Talk:Battle of Ia Drang

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)

YHope 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 - In view of the Battle of Khe Sanh (A-Class rating) even the Kingdom of Laos that had no troops and commanders involved, is listed as belligerent, there is no reason not to list the ARVN as a belligerent at the Battle of Ia Drang. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:31, 15 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.

RfC: Insertion of South Vietnam

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:

Supported by:
South Vietnam

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

• Comments - (from Tnguyen4321 and Dino nam moved to next section; this space is reserved for comments from other editors).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support - as proposed by OP. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

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

• Comment - Besides being false (it was rather the other way around: in this conflict the US was supporting South Vietnam) this opinion is unwarranted in the infobox space. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - The article is about the battle, not the conflict, therefore the point made by user:Tnguyen4321 is irrelevant. Besides, no Wikipedia's regulation prevents such editing. Dino nam (talk) 01:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - At the battle, the ARVN did not play a supportive role, but rather played an operational control role.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• 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.[1] 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)

• 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.

• Vinh Loc was directly involved at the Battle as well at the Campaign at the level of operation control, which is "command" not "support".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• "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)

• See response above.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:20, 12 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. [2] 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 food 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, 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. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 05:14, 15 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"

But when you check the source here,[3], 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)

• You read it wrong. Each statement is backed up by its own source. There is no attempt of reaching a conclusion here.72.89.83.175 (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC). Oops, forgot to log in. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:09, 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)

Prima Donna 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)

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)