Talk:Battle of Ia Drang

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: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. 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.[9] 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)

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)

RfC: Delete section

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.

---

Relisted RfC about whether to delete the section. "Two battlefronts at the Ia Drang Valley". Relisted to wait for closure. Ams&CVA (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC), originally started by Cunard (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on whether we should delete the section "Two battlefronts at the Ia Drang Valley". Dino nam (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - I suggest its deletion because of the following reasons:

• The section contains too much unnecessary and irrelevant info, thus contradicting the principle of WP:N(E). For instance, "On 20 November, the day following the 5 consecutive days of airstrike, he gave orders to the J-2 (General McChristian) and the J-3 (General DePuy) to work out reducing the response time with SAC down to within seven hours." is a sentence that has nothing to do with the Battle of Ia Drang. It should be noted that the section used to be deleted by user:Factotem for the same reason.
• user:Tnguyen4321 has restored deleted info; however, no new info has been added to prove its significance, and moreover, its verifiability. For instance, Arc Light 1965-1966 is cited in the section; however the real content of the RS doesn't even contain a word about the battle or the air strike. Or 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:SYNTH. Dino nam (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• It does: that was the 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.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: Point out the exact part of RS saying that. Dino nam (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Westmoreland's notes,Saturday 20 November.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: 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)

Good suggestion. Done.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: I didn't suggest you moving the whole content of the section. If you agree, I'll try to filter out anything that should be deleted and move the rest to the Aftermath section. If you don't agree with this, you'll still have to wait for consensus for another solution. Dino nam (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem. No I don't agree with your new proposal. Let's just wait for other editors' comments that do not seem to come along.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: No problem. As long as no consensus reached yet, the dispute remains pending on this article. Dino nam (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you have to say about your 7 acts of vandalism under the cover of restoring the location of this section?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Arc Light 1965-1966, page 23 states: "However, during November, the B-52s were used in a close-support role in conjunction with a major battle in the Ia Drang valley of Pleiku Province, involving the 1st Air Cavalry Division in Operation "Silver Bayonet," a bitter fight with North Vietnamese elements. On five consecutive days, beginning 17 November, strikes were conducted in the 1st Air Cav battle area."Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: OK then, point out the how this section is relevant what you've written and tagged as from Meylan's RS in the article. Dino nam (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your instruction.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: For instance, point out the exact quotation of Meylan, page 23 that said this: "A particularity of the B-52 strike operation at Chu Pong, is that 3AC/SAC was able to reduce the reaction strike time down to 14 hours and 17 minutes" Dino nam (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Who is talking about "independent" battlefronts/operations? Both Kinnard (page 88) and McChristian (page 56) mentionnent about the 5 consecutive B-52 airstrike from Nov 15 to 19, with airstrike at LZ X-Ray on Nov 19.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: Then I can't see any necessity of the existence of the section. Dino nam (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the rational of your "then".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: The rationality is that there aren't indenpendent "fronts", so the info about the air strike shall be minimize, because the battle on ground is the main info. The insertion of the section is contradictory to WP:N(E), then. Dino nam (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Re: Westmoreland's direct involvement in the Ia Drang battle, all info are picked out of his notes, in particular Sunday 29 August, Thursday 18 November entries. There is no such thing as wp:synth.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: Point out the exact part of his note saying that. Dino nam (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I did: Sunday 29 August, Thursday 18 November entries!Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: Then at least you should give a more particular citation for this sentence: "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." However, even then I can't see any relevance of this sentence to the Battle of Ia Drang. Dino nam (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

References: Sunday 17 October entry, Sunday 18 October entry, Tuesday 19 October entry, Thursday 28 October entry, Sunday 31 October entry, Saturday 6 November entry, Thursday 18 November entry. It was all about the coordination of Operation Long Reach that cumulated at the Battle Ia Drang. It's all about the Battle of Ia Drang. Take the time to read the source, will you.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I've read them and see none of the sources claim that the coordination of the air strike led to the ground battle. Dino nam (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

No comments.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• The replacement of "battlefront" with "operation" should render the issue futile.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: Still doesn't forge the necessity of the section. It was still only an air support mission by nature. Moreover, you've not fixed the syntheses and dubious contents yet. Dino nam (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Do not understand what you mean. Anyway, let's wait and see comments of other editors. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Another thing must be said about the section is that it quotes too much from primary sources written by people that was connected to the event and had conflict of interest, thus violating the WP:GNG and WP:PSTS. Dino nam (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

YI have already provided all the verifiable sources; you don't seem to be keen enough to do the verification. Once again, let wait and see comments of other editors.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I think you should read the regulations more carefully in the meantime. Dino nam (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, the issue does not lie in the regulations, but rather in your distorted interpretation of them.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you try interpreting them in the "right" way? I'm looking forward to hearing. Dino nam (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You want to hear it again? I have tried in the past and had given up dialoguing with you, remember? Again, let's see what other editors will say. By the way, don't try to cover up your acts of vandalism - seven lately in one editing session.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: Then I have nothing to say with you about regulations, cause you seem to have not understood it at all. First, read the definition of WP:VANDAL; it may cover some of your own action. Second, I've not done anything to the article for many days (except the revert against your latest disruptive editing). Dino nam (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding relevant sourced info is "disruptive editing"?!Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure What I am sure of is that accusing editors of vandalism is a bad idea. Tnguyen4321 do you have any better reasons why it should be kept, as I am leaning toward remove? L3X1 (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

:Firstly, let me make sure we are talking about the same thing. I am not talking about the deletion of the section - which is waiting for comments from other editors, just about the 7 deletions of sourced data [10].

Delete sourced info is a form of vandalism. Why is pointing this act out as an act of vandalism is a bad idea when it is repeated and covered up. Let me refer to WIKI: "Assume good faith (such as that the user is simply unaware of the policies and guidelines), but only if plausible. Circumstances may warrant no assumption of good faith, or indicate bad faith; respond accordingly."Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant issues crossed. You can assert this issue in another section. It has nothing to do with the scope of this RfC. Dino nam (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Another thing I've just seen is that there wasn't even any air operation called "Plei Me - Chu Pong Campaign". Plei Me - Chu Pong Campaign was another name for the ground search-and-destroy Pleiku Campaign, as McChristian, page 3 stated: "The PLEI ME/CHU PONG Campaign was conducted by the 1st Air Cavalry Division and ARVN units." So there was nothing about the USAF here. The air strike was simply part of the prolonging Operation Arc Light (Melyan, page 23), which provided routine air support for ground operations in Vietnam. Dino nam (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant comment crossed. This section is a RfC seeking comments from other editors.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes--This section should be deleted because: 1) there is too much detail, and 2) because there are too many primary sources. WP requires that no primary sources be referenced, only secondary sources, to make sure the primary sources have been digested and filtered through another viewpoint. Westmoreland's diary cannot be used as a source because it is a primary source. Only articles and books which have used the diary as a source, can be referenced, i.e. a secondary source.Markewilliams (talk)

Comment: 1) What's wrong with "too much detail"? 2) Wikipedia does not prohibit the use of primary sources, only to be cautious in its use: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• 'Agree with removing the WP:SYNTH stuff, but I don't care about sectioning; what's important is the content, much more so than exactly where it's placed and how it's subdivided. The nominator is correct that many of the claims do not have reliable source support. Those that do should be retained, where relevant. That last part is important; a WP article is not meant to be a blow-by-blow of every possible recorded detail. An encyclopedia article is very summarative and intended for a general audience.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:13, 24 August 2017 (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.

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)

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)

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)

Bogus tagging

@Dino nam: Your tags you inserted here [11][12][13][14] are bogus since the sources provided are verifiable and there is no synthesis. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no synthesis because each fact is independent and backed up by verifiable source.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

An example of bogus synthesis tagging.

At 18:50 hours, General Kinnard discussed with Gen Larsen the possibility of having a B-52 strike at the area of LZ X-Ray. At 21:00 hours: 1st Air Cavalry selected coordinates for B-52 strike in Code – YA 870000, YA 830000, YA 830070, YA 870070 with alternative targets (in Code) YA 8607, YA 9007, YA 9000, YA 8600.[59][improper synthesis?]

Direct quote from source G3 Journal/IFFV:

November 14, 1965

- 18:50H: 1st Air Cav Div (Lt Col Buham) Gen Kinnard discussed with Gen Larsen the possibility of having a B-52 strike in the Long Reach area “X” Gen Larsen was in favor of this.

- 21:00H: 1st Air Cav (Capt Parham) Coord for B-52 strike in Code – YA 870000, YA 830000, YA 830070, YA 870070.

- 21:00H: 1st Air Cav (Capt Parham) Alt Target for B-52 strikes (in Code) YA 8607, YA 9007, YA 9000, YA 8600. Target area approved by Col Barrow and Col McCord.

End quote. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321:

• About citation #59, may be that's a mistake of mine and you can remove it.
• About [15][16][17][18], it's quite surprising when you can call the tags "bogus", after some kind of sources that talks about something happened hundreds of miles away from Ia Drang at an unknown time, yet are still cited by you as something happened at the battle like Meylan, page 9 and 23. Dino nam (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Glad that you admit it was a mistake. I have removed it, although I would prefer that you should have reverted it yourself upon seeing it was your mistake.
• You might want to read the given references more carefully: it's about the 5 consecutive day B-52 airstrike at Ia Drang in support of Operation Silver Bayonet. These airstrikes were all located within less than 12 kilometers from LZ X-Ray. (see B-52 strike on NVA troop positions, November 15–20 map: the length of the side of each square is equivalent to 1km).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: you might be befuddled by the mention of Binh Duong Province - that was "hundreds of miles away from Ia Drang" (Scheduled strikes in Binh Duong Province were deferred) in the context.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The issue of bogus tagging stems from the fact you are looking for "verbatim quote" - which by the way is prohibited by Wiki because it infringes on copyright - instead of being content with paraphrasing.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321:

• I've never required any "verbatim quote" on the article. I just require some here, on this talk page in order to verify the info. After we've reached consensus on that, you can write whatever you want.
• The combination of Melyan, p. 9 and p. 23 itself is a WP:SYNTH. In fact, it's also a wrong SYNTH. Let's see Meylan p. 9: "When I a request was initiated, approval for the strike, MACV said, would be expedited to allow a TOT not later than 24 hours after the initial message was transmitted." So there's nothing called "reduction" here; 24 hours was just the time limit for an air strike to come, and 14 hours 57 minutes (not 17 minutes) was a very normal duration, as it was less than the 24 hour limit.
• I've just said you can remove the tag on the #59 citation, not all the tags. Dino nam (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• You read wrong: the normal time required was 24h, at Ia Drang the time was 14 hours and 57 minutes. That's a reduction. I don't see any synthesis here.
• Do I really need your permission to revert your wrong edits?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Air assault versus airlift

@RDCullen: You recently replaced "air assaulted" with "air lifted". Can you clarify and justify your choice of words?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150315053431/http://www.virtualwall.org/dg/GeogheganJL01a.htm to http://www.virtualwall.org/dg/GeogheganJL01a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Dubious Statements

I've removed the following statement from the Background section...
These coordinates in military terminology indicates the three regiments were located in their respective assembly areas that were each in less than one kilometer-square,<ref>Note:4-digit coordinate is equivalent to 1 km-sq; 6-digit coordinate to 100 m-sq</ref> which constituted suitable targets for B-52 airstrike.<ref>Melyan, page 56</ref>
It seems dubious to me on a number of counts...
1. If you check the Meylan ref, it says that the neither the "narrow limits" nor the total target area should be less than a kilometre. The above statement specifically says that all three assembly areas were less than 1km sq, and the note shows that 2 of the 3 coords given in the preceding sentence were only 100m sq.
2. The embedded note is not sourced.
3. The information in this sentence is generic, and not specific to the battle.
Happy to discuss. FactotEm (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

1. Meylan just states that a target for B-52 strike must be at least 1 km-sq. 66th Regiment size is about 1 km-sq; 32nd and 33rd Regiment sizes are about 100 m-sq, which are less than 1 km-sq. They became suitable for B-52 strikes.

2. 66th center mass vic 9104; 32nd YA 820070; 33rd YA940010 (Source:Kinnard, Pleiku Campaign page 76)

3. The info in this sentence is not generic; it's specific to the battle plan on November 10, 1965.

Btw you should discuss first and get consensus prior to remove, not the other way around.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Tnguyen4321. I don't understand. "At least 1km sq" means no smaller than, which 100m sq patently is. My point about the info being generic is that the statement did not demonstrate any relationship to the subject of this article, a battle which began on November 14. Factotem (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

When it was determined that the 3 NVA regiments were concentrated enough and became available targets for B-52 strike on Nov 10, the 1/7 Air Cav Bn was ordered to go in LZ X-Ray to fix the targets on Nov 14, allowing the B-52s to strike on Nov 15 at 1600H. BG Knowles states that the Air Cav troops were sent in LZ X-Ray "to grab the tiger by the tail' then were moved to LZ Albany "to grab the tiger by the tail from another direction" (see http://www.generalhieu.com/lzxray_knowles-2.htm).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that source that says the 1/7 was ordered to X-Ray "to fix the targets". On page 3 we're told that the primary mission was "Find the enemy and go after him", and on page 4 we're told that the "...object of the exercise is to find the enemy...". Neither of these mention fixing the enemy in place for the B-52s. The B-52s are mentioned twice, once on page 4, saying that B-52 strikes were laid on to support Hal Moore's battalion, and then on page 6, to say that delayed-fuse bombs dropped by B-52s that had aborted a strike in another area prevented the Americans from taking the high ground. Also, Knowles does not say the AirCav was sent to X-Ray to grab the tiger's tail, he simply says that they had the tiger by the tail once the battle had started. Factotem (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Knowles said that the Air Cav troops were sent to LZ Albany "to grab the tiger by its tail". What for? To hold it, to fix it in order to hit him, right? But hit him with what, with other Air Cav elements? No, with B-52 strikes. Prior to this phase, the 1/7 Air Cav Bn was officially sent in LZ X-Ray. Was it to find and destroy the enemy? Not really, since after finding the enemy, the 1/7 withdrewn and did not stay to destroy the enemy along with the 2/7 and the 2/5. Hit the tiger was left to the B-52 strikes. Furthermore, these two reinforced battalions, after replacing the 1/7, did not go after the enemy. They rather went to LZ Albany "to grade the tiger by its tail from another direction" and allowed the B-52's to hit the enemy instead.

Knowles did not say sent, not in the source you provided. Factotem (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Larsen ordered Knowles to send air cav troops into LZ X-Ray.

“By this time Field Force Vietnam had asked the division to consider moving this operations east of Pleime.” (Kinnard, Pleiku Campaigne, p.67)

“The movement and shift in emphasis from west to east was to further stimulate a forthcoming decision from the NVA division headquarters.” (idem, p. 73)

“With American units seemingly withdrawing to the east of Pleime, the decision was to attempt to regain its early advantage with an attack. The target once again was the Pleime CIDG Camp. The division headquarters set the date for attack at 16 November, and issued orders to its three regiments.” (idem, p. 76) Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

And again, none of these do anything to prove that the purpose of the Air Cav actions at X-Ray and Albany were to fix targets for B-52 strikes. To get back to the original question, the text stated that the NVA regiments were in areas of less than 1km sq, while the source states that B-52 target areas should not be less than 1km sq. Factotem (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The 2nd quotation says that "the movement and shift in emphasis from west to east (meaning toward LZ X-Ray) was to further stimulate a forthcoming decision from the NVA division headquarters". It was a diversionary tactic to entice NVA B3 Field Front Command to commence staging for an attack, and in so doing, gather the troops in their respective assembly areas. The three troop concentration was dense enough to become available targets for B-52 strike. "Distract", "fix", "grab by the tail" are equivalent. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The expression "grab the tiger by its tail" was not Knowles. It was a tactics called "kiềm vĩ kích thủ" (hold tail kick head) designed by ARVN II Corps for the Long Reach operation to destroy the three NVA regiments by using B-52 strike with the help of the Air Cavalry troops. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources? Factotem (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you read Vietnamese? http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime_sach.htm, in particular p.105 and on. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you have the advantage of me there, and your English is impressive. Even if that book was in English, though, you are trying to make a specific point, and I would ask that you at least point to the specific page and paragraph, if not sentence, that proves it. Factotem (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Page 101, 1st paragraph before the (*): Vì vậy quyết định phải tổ chức truy kích địch.... (Long Reach)?

Translation: “Therefore the decision to organize an enemy pursuit of II Corps Command, in which 1st Air Cavalry Division is the main effort and ARVN Airborne Group is the reserved force ready to intervene when necessary, was wholeheartedly accepted by the entire division, because rarely an unit got the chance to open its first history pages with a trường chinh (Long Reach) operation.”Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

II

Another removal...
Around 17:00, elements of 1/9 Cav Squadron went into the B-52 airstrike target area to evaluate the results of the strike.<ref name="G3 Journal/IFFV, November 15 entry">G3 Journal/IFFV, November 15 entry</ref>
&
At 18:00, Gen. Kinnard made a request for a second B-52 strike and was advised that Gen. Vinh Loc made a similar request for the same area.<ref name="G3 Journal/IFFV, November 15 entry"/>
The source for the first sentence actually says that 1/9th went in that afternoon, but doesn't give a time, and nowhere does it say why.
There is nothing at all in the source to support the second sentence. FactotEm (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Journal: "November 15, 1965

- 06:00H: MACV Capt McCabe – Ref Arclight tgt, TOT is 151600H.

-18:15H: FFV Adv (Maj Boyle) Passed fm 1 Cav (Gen Kinnard): Elements of 1/9 Cav Sqdn went into the airstrike (arclite) target area this afternoon."

The B-52s struck at 1600H. What do you think the 1/9 Cav Sqdn entered the arclite area that afternoon (after 1600H, aka 1700H; action reported in the Journal at 18:15H) for?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not know. The source says only that they went into the area and gives no reason why. The Journal cited is a primary source, and the policy says specifically that we are not to "analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Factotem (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

In the Journal, you can see that each B-52 strike was followed by an "exploitation operation" to assess the result of the strike. For example: Nov 16

"- 07:15H: To: 1st Air Cav (Capt Brady) Question: If second B-52 strike approved does Cav plan to exploit? ";

"- 08:30H: 1st Cav (Maj Anderson) 1. What are plans for Exploitation of yesterday’s strike?";

"- 09:15H: 1st Cav (Maj Anderson) Ref: exploitation of Arclight Tgt. Commander on the ground had plans to send in 1st Cav however at present all units are engaged. When En vic Points X Ray and Lime are defeated. 1/9 will make recon of area. " Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

III

Westmoreland approved<ref>G3/IFFV, 10/27 entry</ref> the II Corps' request of having the 1st Air Cavalry Division assume the execution of Operation Long Reach, with the purpose of luring the three NVA regiments into concentrating in assembly areas in Chu Pong and becoming available targets for B-52 airstrikes.<ref>Kinnard, page 67, 73, 76</ref>
I've removed the above on the following grounds...
1. G3/IFFV is in chronological order, and its use in other refs provided in this article is accompanied by the date and time. Here, however, we are given only "10/27", making the source impossible to locate.
2. The Kinnard ref does not support any of the preceding statement. FactotEm (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

IV

Last para in section "Three-pronged attack"...
At 09:30, Col. Brown, the commander of the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), landed at LZ X-Ray to make preparation to withdraw the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry, deeming its job of drawing the attention of the enemy away from attacking the Plei Me camp<ref>Nguyen Huu An, page 32</ref> done.<ref name="Moore, page 202">Moore, page 202</ref> He intended to establish a 3rd Air Cavalry Brigade forward command post in order to take over the command of the battlefield with the presence of the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry, the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry, and the 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry on the ground at LZ X-Ray. When Moore refused to relinquish the command of his battalion, Brown contented to notify him before leaving that the 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry would be withdrawn the next day.<ref name="Moore, page 202">Moore, page 202</ref>
I've left it in for now, but the whole para is dubious...
1. It states that Col. Brown had deemed 1/7's job was to draw enemy attention away from the Plei Me camp, but sources the statement to the enemy commander. Anyone else find this odd?
2. Col. Brown has flown in to prepare the withdrawal of 1/7, but it later states that he intended to establish a forward command post with three battalions, one of which is to be 1/7. Contradiction?
3. Further, Col. Brown apparently intended to take over command of the battlefield, but left when Moore refused to relinquish command of his battalion. Are American Brigade commanders so easily diverted?
I don't have access to either of the sources. I suspect the first is in Vietnamese only - if the purpose of the battle was indeed to draw attention away from Plei Me then I doubt that it will be too difficult to find an English source to support that. As for the second source, that's Hal Moore's book - I'd be interested to hear what he had to say, if anyone has access to his book. FactotEm (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Summary paragraphs not suitable

The three summary paragraphs for this article contain material that should not be in the summary paras. The most important facts about the battle are lost in details that are of little interest to the average reader.

The first summary para need not list every military unit involved in the battle. That material is in the infobox. Nor do we need to know in summary paras 2 and 3 the U.S. justification for the combat losses in the battle and the public relations response of Gen. Westmoreland. That stuff is interesting and relevant but can be summarized in a single sentence or two rather than two long -- overly long -- paragraphs. Nor do we need in the summary paras a long section on the literary and film history of the battle. A one sentence summary will suffice.

In my opinion, the three summary paragraphs should be shortened by more than one-half, the focus on important elements of the battle should be sharpened, and the material deleted from the summary paras should be put into the body of the article as appropriate. Any takers to do it? [[User:Smallchief|Smallchief]] ([[User talk:Smallchief|talk]] (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, but the entire article is a bit of a mess, the result I think of some edit wars in the past. I'm going through slowly when I get the chance, but don't know when I can get round to the lead. FactotEm (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Made a start, but it has some way to go yet. FactotEm (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Think it's in a bit better shape now, but its completely missing any Vietnamese perspective, although that's probably true of most of the article anyway. FactotEm (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Q

Last sentence, 1st para, "Americans dig in for the night" section...
By nightfall, the battle had taken a heavy toll on Lt. Col. Moore's battalion: B/2/7 had taken 47 casualties (including one officer) and A Company had taken 34 casualties (including three officers); C company had taken only four casualties. (my emphasis)
Is the B/2/7 above a typo? Moore's Bn was 1/7. It's confusing because B Coy of the 2nd Bn 7th Cav had also just landed. Can't check the sources - none provided. FactotEm (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Apparently. Probable source is Moore's book, page 142. I'll make the corrections and add reference. [[User:Smallchief|Smallchief]] ([[User talk:Smallchief|talk]] (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That's great. Thx. Do you have his book with you? Interested to hear whether p202 supports any of the information I copied to Dubious Statement number IV above, if you get the chance to have a peek. FactotEm (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Page 202 does not mention Col. Tim Brown in the edition which I have. Page 194 mentions that General Knowles on 15 Nov planned to tell Col Brown to withdraw Moore's battalion (1/7) on 16 Nov for two days of rest and rehabilitation. There's no mention of Plei Me as a reason for the proposed withdrawal. In a quick look through the book, I don't find a suggestion of a command problem between Moore and Brown. In other words, I would say this para could be deleted from the article unless somebody can come up with a reliable source. [[User:Smallchief|Smallchief]] ([[User talk:Smallchief|talk]] (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure what to do with this para. I'll leave it there for now and see what comes up after a bit more research. FactotEm (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: Day to day's 1 November 2017 deletion

This 06:16, 1 November 2017‎ Day to day (Undid revision 807820029 by David J Johnson (talk) I did examine and can't see it in the source) should be undone. Here are the two references he could not see:

- "The initial request would include the general situation, target information, objective, distance from friendly forces, and contemplated ground follow-up, if any. If beacon emplacement was precluded by virtue of target locations, normal radar bombing techniques would be used. When a request was initiated, approval for the strike, MACV said, would be expedited to allow a TOT not later than 24 hours after the initial message was transmitted." (Meyan, p.9)

- "However, during November, the B-52s were used in a close-support role in conjunction with a major battle in the Ia Drang valley of Pleiku Province, involving the 1st Air Cavalry Division in Operation "Silver Bayonet," a bitter fight with North Vietnamese elements. On five consecutive days, beginning 17 November, strikes were conducted in the 1st Air Cav battle area. To meet these close-support needs, scheduled strikes in Binh Duong Province were deferred and, within 14 hours and 57 minutes of the COMUSMACV request, 18 B-52s launched from Guam to provide necessary support." (Meyan, p.23)

Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)