides."

I first put the quote in the article. It has been there for months. No one else seems to doubt that the quote is from the book, nor from the person claimed. It is a well-researched, well-documented thick hardback book from a reputable publisher (Penguin). I copied the quote word-for-word from the library book. I summarized what the book said about him.

The previous section in talk tells how to find the quote using the Amazon search tool. Here is a direct link to the book at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0142004499

Here is a trade review of the book found at Amazon.com:

From Publishers Weekly.

When Appy (Working-Class War) says "all sides" he is not exaggerating. It's difficult to think of any group of people who were involved in the many and varied aspects of the American war in Vietnam not represented in these oral history pages. Appy's testifiers include war hawks; peace activists; former Vietcong guerrilla fighters, Vietnamese Communists, Vietnamese anti-Communists; American veterans of many stripes, from privates to generals, medics to infantrymen; POW/MIA activists; poets, novelists, journalists; entertainers; and former government officials from all sides. Appy amply fulfills his goal of presenting a "vast range of war-related memories" in this massive, valuable book. He spent five years traveling around the country and in Vietnam, interviewing 350 people, and included about half of their stories. Oral histories often suffer from loose organization or from voices that pop up confusingly again and again. Appy takes a different approach. Each person appears only once, and Appy gives the participants plenty of room to tell their stories. He also provides on-the-mark, often insightful introductions to each entry, along with brief but to-the-point chapter introductions to set the historical context. The book contains the remembrances of some well-known people, including Gen. William Westmoreland, Gen. Alexander Haig, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, Walt Whitman Rostow, Julian Bond, Ward Just, Oliver Stone, poet Yusef Kumunyakaa and writer-activists Todd Gitlin and Jonathan Schell. There are others known mostly to Vietnam cognoscenti (Chester Cooper, Le Minh Kue, Rufus Phillips, Wayne Karlin and Nguyen Qui Duc), as well as many of the voices of just plain folks who experienced the war in myriad ways. It all adds up to a solid contribution to the primary source background of the longest and most controversial overseas war in American history.

Vincent Okamoto is also found with this Google book search. [1]

On page 202 of the book "From Pearl Harbor to Saigon: Japanese American Soldiers and the Vietnam War" by Toshio Whelchel.

A google web search for Vincent Okamoto:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22vincent+okamoto%22

It pulls up websites such as the "Japanese-American Vietnam Veterans Project"

http://members.aol.com/veterans/warlib22.htm and a page about his 2002 swearing in as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge:

http://www.metnews.com/articles/okam043002.htm

From that page:

"[California Governor] Davis noted that Okamoto was 'the highest decorated Japanese American to survive the [Vietnam] War.' He is president of the Japanese American Vietnam Veterans Memorial Committee and has served on the board of the Japanese American Bar Association." --Timeshifter 03:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Again, if it is citable, please put the citation in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 00:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I just added some more of his background info to the quotes section. The citation link was already there in the article in that quotes section.--Timeshifter 10:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The background part is pov and generally bad

Is someone editing this to someting better or have it been like this for long time? I would say its better to take it away completly than have this pov-stuff in article. Is it really nessesary at all? Brunte 20:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"In South Vietnam during the 1960s and early 70s there was a secret communist network within the society which had widespread authority among the populace." Can anyone explain what a "secret communist network" is. I like to edit away communist or change it to North Vietnamese. Brunte 21:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"it conscripted non-volunteer personnel to serve in local force (militia) and main force mobile combat units of the Viet Cong, levied taxes to facilitate the administration of a rudimentary civil government, and enforced its will through terror". Is 'and enforced its will through terror' NPOV?

The more I look at this article the more frightend I become. It try to justify the Phoenix Program and use words like "neutralise" insted of assasinate. shall the article be tagged pov? I start to cut some away Brunte 14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

They did sometimes, enforce their will through terror. But the generalization seems to imply that 'they' always worked through terror, while the sources i know, though american, draw a somewhat more complexe picture. It is more likely 'they tried to persuade the populace and reacted with terror against 'collaborateurs' and other 'disloyal elements'. Maybe someboddy who speaks better english than me could find more neutralized meanings for collaborateurs (the problems of a civil war, ones collaborateur is a valiant informant or loyal civil servant to someone else) and diyloyal elements.

Pierwoje Gławnoje Uprawlenie (PGU)

I reverted the change that 72.160.106.188 made on June 4, 2006. I have no idea if "Pierwoje Gławnoje Uprawlenie (PGU)" is relevant but its addition and its linking messed up the wikipedia link to the First Chief Directorate, so I reverted until someone more knowledgable than me can link to both phrases correctly. Here is what 72.160.106.188 had before I reverted it to the previous edit:

Lee's CIA Pale Horse counter-terror ops were so effective against advisors of the Soviet KGB First Chief Directorate - Pierwoje Gławnoje Uprawlenie (PGU), the Pathet Lao, and Red Chinese military advisors that the KGB director at the time, Vladimir Semichastniy, placed a $50,000 bounty in gold bullion for the capture or confirmed assassination of John L. Lee (allegedly referring to him as That "Blyadskii Zhopa").

I found these foreign language wikipedia pages when I did a Google search for wikipedia and the PGU phrase:

• http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+Pierwoje+G%C5%82awnoje+Uprawlenie+%28PGU%29
• http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Zarz%C4%85d_G%C5%82%C3%B3wny_KGB
• http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB

--Timeshifter 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

New section: Justification

As I found alot of that in the former background I think it should be called that, Justification. I suggest it should be cut down hard and probably deleted. Little can be moved to sections below. See it as a part needed alot of work as for the whole article. If someon feel like me that article is pov, feel free to tag it. Brunte 15:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that the Justification and Measures of success and failure sections at the least are heavily NPOV and largely uncited collections of supposed facts. It seems more reasonable to start building these up from scratch with proper citation than to try to fix them as they are. They don't flow very well anyway. Due to the large number of complaints about NPOV on this Talk page, I am just going to delete them. Revert and defend if you have a serious problem with it, or rewrite with citations. Hopefully we can get this article up to a much better quality by paring it down first. Phil 01:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Phil Maccabe wrote in one of the notes with his edits and deletions: "Quotes - now that I think about it the whole Quotes section should probably go too, not uncited but massively POV." About the Vincent Okamoto quote. He was there. He discussed what he knew. I didn't twist what he said. How is that not being a neutral point of view? I have read in several places that it is recommended to put "citation needed" in spots where you question the truthfulness of something rather than delete something. Unless you know something to be untrue, then please don't delete stuff. If something sounds NPOV, then please rewrite it as Brunte was doing without objection, and as you did in one paragraph. I am reverting your many deletions. I left in your edits and "citation needed" requests in the one paragraph you edited. The edits help. I agree that we need more info about the Phoenix Program in this article. But that will happen over time as more knowledgeable people contribute. That will also naturally provide more balance in the tone of the article. "Blanking. Removing all or significant parts of articles..." - That definition of blanking is from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism --Timeshifter 07:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

it is a quote, but that does not mean it is neutral.

Cleanup

The article need it. And maybe the pov issue need some work to. I dont know the subject enough to fix it myself. Brunte 12:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. They have gotten rid of the unbalanced cheerleading POV of the article, and clarified some of the clinical euphemisms that were used. --Timeshifter 11:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done another round of cleanup. I think there are no longer many cleanup issues as such. If someone else agrees, kill the {{cleanup}} tag. - Jmabel | Talk 19:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I see contradictions in the article but dont know what is right or wrong. ex:

"Operation Phoenix was a covert intelligence operation and assassination program undertaken by the :United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in close collaboration with South Vietnamese :intelligence during the Vietnam War".

and

"...the South Vietnamese government developed a specific program called Phung Hoang or Phoenix. :Distinct from military efforts, Phung Hoang was the operational task of the National Police and :directed through Phung Hoang committees composed of representatives of civilian and military :agencies, including refugee relief/social welfare, intelligence and propaganda entities"

and there is a pov problems, I will fix one. Brunte 18:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

On this particular matter, I believe (but citation would be good) this started as an RVN police program, and was then taken over by the CIA. Whether the CIA was covertly involved from the start, I couldn't say. - Jmabel | Talk 22:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hired guns"

Does "hired guns" here mean mercenaries? If so, why are we being coy? - Jmabel | Talk 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was the term used at the time by those involved. --Gbleem 13:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Incomprehensible sentence

"Lee reported to William E. Colby from 1962 to 1963, and to John Richardson in 1963, respective CIA Chiefs of Station, Saigon Vietnam, CIA Director of Central Intelligence John McCone, Lt. Gen. Wm P. Yarborough, Cmdr. Special Warfare Center, Ft. Bragg, N.C." No chance of solving this by a copy edit! Can someone who knows the facts please re-write it? - Jmabel | Talk 18:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

While I think that cleanup is mostly dealt with, POV is another matter. This is an article about war written entirely from one side. There is almost nothing here (except the remarks of a KGB officer) reflecting the views of the other side. There is only one brief mention that most of this program was a massive violation of the Geneva Conventions. There is no mention of criticism by militarily neutral parties. And (even within a US or South Vietnamese perspective) the summary as to whether the program was a "success" or "failure" has a tactical, rather than a strategic, notion of success. Yes, Phoenix and the Tet Offensive between them largely destroyed the Viet Cong, leaving the field to the North Vietnamese Army. Result? South Vietnam ultimately fell to forces who were not only Communist but also (unlike the VC) not South Vietnamese. Some success. - Jmabel | Talk 19:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Were there any honest polls taken of the South Vietnamese? That might give some objective analysis of the results of the Phoenix Program. I would like to see how they compared with these polls of the Iraqi people concerning the US occupation after a similar "neutralization" program became widely known:

Newsweek, Nov. 14, 2005, page 36: "The most recent evidence comes from autopsies of 44 prisoners who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan in U.S. custody. Most died under circumstances that suggest torture. The reports use words like 'strangulation,' 'asphyxiation' and 'blunt force injuries.' ... A few months before the [Abu Ghraib] scandal broke [spring 2004], Coalition Provisional Authority polls showed Iraqi support at 63 percent. A month after Abu Ghraib, the number was 9 percent. Polls showed that 71 percent of Iraqis were surprised by the revelations." --Timeshifter 20:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

ralliers?

"or turn themselves in as "ralliers" to the anti-communist cause." What does this mean? Why would someone turn themselves in? --Gbleem 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a good question. Maybe people could renounce their previous loyalties to the viet cong, etc., and "rally" to the "anti-communist" cause by proving their new loyalties by joining militias, providing intelligence, etc.. Or by turning in other viet cong. I have no idea.--Timeshifter 05:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A top Secret Program

The fact that eludes most editors is that the Phoenix Program was a highly classified program. Even after nearly forty years, much is still classified and is shrouded in mystery. Everyone needs to remember that before pontificating on how a section is biased, whereas their sections are unbiased.

The simple fact of the matter is that most of the people editing here, and many of the sources quoted from were not involved with the operation. And those sources who claim to have been part, in all reality did really have a grasp of the big picture, probably only saw a sliver of the big picture, and therefore need to have all their views and information viewed as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -----Grey Beard 5 January 2006

• Sorry to bust your bubble, but just about everything about Pnoenix has been declassified. Has been for years. Memoirs by participants are also out there, including Stuart Herrington's Stalking the Viet Cong. RM Gillespie 02:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to Google books and Amazon books.

Please see this talk section:

• Wikipedia talk:External links#Google Books?

That is a recent talk section, and the page (Wikipedia:External links) will need to be updated to reflect that discussion.

See also: Wikipedia:Convenience links.

Links to Google books and Amazon books are OK. People use these type of free online text sources to get and to verify quotes and info. Many people do not live near major libraries or can not afford the gas to go to one. So these type of links are becoming more and more necessary. --Timeshifter 17:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Timeshifter. I've just expended a good bit of time reading through all the relevant pages, so I think I've got a reasonably good grasp of the issue at this point. But I'm puzzled about your insistence on keeping these particular Amazon.com links. I wouldn't have a problem with them if they were in fact convenience links to "free online text sources". But they're not.

I have no idea who originally added those links to the article, but if you take a look at what they're actually linking to, it's NOT to online copies of the books. Those are just ordinary Amazon.com sales pages -- presumably that's not what you had in mind, right?

As far as I can see, all of those links really do come under the guidelines for external links to be avoided -- in particular paragraph #4, which clearly disallows links to pages that are primarily commercial. As that paragraph points out, the ISBN links are preferable, since they give the reader access to a whole range of book sources, instead of just Amazon.

So, unless I've completely missed something here, it looks to me like all of those links should go. Do you agree? Cgingold 18:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I added all the links. Links to Amazon pages and Google pages usually allow access to some of the text, too. And the text can be searched. It is an invaluable resource. Even when they do not allow access to the text the page allows one to get all the reference details about the book. Without having to wade through ISBN searches and intermediate steps. Plus ISBN numbers only reference a single edition of a book.

If you read the section of the talk page I linked to you will see more about what I and others are talking about. I also just added a comment myself to that talk page. In a different section:

Wikipedia talk:External links#Book details

I have done a lot of work on this Phoenix Program article. At one point there were almost no links in the reference section and the external links section. The links provide much more info. You are reading the guideline pages incorrectly. Read the citation guidelines also. Commercial links are OK. It is complicated, and I have added hundreds of reference links to wikipedia articles. People appreciate the links. Try to understand the spirit of guidelines, and you see that they are mainly to avoid spam links. My links are not spam links. --Timeshifter 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example link from the article:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385470169

If you look down the left side of the page you will see a link labeled "Search inside another edition of this book". So one learns from a single link that there is text online, that it can be searched, and that there is a newer edition of the book. That can not be done with a link to a single ISBN number. Few people use links to ISBN numbers. Frankly, it is too geeky, and serves little useful purpose. Some people actually enjoy command-line controlled software, too. Even though most people enjoy GUI interfaces (graphical user interfaces). Anyway, back to the topic at hand. When one links to Amazon or Google, one does not have to worry about updating the link when new editions come out. Because Amazon or Google will usually link to it from the old edition pages. Plus the reviews of the books online often provide invaluable info about the credibility and reliability of the author. Also, there are often reviews from library journals. Very useful stuff for determining if the book and author meet the reliable-source requirements for wikipedia use. --Timeshifter 18:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The page you are linking to (Wikipedia:External links) mainly concerns links to be placed in a separate section called "external links" or "further reading." Wikipedia does not like dozens of links piled up there. See: WP:NOT#REPOSITORY

But it is OK to use commercial links. See:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/External_links

From that page: "Many sites are commercial in nature. Although this provides motive to spam them on wiki pages, there is no problem with commercial sites that are useful references. Many major newspaper websites contain heavy advertisement, but they are nonetheless good references. In the end, the best criteria to consider is the content and relevancy."

In my opinion it is important to understand the spirit of wikipedia guidelines and not get hung up on any particular interpretation or writeup. --Timeshifter 19:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I want to say that I understand that you must be feeling frustrated about having to explain and justify all of this -- and I appreciate your going into things at such length. But I would appreciate it even more if you would work a little harder on avoiding the arrogant tone that creeps in here and there.

The fact is, I DID read large sections of that extremely long talk page, as well as a great deal more (including the passages you cite). And I'm not some mindless adherent of inflexible application of the rules. We just assess things a bit differently.

For one thing, I believe you're mistaken in your narrow interpretation of the guidelines on external links as being mainly concerned with the "External Links" section. In fact, there is no mention of that section until you get to the bottom of the page. The guidelines are plainly meant to apply to ALL of the external links in an article. And #4 clearly discourages "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services", and then singles out "commercial bookstore sites".

Now, I'm not saying that's the end of the argument. But if the basic rationale for "convenience links" is to give readers a direct link to online text, why not do precisely that? Even after you pointed me in the right direction, that link for the searchable text was not readily apparent amidst all the clutter on the Amazon page -- so much for "convenience". You could substitute those links and get readers directly to the searchable text. Have you considered doing that?

I don't necessarily have a problem with linking to a specific Amazon sales page if it can be justified, i.e. if there is a uniquely valuable review, for instance. (Roughly the same standard I would apply for linking to a blog.) But I'm not yet persuaded that it's "kosher" for those links to be used routinely. Also, I generally make a point of providing the reference details right there along with the title & author of the book.

I've edited hundreds of articles, and I've only rarely come across the occasional link to an Amazon page. The EL talk page discussions were not terribly enlightening vis-a-vis this issue. Are you aware of other editors who share your views on this and routinely insert such links? If this practice really has gained acceptance, I will modify my views accordingly. But if you're pretty much alone in doing this, I really do think you should prune back those links to just those that are indispensable.

I've got to get going now, but I will check back later this evening (way later) to see if we're making any headway on resolving this. Sayonara, Cgingold 20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the occasional tone of arrogance on your end is a problem too. I have many more edits than you. But let us not play seniority games. In the end I guess we can agree to disagree. I already pruned back the links. See the revision history. So I have already compromised. The link to an Amazon page is not just for the searchable text. That is why I don't link directly to the searchable text part. There are many links to Amazon and Google pages. On many wikipedia pages.

And you seem to keep ignoring the info I pointed out to you about the acceptability of commercial links. I don't see much compromise on your end. Why are you so concerned about all this? I really get frustrated with deletionists in general. It is like deletionists have nothing better to do but tear down the encyclopedia. Building it is much more useful. I am not saying you are a deletionist. But I think you are missing the point of all the info I put out in the above discussion. I think the guideline is trying to prevent long link lists focussed on commercial advertising links. In a word, spam.

It should be obvious that I am not trying to promote any commercial product or spam. I am sure you must have noticed in the info that many commentators noted that newspaper articles had plenty of ads, but that links to them were not discouraged. I think you may be stuck on the ISBN thing. People just rarely use that as the citation link anymore in my experience. People want convenience. That seems to be why people are mentioning convenience links more and more. They are contradicting guidelines, I agree, but let us use common sense. I think the EL discussion sections nail it down pretty clearly, and that there is a preponderance of editors (on that talk page at least) who agree with me. So can we let my current compromise stand, please. --Timeshifter 21:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Using the ISBN will get someone to Amazon if that's where they want to go. It will also get them to about a hundred other resources. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason both links can't be used. I have been in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links. I also helped clarify the introduction of Wikipedia:External links‎. Many people, myself included, were confused about what that page referred to. It has become clarified that the page refers only to links in external links sections. Not citation or reference links. --Timeshifter 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hoax content?

A very large part of the Phoenix Program article appears to consist of material contributed in 2005 by IPs beginning with 207.118, similar to the ones that, at roughly the same time, created the John L. Lee and Project Pale Horse articles. These two articles are now on AFD and likely to be deleted as hoaxes, as it appears to be very difficult to find any references. The content in this article includes links to those two articles, but jsut removing the links is probably insifficient.

The John L. Lee article is written by the following IPs:

• Special:Contributions/207.118.124.204
• Special:Contributions/207.118.122.221
• Special:Contributions/207.118.105.63
• Special:Contributions/207.118.111.159
• Special:Contributions/207.118.111.155
• Special:Contributions/207.118.97.244

Some of these have contributed only to that article, but a few have contributed to others, including Project Pale Horse (207.118.122.221, 207.118.97.244). The history of that one shows an additional related IP:

• Special:Contributions/207.118.115.21 (only preserved contribution is to that page)

Looking at the history of the Phoenix Program article, many of the contributions have come from other 207.118... IPs. If the John L. Lee and the Project Pale Horse articles are hoaxes, everything contributed by these IPs, not just the links to those articles, is suspect (and some of these IPs may have edited other articles, I haven't checked that), as is every subsequent version incorporating those contributions. Pharamond 05:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

John L Lee Citation

Does anyone have any information regarding John L. Lee that can be cited? None of the claims made in this article regarding John L. Lee are cited, and a quick google search doesn't reveal anything on him, other than an Answers.com web site that apparently pulled information from a now defunct wikipedia article on him.

Massive deletions

Can these massive deletions be explained? That would be great. It's always best to use the "discussion" page before doing something like this. Badagnani 01:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What about WP:BOLD?

Unsourced replaced with sourced. Some of the material was probably hoaxes, see the sections above.Ultramarine 01:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No good. Discuss here first. Badagnani 01:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This user has a history of making massive changes to articles without discussion or consensus. Please use talk pages to discuss changes instead of forcing them upon articles. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 01:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:V. Unsourced material can be removed, claims must have verifiable sources.Ultramarine 01:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No good. To show good faith, discuss here first. Each paragraph removed. Badagnani 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Let us start with this: "Project Pale Horse sidestepped the official U. S. Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation Program (ICEX), Lao, and GVN military chain of command, and had been running six years prior to the establishment of the "official" GVN Phoenix (Kế Hoạch Phụng Hoàng) program in Vietnam. The CIA-funded Black op project name (Pale Horse) was taken from the Bible, specifically the Book of Revelation 6:8 ("And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth")." Unsourced and as noted above probably a hoax.Ultramarine 01:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Objections to removal?Ultramarine 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with UM, in this one, there is not mention in anything I can find thaty discusses a "Project Pale Horse", seems like a hoax, or disinformation. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

POV and Copyright/Cutnpaste Issues?

The first four sections, i.e., the majority of this article are POV for a reason. It's all been cut and pasted from the cited pdf file, which is itself a POV piece with multiple agendas, one of which is a rehabilitation of Westmoreland, another which is a defense of the total failure of COORDS, and another an obfuscation of Phoenix. The first tip off is the unusual use of VCI, where most sources use NLF to describe the infrastructural umbrella organization that supported the guerrilla resistance or whatever you want to call it. Article needs a complete rewrite, throwing out most of what is already there. 216.175.80.45 08:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add a source with opposing views. If you think the original text is followed to closely, we can paraphrase it.Ultramarine 08:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Using "VCI" is not non-standard or POV. It was the term used by our military and the GoV at the time, and in much of the literature on the subject of Phoenix available today. I would also advise against dismissing the source in question. Just because it may represent a departure from your view of what Phoenix was does not make it an "obfuscation of Phoenix". There has been a lot of literature recently suggesting that efforts like Phoenix have been mis-colored by history. T.X. Hammes's Sling and the Stone, for example, provides a fairly objective and multi-dimensional approach to the counter-insurgency effort in Vietnam. Scharferimage 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a check of the first part of the Background section. I found this copyright violation right away:

"every village had a cell made up of a Communist Party secretary; a finance and supply unit; and information and culture, social welfare, and proselytizing sections to gain recruits from among the civilian population."

It is from

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr06/Andrade-Willbanks.pdf

I stopped looking after that. I bet there are other examples in the article. See WP:COPYVIO. --Timeshifter 04:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Toledo Blade series not mentioned?

The fact that the Toledo Blade series is not mentioned is a glaring omission. For more information, see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22toledo+blade%22+%22phoenix+program%22&btnG=Google+Search . Badagnani 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add the info to the article. Along with sources, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything in the Blade that links Phoenix to Tiger force? I ahve not seen anything on this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)