Talk:Battle of Ia Drang/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Detail of Article

March 8/06

I realize that I have included a significant amount of detail in this article, including the names of many officers and enlisted personnel involved in the battle. I have not yet finished this page, so please bear with me a few more days.

The purpose of including this much detail is so that interested individuals who have had relatives or friends who were at the Ia Drang may know what their loved ones did and underwent in this battle. I have purposely avoided providing details that would be troubling for those who may have known the combatants (such as detailed causes of death, for example).

While all of this information and much more is available in Moore and Galloway's book (in fact, it's my primary source), my hope is to respectfully inform those who knew the combatants of the Ia Drang (or any veterans of the Ia Drang who may read this article). For those who have never known these men but wish to honour their experience (like myself), the purpose of this page is to provide information on what I believe is among the most interesting and tragic battles of the War.

For those who are interested in learning more, I highly recommend the LZ X-Ray site and We Were Soldiers Once...And Young - which, in my view, is one of the best war books ever written.

James Cameron

Canada

I found this article fascinating, it had excellent detail. Well done on researching the content. I did a little cleanup while I was here. ~ Flooch 13:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Remove a Redirect, Thanks

Sometime ago I started a page called "Landing Zone X-Ray" to be about the place in present-day reality, not about the battle. Now I have all my research complete but the page redirects here. Would someone please detach or remove the redirect so I can just write the page out as I initally intended it to be? (I'm planning to use TerraServer or Google Earth to pinpoint the exact field or sunnink like that, but now I can't since the page is gone. Also I want a clear assurance that the embleer hraka rah who did this to me is stopped and will never do it again. Thank you all so much!) --Shenshuai 16:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Info Box, Commanders

So, I went in to edit the info box entry to put in Colonel Brown's first name, and I noticed that the entry also included Lt. Colonel Moore and Lt. Colonel McDade as the commanders of their own Battalions. The thing is, these last two bits don't show up in the template. Does anyone know how to modify it so they fit?--Raguleader 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, fixed the name formating in the info box, also fixed the name of the unit Colonel Brown commanded (the 7th Cavalry Division is part of the 3rd Brigade, not vice versa). Now the infobox looks cluttered with all the American officers on the side. Since Lt. Col. Moore and Lt. Col. McDade commanded their units in seperate actions in the battle, and Colonel Brown was in overall command, I'm not sure if we can remove any of them. Is there some standard for dealing with this, or are we just not worried?--Raguleader 13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Grr... OK, it's apparantly the 7th Cavalry Regiment, not Division. *slaps forehead* Since a Brigade is part of a Division, this is probably where the original confusion on whether the 7th was part of the 3rd to begin with. Fixed now. *goes to find coffee*--Raguleader 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I went in and fixed all. Without going into a lot of detail, the hierarchy is as shown. Brown was the overall commander, Moore the on-scene commander, and McDade's battalion the one ambushed at Albany.--131.238.92.62 12:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any information available on the NVA/VC order of battle and their commanders? Does anyone want to add it in for the Infobox?--Raguleader 20:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Force strength

Would the number given for American forces include both Colonel Moore's and Colonel McDade's men combined? I'm pretty sure that would be far more than 395, though any counts should take care to remember that Lieutenant "Hard Corps" Rescorla's platoon fought in both actions.--Raguleader 21:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

only 16 Americans not dead or wounded?

Come on.

Also, the second battle has only one paragraph (and should have even separate article). --HanzoHattori 06:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is probably related to the strangely low number of American soldiers listed as being present. 395 men would be a single battalion, while there were as many as three American battalions involved in the battle (only two involved in any major ways, with Colonel Moore's battalion fighting at X-Ray and Colonel McDade's battalion fighting at Albany.--Raguleader 10:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the second point though BTW. The Albany fight really deserves its own article. But what to call it? In most histories it's covered under Ia Drang. Maury 13:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

LZ Albany ambush? --HanzoHattori 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

references

Shouldn't the references section be "notes" and be formatted as "Moore p. 219" instead of numbingly listing the whole title, and ISBN number for each ref? You can put that once in a section called references and just keep the surname and page number in the renamed notes section can't you? SGGH ^speak! 19:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It should, but it's more difficult than you think because they might get moved around. This should really be automated in the CITE system, but don't hold your breath. Maury 19:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused (Albany)

The Second Battalion, 7th Cavalry lost 155 men killed and suffered 124 wounded, while Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry and Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry both suffered only 2 wounded? --HanzoHattori 08:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Ia Drang - French battle

If my memory is correct , there was a battle where the French were annihilated a few years before the American battle but on the same valley. Is this a fact?

--YoavD 06:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You may be referring to the Battle of Mang Yang Pass which also took place in the Central Highlands. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ ^Talk 10:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First Battle?

This was NOT the first major US combat operation in Vietnam. Operation Gibraltar involving the 2/502nd and 2/327th infantry battalions of the 101st Airborne Division took place two months prior in September 1965. There were significant American casualties in this engagement, and it involved at least two American battalions pitted against a well entrenched Main Force VC battalion--certainly criteria for a "major battle". I'm changing that line in the article, and added a reference to Operation Gibraltar. Don't know how to add a citation, but here are some references:

"In mid-September, elements of the 2nd of the 502nd won the honor of first defeating a Viet Cong main force unit, before any other U.S. unit." (http://bastogne.org/regiment_history/vietnam.html),

"...the battalion deployed to Vietnam in 1965 and fought the Division’s first engagement from the 18th to the 20th of September as part of Operation Gibraltar." (http://pao.hood.army.mil/1stcavdiv/units/2-12cav/history.htm). -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.209.200 (talk • contribs)

You may have proven your point. The initial introductory paragraphs will be modified to remove references to Ia Drang being the first major battle of US forces. However, it will contain no references to Operation Gibraltar, as that deserves its own article. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ ^Talk 02:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the article specifically points out the fact that Ia Drang is "the first major battle of the Vietnam War between the United States Army and the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN). Operation Gibraltar involved US troops and Main Force VC; hence, some users might revert edits made concerning the introductory paragraph on the strength of that argument. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ ^Talk 02:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It was PAVN not VC. LTG(Ret) Charles Dyke refers to "the ill-fated airlift of the 2nd Battalion, 502nd Infantry into a confined, narrow valley ringed by a battalion of well dug-in PAVN 95th Regiment" in a letter to the editor in September 1989 issue of Army Magazine in response to a book review of David Hackworth's book About Face. Then MAJ Dyke was the S3 (battalion operations officer) of 2/327th IN at the time of Operation Gibraltar.

With Gibson movies?

What's the accuracy when this battle is compared to We were soldiers? There are many differences execpt the Alabny ambush?--Stefanomencarelli 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The bulk of this article is sourced from Col. Moore's and Galloway's book. The movie took much artistic license and should not be treated as a "factual" account of the battle, although there are similarities. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ ^Talk 04:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle outcome

Rather than starting an edit war in the infobox about the outcome, may I suggest that editors working on this article ensure that the outcome is properly referenced and that consensus is reached here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Some minor edits

I'm a newbie at Wikipedia. I don't know if adding this to the talk page is necessary but I thought I would list some changes I made anyway. On 7/29/05 I edited lots of little things here and there. I'm pretty sure "battalion" and "regiment" should be capitalized when they refer to a specific unit. I retyped "1/7" as "1st Battalion, 7th Cav," and so forth. I rewrote several sentences which I thought confusing. Also, when listing casualties the original article called the US dead "soldiers" but the PAVN dead "fighters." If I understand correctly, the PAVN troops were regulars and therefore should also be considered soldiers. As it was I changed both to "killed." Good day and happy editing, -Schmitty3347

I suppose your decision to change 1/7 to "1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry" is justified given the fact that we are dealing with general readership, but allow me to say that soldiers would simply have said, "the first of the seventh" and let it go at that. That's the rationale for 1/7, I believe.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't this article entitled the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley? I have been a student of the conflict since it was going on and I have never heard it refferred to as anything else (with the exception of Operation Silver Bayonet of which it was the major action). RM Gillespie 23:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm... I'll poke around my book collection here and see what the consensus of my bookshelf is, but if you can find us some cites for that, it'd probably help too. Then it'd be as simple as renaming this article and dropping a redirect from the old title to the new one.--Raguleader 01:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Units involved (cleanup)

Now as "strenght" in the infobox, but should be in the order of battle section in the main body of the article. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Difference Between Casualty Figures in Article and Side Box

The article states "The U.S. lost 234, with 242 wounded ... The PAVN lost 1,037 killed with an estimated 1,365 wounded."

However, the side box says 234/242 and 837/1365. Any reason for the discrepancy between 1037 and 837? Also, should the 1365 in the side-box read "1365 est." since it is an estimate, but the other figures (as far as I know) are not?

-Anonymous

Also, American strength is listed in the side box as 395 men but casualties are "239 dead, 242 wounded." Furthermore, "The PAVN forces had suffered thousands of casualties and were no longer capable of a fight" according to the article's text but the total North Vietnamese casualties are less than 1,000 in the side box. The information is wrong either in the text or the side box, or maybe both. -KS 1/6/07

Good grief, what happened to the numbers now? This is from the source it links to:

Overall, Kinnard's forces suffered 305 killed and 524 wounded during the campaign while killing, according to official records, 1,519 of the enemy by body count and another 2,042 by estimate. The figures for the enemy's losses... are open to doubt. At X-RAY Colonel Moore ... reduced the total of 834 killed submitted by his men to 634 because the former figure seemed too high.

The numbers in the info box don't seem to resemble that at all. Abeall (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The figures of casualties in this article (particularly the side box) are atrociously incorrect. For both American and NVA troops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.19.3 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird losses

Also figures for US casualties in the infobox are vastly different than in the text. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to reconcile the body text and infobox casualties. The text refers to casualties in varying ways, making it difficult to resolve. Casualty figures refer to totals and then to numbers killed during "this battle." Since the sources are not online, I can't figure out which apply to this engagement specifically. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Article title spelling

The name of the location is Ia Drang (with a capital i), but the article's title is la Drang (with a lowercase l). 97.102.194.244 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. Don't know why someone didn't do it earlier. — jwillbur 00:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

US Victory?

North vietnam also revendicated that battle as a victory for them.

Also, other languages for this wikipedia page state that there is no victor: italian deutsh french polski etc etc. If the English page is the only one to state that battle as a victory for USA then we can doubt about the partiality of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia is full of one-sided American propaganda, mate. According to Hal Moore himself, there was no winner in this battle.Canpark (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This battle can be seen as a victory for the US in regards to the aggressive search and destroy strategy employed by General William Westmoreland. The US was actively seeking out large VPA and Vietcong units which they could engage in a set piece battle. This was just that. Although it may appear to be a loss from Colonel Moore's point of view, in the perspective of grand strategy at the time it was seen as a victory. Whether history determines this to be a victory or not is irrelevant here. It should be noted that it was seen as a victory with respect to grand strategy in the US high command. However, this did overshadowed the defeat of LZ Albany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91killer (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Be careful, this war hasn't just about casualties. McNamara's encounter with Vietnamese Foreign Minister Thach was clear: "'You're totally wrong. We were fighting for our independence. You were fighting to enslave us.'

'Do you mean to say it was not a tragedy for you, when you lost 3 million 4 hundred thousand Vietnamese killed, which on our population base is the equivalent of 27 million Americans? What did you accomplish? You didn't get any more than we were willing to give you at the beginning of the war. You could have had the whole damn thing: independence, unification.'

'Mr. McNamara, You must never have read a history book. If you'd had, you'd know we weren't pawns of the Chinese or the Russians. McNamara, didn't you know that? Don't you understand that we have been fighting the Chinese for 1000 years? We were fighting for our independence. And we would fight to the last man. And we were determined to do so. And no amount of bombing, no amount of U.S. pressure would ever have stopped us.'" (I'm new to wikipedia, I don't know how can i "hide" part of this quote)

Thus, vietnamese morale and will could sustain much more casualties than U.S.A. It's correct to classify this battle's result as "controversial". U.S accomplished the goal of weaken VC/VPLA forces, and they denied important position [since the countryside was a source of supplies and recruits to the VC] to U.S troops and gradualy damaged U.S morale. RdClZn (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

References

NVA losses

http://www.vietnampix.com/fire3.htm says "2500 dead". --HanzoHattori 07:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The historical account of this battle in the book "We Were Soldiers Once... And Young" places the figure of NVA losses much higher than listed here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.19.3 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In the book "We Were Soldiers Once... And Young" never mention 2500 casualities of NVA. Your link is not the book. In addition,"body count" is very untrusting. -jimmy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeumuvayeuem (talk • contribs) 12:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Body count

"body count" is very untrusting. NVA claims that they just suffer 208 killed 146 wounded at Xray and Albany in Ladrang. Totally 554 killed and 669 wounded in the campaign. In my opinion, the figure of NVA casualities may be higher, however it cannot reach more than 500 death for the following reasons: first, NVA just got 66th PAVN Regiment with totally 2000 troops in La drang and after that their still be capable of participating PleiMe campaign. Second, American merely hold their position at X ray and call the support of artillery and air forces before retreating quickly by choppers. Albany they were ambushed by NVA and beaten heavily, losing their and position and retreat. It is difficult to belive they still are in mood to collect and count enemy bodies. - Jim- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeumuvayeuem (talk • contribs) 13:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"PleiMe campaign": The Siege of Plei Me was just the initial part the Pleiku Campaign.[1] It was not in the aftermath and it was the 33rd NVA that besieged the Plei Me SF-Monty camp and ambushed the Arvin relief column. Operation Silver Bayonet, that led to the NVA counterattacks at/near the landing zones X-Ray and Albany, the subject of this article, was the U.S. Air Cavalry response to Plei Me, and the 66th NVA was not "totally 2000".

In October, the 33rd Regt attacks Plei Me Special Forces Camp approximately 40 miles south of Pleiku City in the Pleiku Province. Plei Me is garrisoned with a 12 man US Special Forces Team and 350 Montagnard mercenaries. The siege continues for several days. An Army of Vietnam relief force is sent out from Pleiku and is ambushed enroute by the PAVN 32nd Regt. 1st CAV Artillery supports the ARVN column and the ambushers are beaten off, and the siege is lifted. The 1st CAV Division is then committed in late October to find and destroy the defeated enemy. The 1st Brigade pursues the withdrawing enemy force over a very large area south and west of Pleiku City and west of Plei Me. It harasses and hounds the 33rd into the eastern area of the Ia Drang Valley. The two most significant events are the capture of a PAVN Field Hospital on Nov 1st along with numerous troops, weapons, and enemy documents; and the ambush of a unit of the fresh 66th Regt along the Ia Drang River in the western area of the Valley. On 10 Nov, the 3rd Brigade relieves the 1st Brigade and moves into the area to the east and west of Plei Me and conducts patrolling actions. No enemy contact. UPI reporter Joe Galloway accompanied 1/7 CAV units on these patrols. Late in the afternoon of Saturday, 13 Nov, the 3rd Brigade Commander, COL Thomas Brown, gave the 1st Bn, 7th Cavalry commander, Lt. Col Hal Moore orders to move his battalion on 14 Nov into the Ia Drang Valley with the mission: "Find and kill the enemy". Moore would have 16 Huey helicopters to move his unit. Two 105 mm Howitzer batteries (12 tubes) to render fire support. Three battalions of PAVN were reported to be in the Valley. Moore put out a warning order to his staff and 5 company commanders, made a map study, formed a tentative plan, arranged for supplies, and set up an air recon for early 14 Nov to select a landing zone to be followed by the operations order to the staff and commanders. The air recon goes as planned and at 8:50 AM, 14 Nov Moore issued his operations plan of maneuver and plan of fire support. All companies were to land in one clearing dubbed landing zone X-Ray.[2] --Niemti (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there should be articles about Operation Silver Bayonet and/or Pleiku Campaign (it is currently just a redirect to Pleiku) to dispel such a confusion. --Niemti (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As of bodycount itself, at LZ X-Ray the Americans seized and policied the battlefield following the NVA retreat and didn't really "quickly evacuated". It's debatable if the body count can be really trusted, but it's the official minimum number (of course many bodies would be either taken by the retreating NVA or just not found or destroyed such is in napalm strikes). Moore: At approximately 1330 hours all companies on the perimeter screened out for 300 meters and policed the battlefield. Dead PAVN, PAVN body fragments, and PAVN weapons and equipment were littered in profusion around the edge and forward of the perimeter. Numerous body fragments were seen. There was massive evidence e.g. bloody trails, bandages, etc, of many other PAVN being dragged away from the area. Some of the enemy dead were found stacked behind anthills. Artillery and TAC Air was placed on all wooded areas nearby into which trails disappeared. Numerous enemy weapons were collected along with other armament. Two prisoners were taken and evacuated. Friendly dead and wounded were also collected. Some friendly were killed and wounded in this screening. Total estimated number was 1215. Also, many sources say 634, but it was really 834 claimed by bodycount (Moore's after-action report). --Niemti (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for the names of the other Vietnamese commanders

The actual commander of the 66th is irrevelant because he was not there, so I instead inserted the political officer Ngoc Chau who actually commanded the regiment during the battle. --Niemti (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Vietnamese sources

It seems to me this article's most serious shortcoming is that no Vietnamese sources have been used in writing it. Much the same can be said about most articles on en.WP covering this conflict - the sourcing is unfortunately biased. Roger (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Casualties

I don't understand the casualty figures in the slightest. Can someone explain to me what's what? 24.212.137.195 (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Another perspective

I'm uncertain of the availability of PAVN accounts of this battle, but right now it reads as being very US-centric. Not that its bad...actually it's sort of a gripping narrative account, but it would add some colour and improve the historical context to provide at least part of the North Vietnamese side in this engagement. if a reliable source could be found, that would really improve this article. Antimatter---talk--- 22:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Vietnam should talks.

Here is the PAVN take "We sent our men into the field and they were turned into ground beef by accurate and sustained US artillery." No sarcasm intended, but how could it NOT be US centric when the battle under Moore's command (that is, the initial engagement at the LZ but not including the idiotic orders to march and then be ambushed subsequently) achieved better than 8:1 casualties against the NVA. Insofar as the strategic purpose of the battle from the US side was to test the utility of air cavalry mobilized warfare, it was a stellar success and showed the NVA that they were NOT fighting the French any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.139.119 (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See description of "Talk" pages at the top - this is not a discussion board for the article's topic, and your comment has no relevance to Wikipedia:POV. Universaladdress (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with the unsigned opinion that opens this thread. For example, article accounts for heroisms by U.S. soldiers, but it's possible that there are heroism acts also on the other side this article doesn't tell of. As it is, IMHO the article seems to be a little too U.S.-centric (POV?). To obtain the netrality wikipedia should have, the Vietnamese point of view should be considered. If information for the Vietnamese side are not alvailble, IMHO such thing should be stressed at the beginning of the article. Thank you for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.190.21 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You must remember that Vietnamese speakers are rare, and most of Vietnam War sources are from U.S "researchers". It's easier to seek for chinese sources, or any american recent revisionist research material. It's hard... Also, how could they have such precise estimatives (americans) about enemy casualties if they (U.S troops) left the battlefield and had no precise idea about enemy strenght at and after the Battle? This is a bit of a nonsense IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RdClZn (talk • contribs) 20:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hal Moore's book does include quite a bit of input from some senior PAVN officers concerning their perspective on the battles - very interesting on many levels. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Accuracy of the term Viet Cong as used in this article

In September 13th 2007 editor Civil Engineer III, in an attempt to reduce POV, changed nearly every mention of the words enemy and communist to Viet Cong, even though in many instances the words enemy and communist probably did not refer to NLF or PLAF but to PAVN. Perhaps Civil Engineer III was not well informed of the differences between People's Liberation Armed Forces a.k.a. Viet Cong and People's Army of Vietnam, and, hence, was prone to confusing the two. Could someone more knowledgeable please go through the article and change these possibly incorrect references to something more appropriate? Thank you. --130.234.5.137 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "Vietnamese" or "enemy" when in context. --RamboKadyrov (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of discussion I am wondering at the classification of this battle as a "draw."

Is this for political correctness, because it seems to me that around 1,500 enemy dead vs. around 500 U.S. dead is a victory. Is it because the U.S. forces left the field of battle? I could understand this although because of the unconventional nature of the war, gaining and holding territory had little if no meaning. Just wondering.

By the way, I did a search of other source material on Ia Drang Valley and couldn't find anything on amazon.com anyway. I certainly would very much like to have the other sides views, comments and any heroism on their part. As a vet of Nam yet after 40 years even I have some sense of reconciliation and can recognize that in their view the enemy then were fighting a war of liberation and many men and women on their side have very interesting and important stories to tell.

98.165.79.166 (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)TDurden1937

Again, this is not a discussion board to debate the merits of "political correctness" or your point of view on the subject. Please keep such comments to other websites where they will be more appropriate. Universaladdress (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hal Moore's book indicates that there was a VC unit involved in the fighting at X-ray ... and possibly at Albany as well given that the PAVN apparently fed in all sorts of auxilaries once the hairball got started, but this was indeed mainly a PAVN performance. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

How many NVA troops fought in Ia Drang?

Most popular sources counted the NVA forces in Ia Drang around 3000 and 4000 troops. However, both the NVA's 33rd and 66th and other forces together only commited 5 battalions worth of troops, which according to VPA's official document, only about 300-500 men each. There's also the harsh condition of their operating ground, previous combat losses... should reduce the active combatant even more. So in this sense, should we stick to the famous 4000, or the logical 1800?--Zeraful (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I share your concern. If the NVA forces numbered around 2,000, the US estimates in the info box of 1,064 (body count) and 1,645 (estimated) NVA battle deaths seem seriously inflated. I've read one account of NVA casualties at Landing Zone Albany which expressed doubt that NVA battle deaths in that battle totaled 200 -- less than one half the 403 claimed by the U.S. Col. Moore's body count estimate of 634 NVA dead at LZ X-Ray seem a little closer to realistic, although not supported by the small number of NVA arms captured, nor by the fact that the NVA battalion (33rd) that Moore appears to have nearly destroyed at LZ X-Ray was in fact operational and fighting only a day or two later at LZ Albany.

Perhaps more doubt about the estimates of NVA casualties by the US should be expressed in the info box? Smallchief (talk 15:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Ia Drang citations

(copy from HowCheng's talk page)

You recently put up a sign "needs additional citations" at the top of the article. Do you care to point out specifically which statements or sentences or parts or sections need additional citations?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: There are a lot of paragraphs and even some entire sections that have no citations at all (mostly in the "1st/7th Cav and the battle for LZ X-Ray" section, which happens to be the bulk of the article). I figured one tag at the top was better than lots of tags throughout the article. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 19:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: the topic 'Overhauling this Article' of the talk page of the Battle of Ia Drang article, it was said: ... I'm overhauling this article to provide a more human side to the battle. My primary source is Moore & Galloway's We Were Soldiers Once...And Young. Thanks! James Cameron March 6/06. Therefore, I deem your tag is not relevant.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Listing the source on the talk page (or even in the "References" section by itself) does nothing. You still need the WP:inline citations. —howcheng {chat} 21:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If a 'general reference' does nothing to you, then it is preferable to put a tag 'citation needed' at each end of sentence or paragraph where needed; that is if you want to induce people to action and add citations.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, is it that James Cameron of the 'Terminator'?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Haha, I doubt it. Anyway, I was trying not to be a jerk about it, but I certainly can if you prefer. —howcheng {chat} 22:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If you can, then you can keep that 'general tag' while inserting the individual tags.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Put it as a general reference. And then, for specific statements, use <ref>Moore & Galloway p. 123</ref>. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

POV in the Info Box, "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed"

An editor has inserted the phrase "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed" into the info box for this article. This is not in accord with Wikipedia's usual practice for info boxes. The info box for the Battle of the Little Big Horn states only that it was a Native American victory; it does not say "Custer's command mostly destroyed" or anything similar. The info box for the Battle of Iwo Jima states only that it was an American victory. It does not say "Japanese defenders destroyed"

Thus, inserting the comment "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed" into the info box of this article is not consistent with other articles and is, in fact, a point of view that is more appropriately discussed in the text of the article.

Moreover, the phrase is misleading. One might with accuracy say in the info box that 2 American battalions suffered nearly 50 percent casualties. Why don't we also say that in the info box? Saying that would be just as relevant as saying that the "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed." The answer is that it's best to leave judgmental POV arguments out of the info box. Let's just say "Both sides claimed victory" and leave the argument about who did what to whom for the text of the article.

The phrase "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed" was added to the info box only on 20 October 2015. It is a recent and questionable addition to a long-existing article and should be discussed thoroughly before being inserted. It appears to be a latter-day sleight of hand effort to claim American victory in a battle in which both sides claimed victory.

Thus, I have reverted the phrase "Majority of PAVN battalions destroyed." Smallchief (talk 10:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well first of all it's a pleasure to meet you all. Jumping right in, I don't believe mentioning the 50% casualties would be just as relevant at all. Despite the high casualty rate, the battalions remained in tact and ultimately held the field while 6 out of 9 (the majority) communist battalions were entirely wiped out. I apologize for seeing that as significant. No sleight of hand attempt, just trying to add a bit more detail to the vague "Both sides claim victory." But I'm clearly outnumbered and the consensus is against me, so I'll leave the page as it is. Cheers. Amerijuanican (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious comment. My opinion is that, while the action at the famous LZ X-Ray, might appropriately be called a U.S. victory, the action at the nearby, but much-less famous LZ Albany, was one of the worst military disasters the U.S. suffered in Vietnam. Moreover, the body count is not always the best way of determining who won a battle. Given the monopoly the U.S. had on airpower and the superiority we had in artillery, it would be rare indeed if Viet Cong and NVA casualties did not exceed U.S. casualties in a battle. As the Battle of Ia Drang resolved nothing in favor of either side (although influential on both sides for lessons learned), I agree with those who call it a draw. Smallchief (talk 01:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, and well put. Although, despite the LZ Albany ambush being one of the most successful against U.S. forces during the war, the Vietnamese ultimately retreated from there as well and casualties were once again significantly higher. Wouldn't the retreat of the Vietnamese force alone, regardless of casualties, make the battle a tactical victory for the Americans? Even if an enemy fires successful volleys, inflicting heavy casualties on the advancing opposition, they've still lost the battlefield and tactical glory. What do you think? Amerijuanican (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Various ways of spelling names of battles and of identifying locations

Battle, operation, campaign: Ia Drang, Ia Drăng, Ia Drang Valley, Plei Mei, Plei Me, Pleime, Plây Me, Plâyme, Long Reach, Trường Chinh, Pleiku, LZ X-Ray, etc.

Locations: Plei Me/Pleime, Chu Pong/Chupong, Chu Pong Massif/Chupong Massif,Ia Drang/Iadrang, Ia Drang Valley/Iadrang Valley, Chupong-Iadrang complex, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnguyen4321 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Precisely:

• The Battle of Ia Drang happened in the Chupong Iadrang complex: the LZ X-Ray battle at the eastern foot of the Chupong Massif and the LZ Albany battle northward away from the Chupong massif, in the Iadrang Valley, at the southeastern side of the Iadrang river.
• The 5-day B-52 strike happened all over the Chupong Iadrang complex.
• The ARVN Airborne Brigade executed two ambush sites in the Ia Drang Valley: one on the northern side of the Ia Drang river on November 20; another one on the southern side of the Ia Drang river on November 24.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution and the Participation of the ARVN

There have been two requests for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard concerning whether the ARVN should be listed as a participant. Both have been declined because one of the editors has declined to participate, and moderated dispute resolution is voluntary. At this point, there are two possible steps forward. The first is further discussion here. However, discussion at this talk page is also voluntary. The other possibility is a Request for Comments. A Request for Comments appears to be the most likely way forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments

Please comment about whether South Vietnam should be included in the infobox as a belligerent. 113.190.165.78 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

ARVN involvement

The information from the book Why Pleime was misinterpreted. In the preface, Gen. Westmoreland meant that the ARVN had contributed mainly to the "final phase" of the battle, which was Operation Than Phong 7, carried out from 18 November 1965, after the Battle of Ia Drang was over. In fact, almost no info about the involvement of the ARVN is found in Chapter V of the book. 113.190.172.153 (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)D. Nam

You are quite wrong. Firstly, let me point out that you mix up the use of "battle" and "operation", which causes confusion (by the way even Westmoreland used indiscriminately the two words) . The Pleime campaign comprised three phases: 1. Pleime, the preparatory phase; 2. Chupong, the main phase; and 3. Iadrang, the final phase. The Pleime phase was assumed by the ARVN 3rd Armored Relief Task Force ̣(operation Dan Thang 21). The Chupong phase was assumed by the US 1st Air Cavalry Division (Long Reach operation, which comprised All the Way operation conducted by 1st Air Cavalry Brigade and Silver Bayonet I conducted by 3rd Air Cavalry Brigade). The Iadrang phase was assumed by ARVN Airborne Brigade (operation Than Phong 7 supported by operation Silver Bayonet II conducted by 2nd Air Cavalry Brigade). Let me quote Gen. Westmoreland: "From the standpoint of employment of joint forces, the Plei Me battle was a classic. The signal successes of the latter phases could, perhaps, never have been realized had it not been for the judgment and foresight of Vietnamese leadership. The initial preparatory effort on the ground, paving the way for the introduction of the 1st Air Cavalry Division, was accomplished by Vietnamese forces. Similarly the very successful final phase exploitation was accomplished largely by the Vietnamese Airborne Brigade. The effectiveness of this highly organized, closely integrated, cooperative effort has not often been emulated in modern warfare."

The reason you don't see "info about the involvement of the ARVN is found in Chapter V of the book", which is the Chupong phase, is that the ARVN and US forces took turn in the performance of" this highly organized, closely integrated, cooperative effort has not often been emulated in modern warfare."Tnguyen4321 (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

One more clarification your "The Battle of Ia Drang" is actually the battles at LZ X-Ray (Nov 14-16) and LZ Albany (Nov 17) combined, which happened within the Chupong phase (Oct 27-Nov 17) part of Silver Bayonet I (Nov 10-17). Your "Battle of Ia Drang" should be called "Battle of Chu Pong" because it occurred at the footstep of Chu Pong Massif; and that appellation should be reserved to indicate the two battles (Nov 20 and 24) combined, performed by the ARVN Airborne Brigade in the Ia Drang Valley during the course of operation Than Phong 7. Confused enough, huh?! Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, to add more to the confusion: the same campaign has been called differently by different people: Pleime (Vinh Loc), Plâyme (Viet Cong), Pleiku (Kinnard), Pleime-Chupong (McChristian), Ia Drang (general public). It should be called the Pleime-Chupong-Iadrang campaign.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think you are misunderstanding about the difference between the battle and the name of the location itself. The term "Battle of Ia Drang" has for long been commonly used to refer to the combined battles at LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany from 14-18 November 1965, and that's all. This indication is used in most American accounts, including We Were Soldiers Once...and Young by Harold Moore and Joseph Galloway.[3]. Wherever the location is, "Battle of Ia Drang" is the most common name.
• About Gen. Westmoreland's statement in Why Pleime, you also missed certain points. He mentioned about the ARVN involvement in "initial preparatory effort" (Siege of Plei Me) and the "final phase exploitation" (Operation Than Phong 7) of the Pleime Campaign, non of which was about the period of 14-18 November. Based on the content of Chapter V, we can conclude that the ARVN involvement in the second phase of the Pleime Campaign was strictly limited to non-combat roles, if there had been any. I think the only appropriate case to state South Vietnam as a belligerent is in a new article named "Pleime Campaign", or another new article named either "Second Battle of Ia Drang" or "Operation Than Phong 7". 117.6.88.137 (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC) D. Nam

• No, I am not misunderstanding about 'the difference between the battle and the name of the location itself'. I just try to clarify the confusion caused by different and imprecise appellations found in 'most American accounts', in particular We Were Soldiers Once...and Young: Ia Drang Valley battle, Ia Drang Valley campaign, Ia Drang Valley operation, Ia Drang battle, Ia Drang campaign, Ia Drang operation, Pleiku campaign, Pleime campaign, Long Reach operation, All the Way operation, Silver Bayonet I operation, Silver Bayonet II operation, etc.; LZ X-Ray battle and LZ Albany battle were within Silver Bayonet I operation.
• The ARVN was involvement in the second phase of the Pleime Campaign although in a - you are right - 'strictly limited to non-combat roles'; however it was involved nevertheless in an operational control capacity, providing operational concepts and real time intelligence. The three battles at Pleime, Chupong and Iadrang were parts of a seamless and inseparable strings of operations of the Pleime campaign. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• By the way, I have submitted an article named 'Pleime campaign'. It was rejected and redirected to this page.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Furthermore, the Pleime (Pleime-Chupong-Iadrang) campaign was a joint ARVN-US effort from beginning to end. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Then I think there should be no more discussion. If its role is limited to non-combatant, then it should not be stated as a belligerent, otherwise we could state anything as a belligerent in a battle. And whatever the role of the battle in the campaign was, this article talks about the battle, not the campaign.113.190.176.36 (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with IP's comment directly above. This article is about the battle, not the campaign in general. David J Johnson (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

How do you resolve the redirect issue of 'Pleime campaign' to 'Battle of Ia Drang' then? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Battle or campaign, the ARVN was a belligerent (opponent) involved in the conflict with the NVA.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think creating a new article about the campaign is OK. But even in case you can't, you can still have a page for Operation Than Phong 7 (we've already have one for the Siege of Plei Me).117.6.88.137 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The Battle of Ia Drang is the extension of the Siege of Pleime. Initially, upon learning that the NVA B3 Field Front (first belligerent)was staging for an attack of the Pleime camp with its three 32nd, 33rd and 66th Regiments from their bases established in the Chu Pong Massif areas by December 1965, the ARVN II Corps (second belligerent) made plan to destroy the three regiments at their assembly areas with B-52 strike as early as September 1965. When the NVA decided to attack earlier on 19 October with only two readied 32nd and 33rd Regiment, the ARVN employed a delay tactic in repulsing the attacking regiments back to Chu Pong where they would join force with the 66th Regiment to attempt for a second attack of the camp. The ARVN requested the help of the 1st Air Cavalry Division with their airmobility capacity - with the ARVN Airborne as reserved force on standby - to round up the three enemy regiments into suitable targets for B-52 strike with the insertion of the 1/7 Air Cavalry Battalion in a blocking position at LZ X-Ray. This insertion enabled the 5 consecutive days of B-52 strikes all over the Chu Pong-Ia Drang complex from 15 to 20 November, including the LZ X-Ray on 17 November. (See McChristian, Intelligence Aspect of Plei me/Chu Pong campaign from 20 October to 20 November 1965, http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime_intel_J2-2.htm). The ARVN II Corps Command had the operational control of the Battle of Ia Drang, providing the operational concept and the intelligence to the Air Cavalry. After the LZ X-Ray battle, the ARVN II Corps Command acknowledged 1/7th Air Cavalry Battalion’s heroism with VN Gallantry Cross with Palm, because LTC Hal Moore’s battalion was attached to II Corps Forces in that battle (see http://www.generalhieu.com/vinhloc-moore.jpg). My conclusion is that the ARVN should be included in the in-box of belligerents.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but the whole thing you're talking about is the relation between the battle and other battles in the campaign, not the content of the battle itself. Such relation can be drawn from any combination of two or more battles together. I still don't see how the insertion of South Vietnam into the box is reasonable.117.6.88.137 (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think you can draw up casual relationship between two or more battles if they are not planned as such in a campaign. All the operations in the Pleime (Pleime-Chupong-Iadrang) were performed to facilitate the 5 day B-52 strike operation (Dan Thang 21, Trường Chinh, Than Phong 7). Within Trường Chinh (Long Reach in English) operation are All The Way (rounding up), Silver Bayonet I (fixing with LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany), and Silver Bayonet II in conjunction with Than Phong 7 (finishing off). Secondly, the ARVN still maintained an active participation during the Battle of Ia Drang; and therefore should be inserted as a belligerent in the box. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the NVA as a belligerent chose to attack at Pleime, while the ARVN as a belligerent chose to counter attack at the Chupong-Iadrang complex. And the main action in the Battle of Ia Drang was the B-52 strike operation, not the air assault of the Air Cav at the LZ X-Ray. In comparison to the main action conducted by the Arc Light operation, the secondary action of Air Cavalry operation weighed much less in time (2 days –November 14-15 versus five days – November 15-19), space (LZ X-Ray versus the entire Chupong-Iadrang complex areas), units committed (1/7, 2/7 and 2/5 Air Cavalry Battalions versus the 3AC's B-52 fleet stationed at Guam), enemy forces engaged (2 NVA battalions versus 3 NVA Regiments). The main role played by the ARVN in the battle should not be ignored and go undetected, as it is currently.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

After the relief of the siege of the Pleime camp, on 27 October 1965, the ARVN II Corps Command made plan for a counter attack at the footstep of the Chupong Massif where the enemy had staged its attack. The counter attack will be called by the popular name 'The Battle of Ia Drang'. A joint ARVN-US Command Task Force was created which comprised the II Corps Command and the 1st Air Cavalry Forward Command Post and co-located in the compound of the ARVN II Corps Headquarters in Pleiku). The pursuit operation that lead to the Battle of Ia Drang was named Operation Trường Chinh ̣(Long Reach in English) conducted by an Allied Task Force composed of the US 1st Air Cavalry Division as the main force and the ARVN Airborne Brigade as the reserve force). The Battle of Ia Drang was conducted with a close ARVN-US modus operandi.

The Battle of Ia Drang did not end at the footstep of Chu Pong massif when the US Air Cavalry troops abandoned the LZ X-Ray. It ended further west of the Ia Drang Valley toward the Duc Co camp near the Cambodian border, after the US 2nd Air Cavalry established a second blocking position at LZ Crooks and after the ARVN Airborne Brigade annihiliated the two remnant battalions of the NVA battalions on 20 and 24 November.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Therefore, it is reasonable that the ARVN be entered in the belligerent in box as a component of the Allied Task Force. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It is noteworthy to point out that the appellation of 'Battle of Ia Drang' leads to a lot of imprecision. Even within the military people, it can be loosely substituted by 'Operation of Ia Drang' or 'Campaign of Ia Drang'. Our IP 117.6.88.137 editor, for example writes, The term "Battle of Ia Drang" has for long been commonly used to refer to the combined battles at LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany from 14-18 November 1965. I have corrected with, LZ X-Ray battle and LZ Albany battle were within Silver Bayonet I operation. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Whatever you've said, you still fail to point out that the ARVN took a combat role instead of a non-combat role in the battle, or can't point out that not only the campaign but also the battle involved its combat forces. Therefore it still should be that the ARVN cannot be listed as a belligerent of this battle but of the campaign only.
• Your point that there are various way of reference to the battle, and that the appellation of "battle" can be substitute by "operation" or "campaign" does not go with any reliable source, which means it violates the WP:NOR rule. In fact, the book Why Pleime also clearly stated that Operation Silver Bayonet I (which is congruent to the Battle of Ia Drang) was only part of the second phase of the Pleime Campaign, not the campaign itself. Even if you could provide a few reliable sources, you still couldn't deny that such reference was not prominent enough, and your allegation could violate the WP:FRINGE rule.117.6.88.137 (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me offer you some quotations from the G3 Journal/IFFV (http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime_arclite_g3-2.htm) that show the ARVN were actively present at the Ia Drang Valley during the so called Battle of Ia Drang:

• "11/14/65 at 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."
• "1/15/65 at 10:30H: MAVC J3 (Gen DePuy) Gen DePuy called Col Barrow and asked if Arc Light had been cleared with Commanding General II Corps. Col Barrow replied yes, Commanding General II Corps has approved Arc Light."
• "at 19:00H: 1st Cav (L/C Buchan) Cav plans to request another strike, will call info to FFV by 2000. Not an immediate, Commanding General II Corps will make similar request for same area."
• "11/16/65 at 15:35H: MACV Maj Oneil – What is the status of arclight #1745 Sphinx 160325Z. Ans: Currently being staffed at MACJ 237. II Corps Commanding General concurs with msg number 1745."
• " at 18:50H: II Corp (Capt McConnell) Commanding General II Corps does concur with Arclite."
• "at 23:10H: II Corps (Maj Sanabria) Maj Sanabria call to pass concurrence of Commanding General ARVN II Corps on B-52 targets 34, 35, and 36 for 17 Nov.

I think your criteria of 'combatant' and 'non-combatant' role (boots on the ground) is irrelevant in determining the qualification of being a belligerent.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• What you've given is not a reliable source in accordance with WP:RS. What you've just said about the qualification of the state of belligerence is also an OR, not supported by any RS. If you find any RS that states a belligerent does not have to be combatant, state it. In fact, as we've pointed out, all RS (included Why Pleime) did not say anything about the ARVN participation in the battle, so your edit is not acceptable.
• Even if we somehow considered this an RS, it could not point out that the ARVN had done anything but receiving and approving info from the US during the battle, thus clearly not an active role in the battle.113.190.165.78 (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Pleiku campaign and Why Pleime did say about the ARVN participation in the battle: Kinnard, page ii says that the battle was commanded and executed by the joint ARVN-US task force co-located at the II Corps Command headquarters; Vinh Loc, chapter V says that during the Battle of Ia Drang, the ARVN Airborne Brigade was on standby, ready to act when needed, as reserved force; Vinh Loc, chapter VIII explains why there was no ARVN 'boots on the ground' with the special ARVN-US modus operandi of separate deployment of force.
• In the joint ARVN-US operations, the II Corps Commanding General was coordinating actions between Gen DePuy/MACV and Gen Knowles/1ACDF in the capacity of OPCON, not just 'receiving and approving info from the US'.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• You still need to use any RS to explain how a party may be a belligerent in a battle with only a reserve force with no participation in the battle. We need explanation about that, not about why it happened.
• You still need to give any RS to prove that the ARVN commanders had given orders that influenced the course or the outcome of the battle, instead of keep vaguely saying they are "coordinating actions". 113.190.165.78 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• If you object to consider the ARVN as belligerent in the conflict, then you should also take out the NFL flag, whose troops were at the scene. Or better: you should take out the NVA flag, since the North Vietnamese Communist Government have always denied having its troops fighting in the South, and claiming the troops were NFL troops fighting under the NFL flage. Furthermore, you should also take out the names of Chu Huy Man, Nguyen Huu An, Kinnard, Knowles, DePuy, Larsen, Brown, Lynch, etc. who were did not set foot on the battlefield ground.
• "Operational control, joint command task force, co-located command posts" are not vaguely sayings, I think.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• You are wrong about the NLF participation. Moore clearly stated that the NLF H-15 Battalion was involved in the attack on Nov 15 (p. 13). You point that North Vietnam denied its participation or whatsoever related was not supported by any RS. I agree that some of those commanders should be removed (except Nguyen Huu An for sure) because it seemed that they did not directly influence the battle; however it's up to you because I can't find any documents that can prove such point.
• You can't say you think. It must be prove by RS. We don't need something like "operational control, joint command task force, co-located command posts" because that's only about the campaign, that doesn't help much in this battle. It doesn't show the degree of involvement of the ARVN commanders in this battle. What we need, as stated above, are orders that influenced the course or the outcome of the battle.
• You did not answer my questions directly, but just keep giving derivation of your own instead of proving your point by RS. That's a clear violation of the WP:NOR rule. I don't think there's any reason to keep your editing on the article now. 113.190.165.78 (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Let's put aside the issue of the VC H-15 Battalion in particular and the NLF/NVA in general aside for the moment because it carries away from the discussion core topic.
• When I say 'I think', I am referring to the 'vaguely sayings', not the terms 'operational control, joint command task force, co-located command posts' which are not vague in any sense. Those are quotes from RS which indicate a direct involvement and participation of the ARVN. The ARVN CG II Corps maintained the operational control when he assigned to the Air Cavalry the conduct of the Trường Chinh/Long Read operation which encompassed the Battle of Ia Drang. He gave the green light for the Trường Chinh operation to start with All the Way operation on October 27, the Silver Bayonet I operation on November 9, the LZ X-Ray on November 14, the B-52 strike operation on November 15, the Thần Phong/Silver Bayonet II on November 17. Is this participation direct enough? The ARVN had control during the entire campaign, including during the Battle of Ia Drang. Please keep in mind that the Battle of Ia Drang was not a stand-alone military action; its very existence depended on the operations that preceded and followed it.
• I gave you direct answer, but you do not seem to understand me clearly. Nevertheless, let's wait for comments that you have requested from other wiki members.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

That's what I think is the problem: you've misinterpreted the source, as well as my question. What I want to know is that your general definition of military involvement comes from which RS, but you have not said anything about it. Why Pleime said that he "gave the green light" for the action, that didn't mean he gave orders that materially influenced the battle, or exercised a direct and ultimate commanding power over the combat units. In fact, your definition (as I understand) is contradicted by most academic definition about a commanding officer,[4][5] because the ARVN general was neither the commander of the units that participated the battle, nor of the direct commanders of themselves. Anyway I agree that we should wait for the comments. 113.190.165.78 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that the whole point resides in that you don't understand the meaning of "operational control", "joint ARVN=US command task force", "US command post co-located with ARVN II Corps command at the Pleiku II Corps compound headquareters", etc.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I've given some RS to define the term "commanding officer" and they all contradict your derivations. I don't think we should care for what it means, the only thing we need to know is what it says. The source neither says that the ARVN commander exercising commanding power over the American units, nor that the American field commanders were responsible to him for the battle. Therefore, in accordance to the WP:NOR rule, it's not appropriate to consider the South Vietnamese general as a commander of the battle, and whatever you say, without any identical statement from the source, is simply an OR. 113.190.165.78 (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

We have said enough. Let's wait and see comments from other members.71.183.238.53 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I have elaborated my point exactly on the talk page, so I have nothing left to say. I don't think a tag is something that affects the content of the page, so an OR tag is appropriate, unless you can explain otherwise. 113.190.165.78 (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Through some studies I've just realized that the what the ARVN exercised in this battle is not even OPCON. The reasons are:

• There's no mention about the terminology in any of the sources you've given. It has been all made up by you yourself (that's why I keep saying your point is an OR).
• The U.S. D.o.D. has given a definition of OPCON in a 2005 military dictionary [6]. In this OPCON was defined as following: "Operational control is the authority to perform those functions of command over subordinate forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission. Operational control includes authoritative direction over all aspects of military operations and joint training necessary to accomplish missions assigned to the command. Operational control should be exercised through the commanders of subordinate organizations. Normally this authority is exercised through subordinate joint force commanders and Service and/or functional component commanders. Operational control normally provides full authority to organize commands and forces and to employ those forces as the commander in operational control considers necessary to accomplish assigned missions; it does not, in and of itself, include authoritative direction for logistics or matters of administration, discipline, internal organization, or unit training." So it's very clear. The American units in the battle are no "subordinate forces" of the ARVN commanders, so there are no "commanders of subordinate organizations" for the ARVN commanders to exercise the OPCON power through (if someone had put them under the authority of the ARVN even for an instance, it would have been okay, but unfortunately such case had never existed). The ARVN commanders also did not give any particular "authoritative direction" to the American units or their direct field commanders on how to conduct this battle, which is also an important aspect of this campaign. Therefore the conclusion that the ARVN commander exercised OPCON role in this battle (or even in this whole campaign) is totally a fallacy. 113.190.165.78 (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The U.S. D.o.D.'s definition of OPCON you quote applies in the case of a single US force. The Battle of Ia Drang was performed through a different type of OPCON which applies to a joint ARVN-US forces as defined in Vinh Loc, chapter VIII: 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. This modus operandi was set when II Corps Command assigned to US 1st Air Cavalry Division the execution of Trường Chinh/Long Reach operation which encompasses the Battle of Ia Drang. Tnguyen4321 (talk)

By pinning the tag , your claim is that the opinion the ARVN is a 'belligerent' and Vĩnh Lộc a leader are the products of OR instead of facts backed up by reliable and published sources; you argue that these two statements are "things you've written down'. You are wrong: the two facts are backed up by several reliable and published sources (Vinh Loc, Coleman, Kinnard are cited).

References

That, again, is another OR. I repeat that you must find an RS to define your concept of "different type of OPCON", instead of trying to distort a source that doesn't even have a single "OPCON" or "operation control" word. In fact, the "separate command" and "separate deployment of forces" are other evidences that it's not OPCON, because the OPCON is carried out by a combatant command, or a unified tactical command under a single commander,[7] under the same definition. Your OPCON definition is not only wrong in terms of Wikipedia regulations, but also wrong in fact. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

p/s: For convenience, let's see a passage of the WP:NOR regulation: "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic." 117.6.88.137 (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Your other mistake is in thinking that the ARVN troops and General Vĩnh Lộc did not play an active role in the Battle of Ia Drang. You do not consider being a reserved force the ARVN Airborne Brigade had an active role, and General Vĩnh Lộc's operational control of the battle was an active role. Furthermore, you fail to take into consideration the active role played by the ARVN II Corps Command in the B-52 strike operation conducted at the Battle of Ia Drang.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The reserve force did not even fire a single bullet throughout the battle. The role played by General Loc in the Arc Light strikes was not that of a commanding officer. Therefore, the role of the ARVN in this battle is no more than of supporting role, not "active" as you have said. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I see now what causes the misunderstanding between the two of us: my wrong choice of the acronym OPCON for "operational control'. In the Trường Chinh/Long Reach operation, the US 1ACD is 'opcon-ed' to ARVN II Corps Command, which means the US troops are put under the ARVN II Corps Command's 'operational control' under the special modus operandi (procedure, protocol):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. In this special protocol, the two military partners are at par footing, equal; either one is not subaltern to the other's authority. This special modus operandi was necessary to manage the sensitivity of both sides and to avoid the prima diva complex. I have left out the rest of the quote: 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. The Battle of Ia Drang was executed under the joint ARVN-US command task force, with the two commands "co-located" at the II Corps headquarters compound in Pleiku. It was carried out under a joint ARVN-US leadership. In this joint ARVN-US action the ARVN's principal contribution was in the aspects of "intelligence' and 'concept of operations'.

Regarding the Arc Light operation of the Battle of Ia Drang, it is reported in BG McChristian's 'Intelligence Aspect of the Pleime-Chu Pong Campaign', which shows the leadership role of the II Corps Command: the NVA attack stars at Pleime, the ARVN counter-attack ends at Chu Pong.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that Dân Thắng 21 Operation is the first phase preparatory of Trường Chinh/Long Reach Operation - which includes the Battle of Ia Drang - and Thần Phong 7/Silver Bayonet II its final phase exploitation. It was a unified big battle that the ARVN II Corps named Pleime Campaign conducted jointly with the US 1ACD. It later got the popularized name of the Balle of Ia Drang. It was called a campaign because it comprised several operations (Dân Thắng 21-Trường Chinh/Long Reach (All the Way, Silver Bayonet I)- Thần Phong 7/Silver Bayonet II and several battles (Pleime, Chupong, Iadrang). It operated under the ARVN II Corps Command leadership, to which the US1ACD was 'opcon-ed' (attached).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

In brief, it is reasonable to insert the name of Vĩnh Lộc in the section "Commanders and Leaders" of the info-box, and subsequently the ARVN icon flag in the section of "Belligerents".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• I tell you what, just stop talk about "OPCON" or "opconed" here, because it's totally an OR; not even a single word in the sources talks about it. Let me tell you about how things happened if it genuinely based on the sources: The US and ARVN simply cooperate in a campaign, in which they have "separate commands", and each of them undertook only parts of the campaign. The part from 14 to 17 November 1965 at LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany (which is the only thing this article is about regardless of its name) was virtually carried out by US forces alone. The ARVN only played supporting roles (if there had been any), which may include "joint intelligence and support activities", and that's all. No OPCON, no joint task force, no joint command, etc. If you have any RS that proves otherwise, quote it. I don't want to see anything like the "OPCON" thing, because they're simply OR.
• I have the last resolution for you: You can put South Vietnam into the box, but only under the the word "Supported by" (although I've never seen any wiki article about a battle like that). But the name of General Vinh Loc must be removed from the commanders, because his role in this battle did not satisfy the definition of a commanding officer (here [8]). If you want his name, write another article about the campaign and put it in. Again, if you still protest, provide your argument with direct statements from RS, not derivations from the RS itself like you're keep doing.
• Since nobody has commented since the RfC was posted, I'm going to edit this article in accordance with Wikipedia regulation (all OR must be deleted). You'll have 1 more day to provide RS-based arguments. Any derivation or presumption, even from an RS which does not directly support it, will be considered OR and simply be ignored. 113.190.165.78 (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Fine, I have removed OPCON and have never used 'opcon-ed' in the article, only in this talk page.
• Vĩnh Lộc must remain in the box under "Commanders and leaders" because "throughout the campaign we worked closely and effectively with various ARVN units and headquarters, according to the RS 'Kinnard, page ii' (thoughout the campaign means including the Battle of Ia Drang; and ARVN headquarters means II Corps Commanding General Vĩnh Lộc).

He said that they "worked closely and effectively" together, not that "the ARVN headquarters participated in commanding our troops". 117.6.88.137 (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I beg to differ.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please provide an RS to prove your point. 123.24.194.104 (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

When two Headquarters "worked closely and effectively" together, it means just that "the ARVN headquarters participated in commanding our troops" at the operational control level. Here is another RS: Vinh Loc, page 15, where Wesmoreland mentions about the "ARVN leadership" throughout the campaign. Please keep in mind that in the execution of the joint ARVN-US Pleime operation, both sides had to remain sensitive concerning the "prima diva" complex, sot that not to appear in the public eyes anyone side is commanding the side: "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." (Vinh Loc) Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't say "it means", because that phrase means an OR. Unless you find something clearly says that the ARVN commanders did command the U.S. troops on the field, we can't accept that. In fact, the terms "separate command" and "separate deployment of forces" in Why Pleime have proven totally contradictory to what you've just said. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I specified "at operational control level". The "separate" part is to manage the people's sensitivity (not to appear "a puppet army" which the VC liked to call the ARVN).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

OR again. You said that it's only for the psychological purpose, but he did not say that. "Especially" and "only" means totally different. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

For example, Chu Huy Man and Nguyen Huu An, at the operational control level, can give direct command to the troops belonging to the 32nd, the 33rd and the 66th Regiment on the battlefield - although they usually do it through the regimental commanders. In the case of the Pleime Campaign, the ARVN II Corps Commander did that strictly through Larsen and Knowles. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Does any RS says that he gave orders through these two Americans? 117.6.88.137 (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I know it is hard to grasp the "complexities and subtleties" in this matter.

By the way, "battle","operation", "campaign" often times are interchangeable (See here).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I must repeat again that we shouldn't discuss about the term "operational control" anymore, because we have already agreed that it has no RS basis here. About Chu Huy Man or Nguyen Huu An, they belong to the commanding chain of the PAVN in accordance with the definition of CO as I stated above. But Vinh Loc wasn't the same: he neither was a member of the U.S. Army, nor was granted the commanding power over the American forces. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I must also repeat again that we have two different cases here; independent operation (where the chain of command is vertical) and joint ARVN-US (where the chain of command is horizontal) operations or horizontal. If you read well the battle/operation/campaign, each time Larsen (IFFV) who held the operational control of the battle/operation/campaign gave order to Knowles (1ACDF), that order pertained to the execution of an operational concept shared by Vinh Loc (II Corps). Quite complex and subtle! I don't expect you to get the nuance right away (which explain many of your editing).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there any quote from the RS that there even existed a horizontal ARVN-US chain of command? Any quote about "order pertained to the execution of an operational concept shared by Vinh Loc (II Corps)"? Did it even possess the nature of a commanding order, according to the RS? If you can point out I'll believe you immediately.

p/s: I think "operational concept" doesn't play any role here. A "concept" can be shared by anybody. The term "operational concept" that you've given doesn't even exist in military studies. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

An RS is not required in the talk page just in the article page. Anyway, requiring a RS for the notion of horizontal ARVN-US chain of command, which is obvious - that is to say if you are knowledgeable in the military jargon - is tantamount to requiring a RS for the statement that says, "Hanoi is the capital of Viet Nam"!Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You cannot say like that. If you say that's obvious, then which thing in this life is not obvious? Give me an example please! In fact, your definition of "horizontal chain of command" totally contradictory to the RS-based definition of a CO that I've given, so please demonstrate otherwise using RS instead of saying senseless stuff. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

p/s: Anyone can share a "concept", agree; but you have to be a general staff officer to be able to come up with a sound operational concept prior to sharing it and have it acceptable to other commanders. "Operational concept"="concept of operation". Be mindful there is a "military" use of the term to be distinguished from the general one.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

So give me an academic definition of it from any RS you can find please. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion, "write another article about the campaign", believe me, as I have previously written in this topic, "I have submitted an article named 'Pleime campaign'. It was rejected and redirected to this page.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)". If you don't believe me, try to search, "Pleime Campaign", you will be redirect to this article, "The Battle of Ia Drang".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's simple. You can still edit that article to become a main article, with your points to demonstrate that there has to be an article (may be the last time you hadn't proved enough). Otherwise I have another solution: you can write a new article of Operation Than Phong 7, and then we'll have a sufficient series of articles about 3 phases of the campaign. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Believe me: It won't work that way. When I submitted my article "Pleime Campaign" I had been directed to "Battle of Ia Drang" and instructed to expand it to include Pleime Campaign. I tried to argue to no avail. By the way, search "Pleiku Campagin", you will be redirect to Battle of Ia Drang.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Don't you think the unresponsiveness from other members tells something significant? Quite an ultimatum you are throwing out here ...Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for providing me with the opportunity of a learning experience with the notions of OR and RS.71.183.238.53 (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Oops, I forgot to sign.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Main Action and Secondary Action of the Battle of Ia Drang/Two Battlefronts

The general public fails to notice that the main military action of the Battle of Ia Drang was performed by the 5-day B-52 strike from November 15 to 19. The military action performed by the 1/7 Air Cavalry Battalion at the LZ X-Ray was only a secondary action, in support of the B-52 strike operation.

The B-52 strike at the Battle of Ia Drang is code-named "Plei Me/Chu Pong Campaign (20 October - November 20 1965)" http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime_intel_J2-2.htm .

In comparison, the main action conducted by the Arc Light operation, was much more significant than the secondary action of Air Cavalry operation in terms of time (5 days – November 15–19 versus 2 days – November 14–15), of space (the entire Chupong-Iadrang complex areas versus the LZ X-Ray), of units committed (the 3AC's B-52 fleet stationed at Guam versus the 1/7, 2/7 and 2/5 Air Cavalry Battalions), and of enemy forces attacked (3 NVA 32nd, 33rd and 66th Regiments versus 2 NVA 7th and 9th battalions).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Give some genuine quotes from the source indicating that the air strike was the main or "more significant" action. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The paragraph related to main or "more significant" action had been deleted long time ago. It's no more an issue.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to use an allegory: I am aiming my gun at an animal. The animal runs toward me. I ask someone to chase the animal back to his place and hold him steady. I shoot the animal. The animal is not quite dead. I ask another person to join in and finish him off.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Precise location of the Battle of Ia Drang

Since the Battle of Ia Drang has a two part engagements: one at the LZ X-Ray and the other one at the LZ Albany, it is necessary to clarify which one, one is talking about. LZ X-Ray is precisely located at "eastern foot of the Chu Pong massif" (Vinh Loc, p.82) and LZ Albany further up northward in the Ia Drang Valley (see map). Therefore it is confusing to call the two-part battle the "Battle of Ia Drang". The engagement at LZ Albany should get the name of "Battle of Ia Drang Valley" or "Battle of Ia Drang" for short; the one at LZ X-Ray, "Battle of Chu Pong"; and the Battle of Ia Drang", the "Battle of Chu Pong-Ia Drang complex" or "Battle of Chu Pong-Ia Drang" for short! To add to more confusion, the appellation "Battle of Ia Drang" should be reserved to Operation Than Phong 7 that the ARVN Airborne Brigade conducted in the Ia Drang Valley (see map).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. LZ X-Ray and LZ Albany were only 2 miles apart. The soldiers ambushed at LZ Albany had marched from LZ X-Ray the day they were attacked. In other words, the two sites were within hearing distance of each other.Smallchief (talk 12:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, LZ X-Ray is definitively located in Chu Pong and LZ Albany in the Ia Drang Valley. You cannot say that LZ X-Ray is in the Ia Drang Valley (Vinh Loc precised "at the eastern foot of Chu Pong Massif") and you cannot say LZ Albany is in the Chu Pong Massif (see map). That explains the confusion that exists in the general public (reinforced by the novel of Hal Moore and Galloway).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I won't trust you (Smallchief) as an artillery forward officer!Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, clever.....Grow up, why don't you? Both LZ X-ray and LZ Albany are within a mile or so of the Ia Drang; both are in the drainage of the Ia Drang; the battle has been called the "Battle of Ia Drang" for 50 years now. You're making a distinction without a difference. And a trivial one at that. Smallchief (talk 14:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a 50 year imprecise popular name given by Hal Moore and co., not a precise military term. Well, if you are content with XY(xxyy) instead of XY(xxxyyy), so be it. That's why I repeat I won't trust you with my life as an artillery forward officer!Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Smallchief on this one, no one has proposed to break up Battle of Okinawa or Battle of the Bulge, so there's no reason to distinguish these two actions that were part of the same battle. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with if the appellation 'Battle of Ia Drang' does not trigger people's mind into seeing two separate images of the LZ X-Ray battle and of the LZ Albany battle with oftentimes with more emphasis put on the LZ Albany battle where the casualties were higher. But then if it triggers only one image, the one of LZ X-Ray then it should preferably be named the 'Battle of Chu Pong' to distinguish it with the battle conducted by the ARVN Airborne in the Ia Drang valley. In fact, Vinh Loc made that clear distinction in enumerating the three phases of the Pleime Campaign: Pleime-Chupong-Iadrang. Don't get me wrong though, I can fully live with the generally adopted 'Battle of Ia Drang'. I am not that foolish as to swim against a strong stream!Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I might further add that Vinh Loc found the necessity to coin the expression 'Chu Pong-Ia Drang complex", instead of the imprecise designation of plain 'Ia Drang'. But then I quite well realize that we are in the Wikipedia realm of word, not in the military domaine.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• OR again. Provide RS to support it. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Why do you keep on asking for the RS already provided? It is Vinh Loc, page 82: at LZ X-Ray ("eastern foot of the Chu Pong massif") and that is a verbatim citation: it's Vinh Loc that stated so.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

References

• From this map, it's too obvious to everybody that the fight at LZ X-Ray had nothing to do with the Chu Pong Massif.[9] The word eastern foot therefore means "east of the massif". 117.6.88.137 (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Which one? You mean this one ? If it is that one, then it illustrates the LZ Albany battle - which is located nearby the Ia Drang river, within the Ia Drang Valley boundaries - not the LZ X-Ray - the location of which is at "the eastern foot of Chu Pong Massif"(that is belonging to the Chu Pong Massif area, not to the Ia Drang Valley).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that only blind people cannot see LZ X-Ray showed in that map. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. My sentence missed one word, "battle" that needed to be added to "LZ X-Ray battle". What I meant then was the map does not illustrates the LZ X-Ray battle - the location, etc...Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

A more convincing map http://www.generalhieu.com/pleime-chupong-iadrang_map.jpg .Tnguyen4321 (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You've still failed to explain about the appearance of the LZ X-Ray on the map. If you say that such an RS like the map in the article is wrong, then I have nothing more to say with you. By the way the map you've given is a too sketchy one, and even it does show that the LZ lies just next to the massif, not on it. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not wrong: both Anta Village and LZ X-Ray are shown located within a flat ground surface enclave of the Chu Pong Massif, not on any mounts, hills or mountains of the massif. LZ Albany is shown all the way up northeastward into the Ia Drang Valley, nearby the south side bank of the river.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Still not the Chu Pong Massif itself. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

How about this map?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Still no indication that LZ X-Ray was on the massif. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Not on, at the foot, eastern foot of the massif.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

It needs to stop. the IP and User:Tnguyen4321 need to work things out here on the talk page. I will request page protection if this continues. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice acknowledged and agreed. Thanks for your intervention.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@StG88ぬ会話 It appears that IP is ignoring your notice. Please advise what should I do?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@StG88ぬ会話 IP resumes the discussion on this talk page here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnguyen4321 (talk • contribs) Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

IP seems to use diversionary tactic by starting to edit several texts from other editors at the same time. Could you put a temporary protection of the article?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: I've contacted an admin. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@StG88ぬ会話:Things kind of ease off these last couple of days without IP editing. Thanks.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88:

• I also need to report that user:Tnguyen4321 keep editing using distorted materials derived from the sources. This is clearly a violation of the WP:NOR regulation, and it's the main reason of my editing. I've requested for many kinds of dispute resolutions or interference but meet no response from other Wikipedians. I think you should do something about this.
• All of my editing since your notice have been editing of formalities. With suspected OR from user:Tnguyen4321, I've just used OR tag instead of deleting them. It also should be noted that since your notice user:Tnguyen4321 keep editing and adding his sources to the article. I suspected that at least some of them are OR. Thanks! 222.252.32.116 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• IP222.252.32.116, alias 123.24.194.104, alias 180.148.2.189, alias 117.6.88.137, alias 113.190.165.78?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• So all these above-mentioned IP belong to one user. Since the all IP addresses are located in Hanoi

Prior to your appearance, the editing atmosphere was very tranquil here.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Tranquil or not tranquil, that concept doesn't exist in Wikipedia's regulations. In fact, prior to your appearance, the content of the article was not so disputable. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion, not shared by the other registered users. Very few editing of my contributions were done by other editors before you started this edit war.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It surprises me a lot when you say you have the ability to "read" the mind of other Wikipedians. May be you should read the opinion of user:David J Johnson several more times to see if there's anyone who really support your opinion. On my part, I just care about the regulations instead of opinions. This is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You quoted me wrong. I said, "If you read well the battle/operation/campaign,"here in the context of pleime/chupong/iadrang. I did not say I, "have the ability to "read" the mind of other Wikipedians". I value the opinion of user:David J Johnson and we each time reached rapidly to a consensus. We did not generate an editing war.

Don't you think silence is the best way to react after talking to a stubborn person? 117.6.88.137 (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You said, "I just care about the regulations instead of opinions". I doubt it: you are attempting to impose the point of view of the North Vietnamese Communist by eradicating the presence of the ARVN. Instead of deleting an opinion and replacing it with an opposite one, you should adopt the wiki neutral attitude by allowing both opinions to stand side by side.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

And I supposed that you're trying to impose the South Vietnamese viewpoint on this article by using distorted materials from the source. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

And yes, you are right I am trying to present the South Vietnamese viewpoint point when I deem it the truth. But no, you are wrong to say that I am trying to impose it. That is why I told you, Instead of deleting an opinion and replacing it with an opposite one, you should adopt the wiki neutral attitude by allowing both opinions to stand side by side. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course I also like to see neutral things on the article, as soon as they're supported directly by RS instead of distorted materials from those RS themselves. Distorted info are clearly not neutral info. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who is distorting materials. For example, you keep on distorting a verbatim quote -"at the eastern foot of the Chu Pong Massif" (Vinh Loc) - in insisting and wanting it to mean "east of the Chu Pong Massif".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Because you don't understand that the foot of a massif is not the massif itself. It's like a cigar butt is right next to your foot doesn't mean that it's on your body. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, your 'request for comments' hasn't gotten any responses to date.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, I want you to build a case, with specific examples, and post it here at the OR noticeboard. I'll be watching the page, and this way we'll be able to sort this out civilly. Keep the discussion about article content and not about the edit war, those are separate issues. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: I've reported it on the NOR noticeboard. Please consider. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@StG88ぬ会話 Like the Energizer battery rabbit, our IP is still going on and going. Can you do something to stop it? Thanks.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary info

user:Tnguyen4321 keeps adding unnecessary info under a section named "The air assault at LZ X-Ray". The whole info in this section has already been stated in other sections, so it's senseless to create a new section with such a content. When I deleted or fixed such info he just wages edit warring without explanation. 222.252.32.116 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Explanation given at IP talk page here: act of vandalism.Tnguyen4321 (talk)

Bad explanation. Give some better or I'll have to act rather than discuss. 222.252.55.135 (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The section is a combinative repetition of the following sections:

• "LZ X-Ray secured"
• 5th para of "Aftermath"

If nobody explains for this, I'll delete this in 3 more days. 117.6.88.137 (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you behave like you are an authoritarian admin. For sure, nobody is going to bother to give you an explanation. So far, your request for comments at this talk page, your request for mediation at the noticeboard had fallen into dead ears. Grow up, man.

Instead of positive contributions, you merely look into editing negatively by deleting and blanking. You are not interest in Wikipedia encyclopedia, only in your self-interest (WP:NOTHERE).

Finally, you have been flushed out to show up your true face because of the imposition of semi-protection to this article, User:Dino nam of the days of The 340th Division, of Battle of Lang Son, from where you imported all your dirty tricks.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Original research

Dino nam preferred editing tool is . Here is what our wolf in sheep's clothing intends to achieve with his OR tagging subterfuge. The tag will be dated. Other editors are constraint by a deadline. Two eventualities could happen: one, nobody care to comment on the issue; or two, editors can argue with him until they are blue in the face, he would say he is not convinced, and still maintains it is an OR and declares it should me removed according to Wikipedia policy. And he would remove it on his own authority, not on consensus. He then would just blank it or replace with his own version pertaining to this specific material.

Look how pointless his last OR-tagging examples are:

• Belligent: South Vietnam

It's wastingtime, so just please come back to the main section to explain everything you haven't. Dino nam (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to cite (WP:BLUE) the fact the North Vietnamese Communist (the aggressor) attacked the Chu Pong-Ia Drang owned by the SVG (the victim).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"Owned by the RVN" and "fought by the RVN" are totally different issues. Dino nam (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• In comparison, the air action was much more significant than the ground action in terms of time,

What military documents say that time is a factor to assess the significance of a military action? Dino nam (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is talking about military stuff? It just plain basic arithmetic 5 days>2 days. Again you don't need to cite(WP:BLUE) the fact 5 days>2 days.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you even understand English? Yes, it is 5 that is larger than 2, but it's not the air strike that's more significant than the ground action, huh? Dino nam (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You know what, I think that the ground action is much more significant, because Col. Moore have said that it's the "battle that changed the war in Vietnam", not the air strike that changed the war in Vietnam. It is attributable to his book. So you think you're smarter than him? Dino nam (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• 5 days>2 days, of space, of units committed, and of enemy forces attacked.

Where you get that "2 days"? How do you account for the what Kinnard says in his first page about the duration of Operation Silver Bayonet I (Nov 9-18)? Dino nam (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

References

It is the time spent by 1/7AC at LZ X-Ray, not the duration of Operation Silver Bayonet I!Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Why only the battle at LZ X-Ray but not the whole operation? Dino nam (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC):

The ground action (battle) happened there, not during the whole operation~ Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Besides it is WP:CALC: "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• How do you account for the action at LZ Albany (16-18 Nov)? That's not ground action?
• This is military, not mathematic, not arithmetic issue, OK? I don't care how you calculate the numbers, I just care about the military threshold and standards you've used to analyze the "significance" of a military action. So WP:CALC is irrelevant. Moreover, you've not even reached consensus with other editors, as WP:CALC required.Dino nam (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Either it is WP:BLUE (case#1 and #2) or citation is provided (case #3).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, the whole thing has been discussed above. You've failed to give any RS to explain those point of you instead of distorted the materials to make derivations, or claiming everything you've failed to explained as "attributable" Dino nam (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Look I have told you it's feel like discussing things to a 3-year old kid.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course a 3-year-old kid always think that he's old enough. Dino nam (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You have great limitations in English (not seeing the difference between "eastern foot of Chu Pong" and "east of Chu Pong"), in military terminology (operational control, operation concept, joint command, etc...), in Wikipedia terminology (you got all wrong about the meaning of OR).

Ha, so you think you have a better English than the U.S. DoD? Sincerely, how old are you actually? Have you reached high school yet? Dino nam (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have said multiple times at various talk pages that I gave up discussing with you.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, nobody else took issues with my positive contributions to this article, ONLY YOU! You even went as far as qualifying my contributions as "rubbish".Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds like I'm the only one who think that changing the name of a battle that has existed for more than 50 years is a rubbish idea. Dino nam (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

YGot permission to remove bogus OR tags: Do you care to remove the 3 bogus OR tags that Dino nam had pinned after been warned not to start an editing war? Thank you.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Yeah, go ahead, if you think they're undeserved. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"if you think they're undeserved", that's what she said. Dino nam (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"Ah, I see, sorry. I don't know enough about it to say if it's OR or not; but why is the article so long? It's immensely (and probably unnecessarilly) detailed, with long paragraphs hanging off a single source. I reckon it should be about 25% of its current size. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)" Dino nam (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

You've evade the regulations quite well, but not well enough. You still fail to explain for the ARVN involvement and the "2 days" info. Dino nam (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. It was a joint ARVN-US operations from 23 Oct to 26 Nov. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, now you're right! So is the period from 23 Oct to 26 Nov equivalent to 2 days? Dino nam (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Herbert Banks has given the duration of ground action as 35 days (Oct 23 - Nov 25). He has also given that the Arc Light strikes' role was totally supporting. Your point is not only an OR; it's a wrong OR. Dino nam (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The air operation lasted from 20 Oct to 20 Nov; it went into action for 5 consecutive days from 15-20 Nov. The ground operation lasted from 23 Oct to 26 November; its biggest engagement or action conducted by the 1/7 AC (the battle of Ia Drang) lasted two days from 14-15 Nov, with the 1/7 AC withdrawing on 16 Nov. Does the content mention anything about "supporting", or "main" or "secondary"? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

References

• See how it's an OR? Biggest on what RS basis? Did my source or your sources suggest that? Why you don't take into account the rest of the operation while in fact contact and fights were still made in those days?
• "Operation SILVER BAYONET was one of the first battles of the 1st Cavalry Division that was closed out by heavy support from Operation ARC LIGHT, an Air Force strike force stationed at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam." (p. 82, 5th para.). Dino nam (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Just have suddenly discovered another not-OK point: You compare the number of sorties to the number of infantry battalions. It's like saying 1 kg is heavier than 1 meter. Dino nam (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You better learn about the notion of "sorties" in this specific comparison.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright, then give me an RS-based definition of it. Dino nam (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it at all possible to make you understand such a high end notion when you have shown you have been capable to grasp basic notion?

Give me a quote from a book, or even a dictionary like Cambridge or Oxford or something like that, just like what I've given you, and nobody could say that he doesn't understand it. Dino nam (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC) YIn light of the recent necessity to provide you with all the basic notions, it is obvious you have a very limited understanding of the subject. Stop editing a subject you have no clue of at all, will you? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

YIn the light of the failure to provide any RS to directly support your points, it is obvious that the info in the article all comes from your own derivation instead of RS, thus qualifying the threshold of OR. Stop making OR when you don't have a source to prove it, will you? Dino nam

YBesides, your OR is not only baseless but also wrong and illogical. It's useless to discuss when you keep refuting a protest against your statement "there is water on the Moon" by keep saying that "I don't need to provide proof because you don't understand anything about the subject". (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I gave up reasoning with you long, long time ago. You are the ONLY ONE. NO ONE ELSE bothers with your issue. When are you going to realize nobody is that obtuse as you are? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

"Agree with IP's comment directly above. This article is about the battle, not the campaign in general. David J Johnson (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)" Dino nam (talk) 04:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

disruptive editing at Battle of Ia Drang

It started with sock puppetry (113.190.165.78, 222.252.55.135, 117.6.88.137, 123.24.194.104, 222.252.32.116). The article got a semi-protection for one month on 14:52, 16 May 2016. The disruptive editor circumvents the blocking by switching to Dino nam to continue the disruption with persistent abusive bogus OR tagging. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

user:Tnguyen4321 keeps removing OR tag without explanation on the talk page without any explanation or consensus, which constitutes avoidance vandalism. Dino nam (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

My newest info is WP:BLUE, just like what you've edited, huh? It's too obvious that air action suffered less casualties, that 0 is smaller than 305, huh? Now what do you say? Dino nam (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No comments. How can you reason with such a ...?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked [10] twice: 1st time 48 hours, 2nd time 1 week.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

The restored sentence that is thought to be a SYNTH is actually just a rewording of the conclusions states by both sources of Vinh Loc and Kinnard.

1. Intelligence Summary: The 15th also marked the introduction of a new weapon by the American forces and one which struck terror in the hearts of even the most hardened enemy soldier. Shortly after noon a large area in the vicinity of YA8702 suddenly erupted with hundreds of thunderous explosions that moved across the ground like a giant carpet being unrolled. The B-52 bombers had struck. For the next five days the big bombers systematically worked over large areas of the Chu Pong Massif. The NVA soldiers lived in fear of these attacks because they believed each raid covered a 20 kilometer area and they were told that ordinary trenches and foxholes were of no protection. (Kinnard, page 88)
2. "Finish 'Em": For five consecutive days, from 15 to 19 November, the giant B52 bombers had flown a total of 96 sorties. One after the other, the areas of the Chu Pong massif - each of 20 square miles - underwent a systematic earthquake spreading from West to East. VC bunkers and trenches which so far had resisted the strikes by tactical aircraft and artillery began to score direct hits by the 750-pound bombs. The heavy canopy of the jungle ceased to be effective in both concealment and cover. The "back door" into Cambodia was closed and to escape, the VC remnants were reduced to utilize the narrow valley of the Ia Drang. (Vinh Loc, page 97).

Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: But the sources do not draw the conclusion that the air action was larger than the ground action. You have used them to support an unmade position. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not state the air action was larger than the ground action. I only state the air action

1. "spent more times: 5 days (11/15-20 Kinnard, page 68) versus 2 days (11/14-15 Kinnard, page 90)"
2. "operated in a wider areas:(Chu Pong-Ia Drang complex area (Vinh Loc, page 97) versus LZ X-Ray area (Kinnard, page 84)"
3. "committed more units: 96 sorties (Vinh Loc, page 97) versus 3 battalions (1/7, 2/7, 2/5 AC Vinh Loc, pages 80-91)"
4. "and attacked more enemy forces: 9 battalions (3 battalions x 3 regiment Vinh Loc, page 75) versus 2 battalions(Nguyễn Hữu An, pages 42-43)"

than the ground action. These facts are of the type WP:BLUE, basic arithmetic that does need citations, i.e 5 days is more time than 2 days.

That said, it is worthy to note that both citations emphasize the deathly effectiveness of the air action in the campaign. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: WP:BLUE is for blatantly obvious facts not needing citations; you've added citations, so I don't see how they are BLUE. Stating these facts in the way they're stated implies that the air action was more significant, which fails WP:NEUTRAL. Also, your third point, it's disputable that 96 sorties is larger than two battalions ("sortie" means "mission"; the same plane could've been used 96 times). Your fourth and first points are also disputable; the air action occured over five days, but each sortie only engaged the enemy for a few minutes, while the Air Cav was constantly engaged for nearly two days. "Enemy forces attacked" is also undescriptive, as "attacked" can merely mean opening fire without any effect. You are making a comparison that can't be properly made. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added citations for the numbers, not for the comparison between these numbers. I do not imply anything, just stating the facts, I am neutral. The third point is about strength of B-52 armada (it might perhaps needed rewording). Re: fourth and first point, I think you are pulling hairs.

Well, it is good that you rfC. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Significance of the air action compared to the ground action

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.

---

I was under the impression that the following sentence was WP:SYNTH (and another editor thought it was WP:OR) because it implies that the air action of the Pleiku Campaign was more significant than the ground action of the Battle of Ia Drang without the sources making that claim, or that it violates WP:N by challenging the significance of this battle; I also feel that the comparison being made is between two things that aren't easily compared, so I don't think the comparison needs to be made in this article at all:

"The air action spent more times,[68] operated in a wider areas,[69] committed more units[70] and attacked more enemy forces,[71] than the ground action."

The editor that wrote this sentence claims that it is a statement of facts that're reliably sourced, and that the comparison is WP:BLUE. Does this sentence violate any policy or guideline, need rewording, or need removal? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify further:

1. The sentence only contains individual facts of comparison in time spent, area of operation, strength of units committed, number of enemy forces attacked between air action and ground action. Each of this fact is WP:BLUE. The sentence does not explicitly draw any conclusion or claim that the air action was more significant than the ground action. Therefore there is no WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR involved.
2. These comparisons are easily understood with simple common sense, basic arithmetic: 5 days longer than 2 days, chupong-iadrang complex wider than lz xray, armada of B-52 fleet stronger than 3 infantry battalions, 9 battalions more than 2 battalions. You do not need to cite that the sky is blue.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The grammar of the proposed sentence isn't good. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Tnguyen4321, I keep seeing "blue" because of the references to it. Under some circumstances such as a lack of a tag, a lack of comments equaling consensus by silence, then being blue, seeing blue, or citing blue, would be considered appropriate. However, WP:Blue is an information page. In the scheme of Wikipedia there is a hierarchy that starts with policy, then guidelines, and so forth. The Wikipedia policy on verifiability states: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."

You left out this: This page in a nutshell: Although citing sources is an important part of editing Wikipedia, do not cite already obvious information. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• I will assume good faith that you were in a hurry and didn't read the part above my comments about policy and information pages so I will make allowances for this.

I came here as a TOTALLY neutral editor because of an equally neutral request ("There is currently an RfC concerning inclusion of a sentence at Battle of Ia Drang."), at Military history project. It was so neutral it wasn't even signed and I didn't look. I did look at this talk page, the article lead, and the content of question, but only scanned the rest.

I gave an assessment, that not only is accurate, it is backed by my 8 years of activity on Wikipedia, and policy that has broad Wikipedia community-wide consensus. Arguing "BLUE" (Yes! but it says here), against policy, carries far less weight than trying to Wikilawyer policy against policy. Sometimes though such a lawyer may be referred to as a pettifogger. In this regard, when your essays, information pages, or even guidelines are not in agreement with policy, you might switch to a policy like Ignore all rules. I will advise you that even then consensus, especially of the broad community type, will carry more weight than someone stating "I am trying to improve Wikipedia is why I defend using original research.". "IF" content is questioned it can be challenged, even tagged, and removed, if not determined acceptable according to the standards applied by Wikipedia-wide consensus. This means that as great as "ignoring all rules sounds", it really means ignoring all rules you can get away with, and continued arguments may only turn you blue in the face.

Tendentious editing is only an essay. It carries community support, and believe it or not this includes Admins, and has been used to block such editors. One sub-section to note would be "One who repeats the same argument without convincing people".

We need good editors on Wikipedia, and being a little stubborn is not entirely bad, but one has got to know when it is a good move to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

You wrongly accuse of two things: I am trying to improve Wikipedia is why I defend using original research and One who repeats the same argument without convincing people.

I am a novice and willing to learn the rope of a wikipedian editor. Another accusation of yours: I know when to walk away of the horse carcass.

Thanks for your advices anyway.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

::@Sturmgewehr88, I don't have access to the reference so that is a problem. I do know that part one of the article, normally considered the lead except in this case it is too long, states, "...about 1,000 North Vietnamese bodies on the battlefield and estimated that more were killed by air strikes and artillery", and includes a reference. This is a direct conclusion and if the reference doesn't support it then there are problems. The content in  the Two battlefronts at the Ia Drang Valley section, mentioned above, does make clear comparisons even though the wording is questionable. The content is followed by four references that should support the content.

Conclusion: Comparisons, that a source does not specifically make, is the very definition of WP:SYNTH which is WP:OR. In fact, if conclusions are drawn, because a comparison results in something being bigger, stronger, uglier, or even more blue than something else, that is not supported by a source, then the resulting content is biased. Unsupported words like "stronger" are weasel words if that assertion is not advanced by a source. A Logical assertion, while being totally true, that results in a conclusion not supported by source, is still an assertion or "claim" not supported by source. We can not claim what a source does not confirm no more than we can give a sum of two numbers, not supported by a source, because it is "basic arithmetic". While blue is true, it can not be used as a trump card over policy. Otr500 (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree. I was going to make some points about it here but looks like it's not necessary anymore. Thanks for your opinions. Dino nam (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I also want to added that the claim by user:Tnguyen4321 that the ground action was not supported by the source he cited. Kinnard, page 90 is simply a description of the occurrences between 14 and 15 Nov; the page doesn't give any explicit indication that the battle took place within only two days. In fact, the user's conclusion doesn't even count the duration of the fighting at LZ Albany. That's why I used to tag his reference as OR. Dino nam (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The text seems to me WP:SYNTH -- the juxtaposition of the stats, and the explicit comparison, is something that the reference cited did not do. As asn aside, it also seems pointless -- there is not reason to comparing them, and they are different kinds of things so it's not really valid to match three measures at random. I could equally well say the land campaign spent more continuous time, occupied more territory, and ate more spam ... Markbassett (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your comments. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:19, 12 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.

Warning

@Dino nam: @Tnguyen4321: Stop edit warring. Neither one of you have sufficient grasp of policy to be dictating actions to the other. I guarantee that neither of you will be happy if I become convinced that this sniping will not stop. My advice is that both of you stop editing in the article mainspace and invite uninvolved editors to monitor a properly formatted RfC. Matter of fact, you probably should think about obtaining help in formatting the RfC. Tiderolls 19:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: Yes I would be very happy to see this discussed by the RfC. But I've tried one without results; nobody involved. I will try the second times. If still nobody involve, I will have no other choice. Dino nam (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dino nam: I will not be commenting in the RfC. At the moment I have no opinion on the content. By the way "I will have no choice" is a vey concerning statement. The lack of participation in any previous discussion could easily be explained by the formatting of the RfC. I see you have already ignored my advice and posted your own RfC. Proceed at your own risk. Tiderolls 02:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: I see what're you talking about. You're talking about the formatting of my RfC, so tell me any problem with it if there is one. I don't see anything constructive by accusing someone without giving any verification of what he have done wrong. Dino nam (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dino nam: At the top of this page there are two banners that claim this article as parts of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam. If I were in need of help that's where I'd start. BTW, I don't know that you've done anything wrong. I was basing my observation on your claim of non-participation. Tiderolls 18:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I add my total agreement with Tiderolls. This article has been subject to edit warring over the last few weeks with, frankly, silly edits. I venture to suggest that the vast majority of folk who wish to use this article want to read about the battle, as documented in Hal Moore's book(s) and subsequent film. Any further detail should be in a separate new article. I would strongly support any action that Tiderolls may make if these "edits" continue. David J Johnson (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If as such then it should be redirected to "Battle of Ia Drang according to Hal Moore and Mel Gibson" so as a new article could be created with the title "Battle of Ia Drang Vallley". However, I am afraid some editor would redirect it to "Battle of Ia Drang according to Hal Moore and Mel Gibson" with the suggestion to expanding it and avoid a duplicate!Tnguyen4321 (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

ARVN involvement (renew)

As the issues about WP:SYNTH is over, I renew the discussion about South Vietnamese involvement here. I think South Vietnam should not be put into the box because of the following:

• 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.
• Page 119 of the book only gives that the cooperation between US and South Vietnamese forces in the campaign included "joint intelligence and supporting activities", which means their role in the battle is limited to only supporting (if there had been any). Because of this, I used to suggest to put this into the box:

"Supported by:
South Vietnam"

However, user:Tnguyen4321 refused this concession.

• User:Tnguyen4321's points are based on distorted info that he has derived from the sources. He even used to claim that the ARVN's role included "OPCON" or "operational control", a concept which was not even mentioned for a single time in all the sources he cited. That's why I used to tag his editing as OR.

@Sturmgewehr88: Please consider my points. I especially welcome your intervention. Dino nam (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dino nam: I'm bought on your first point. Although silence is consensus, Tnguyen4321 unilaterally removed the tag not long after I added it while you were still blocked. For now I will remove South Vietnam from the infobox on Battle of Ia Drang, but it should stay in the infobox at Pleiku Campaign. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: Totally agree, sir. Dino nam (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Overhauling this Article

Hi,

I'm new to Wikipedia, but I did my university thesis on the Vietnam War and am really interested in the Battle of the Ia Drang Valley. I couldn't believe there was so little information in this article beyond the technical aspects of the battle. Therefore, I'm overhauling this article to provide a more human side to the battle. My primary source is Moore & Galloway's We Were Soldiers Once...And Young.

If I make any factual errors, please do not hesitate to correct me. Otherwise, please give me a few days to get everything in and the formatting right before making any significant changes.

Thanks!

James Cameron

March 6/06

The result?

It was a US victory. Vietnamese forces were in retreat when US troops left the valley.

---

Actually the most fair result is a N. Vietnam Strategic victory and a US Tactical victory.

Retreat? According to who? The NVA owned the valley!

---

Yes the NVA did own the valley however both sides got what they wanted, the US wanted to destroy the NVA that was in the valley but had no desire to control it thus making a tactical move. The NVA controlling the valley once US forced arrived wanted to remove the US so they could still control that valley thus making it a strategic move. The US got what they wanted of destroying the NVA division while the NVA got what they wanted by having US forced leave. Thus not making it a draw because if it was a draw then both forced would not of gained their over all goal.

ARVN involvement in infobox

@Sturmgewehr88: Didn't you tell Dino nam I had provided reliable source re: ARVN involvement? Here are some more verifiable sources: The entire campaign, including the Battle of Ia Drang, was operated under the command of the joint ARVN-US task force, with the 1ACDF CP and the II Corps Command co-located at II Corps Headquarters compound in Pleiku.. on Nov 9, Brown and Moore went to the joint ARVN_US CP to be briefed of the military situation in preparation for the LZ X-Ray air assault. The night before the air assaul, Nov 13, II Corps Command gave to Moore the enemy situation communication in Mandarin dialect.. II Corps Command made sure the enemy did not positioned anti-aircraft guns and heavy mortars hillsides overlooking the LZ X-Ray that would gun down the air assault helicopters. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Please cited the full text of the sources you've just cited. At least at Kinnard, page 2, there's no such word as "joint ARVN-US task force". In fact, Vinh Loc, page 119 even gives that the operations were conducted by "seperate command" and "seperate deployment of forces", which totally contradicts your claim. If you fail to give the full text, it means that they're OR. Dino nam (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Even if you were right, it did not mean that the ARVN had exercised command power over the American forces. Dino nam (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I had discussed in length with you on this issues until I am blue in the face already, and you still were not capable to understand, to the point I had said three four times: I give up explaining to you like talking to a 3 year old kids. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who is a 3 year old kid there. The content of the sources obviously don't support you yet you still claim vice versa. What should I call it? Dino nam (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sturmgewehr88: I think you should better check that info from the sources themselves. I bet that it would be much different from what he have said. Dino nam (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: Yes, but I did not realize at the time that the involvement in the Pleiku Campaign was absent from the Battle of Ia Drang. And I need the full reference to verify, more than last name of the author and page number. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources are provided in the list of references at the bottle of the article. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't you understand what does it mean when he wants "full reference"? Dino nam (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure that I understand; I am not that 3 year old kid. Don't you get it that I have been instructed to do otherwise avoid the excessive use of quotations from non-free works. Should I listen to you or to the Wiki admin? Tnguyen4321 (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S.- She removed all the full references [11]. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

P.P.S- Because you wrongly accused me of promoting generalhieu.com webpage, I have removed the url to Vinh Loc and Vĩnh Lộc that I had posted for the purpose of easy and convenient access for the readers. If you feel that the links are beneficial to the readers, feel free to restore them. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are not a kid but behaving like one. Nobody ask you to put the full text into the article; I and user:Sturmgewehr88 just ask you to put it here, on this talk page for clarification. Yet you still refuse to understand it. Dino nam (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dino nam: Finally now you have the humility to admit: I really don't understand Mr Tiderolls. If you are not able to understand the simple thing he says, how can you understand the complexity of the Wikipedia notions of OR, SYNTH and the US military jargons. Tnguyen4321 (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tnguyen4321: Ha ha, why I have to deny? Only one who pretends to be smart but in fact doesn't even understand what he himself is saying is the shameful one. And in fact, you haven't even understood what user:Tiderolls, user:Sturmgewehr88, and many other editors have said. How can materials from such a person be present on Wikipedia? Dino nam (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

No comments needed to a childish laugh.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Irrelevant discussion crossed out. Dino nam (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Theater vs local

Nguyễn Đức Thắng, Westmoreland, Larsen, Kinnard, Chu Huy Man were directly and actively - meeting in person and giving direct order to the local commanders - involved in the Battle of Ia Drang as indicated by cited sources.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

request for opinions

Does anybody object to have these names in the section "Commanders and leaders" of the infobox?

Nguyễn Đức Thắng, Joint General Staff (theater)
William Westmoreland, COMUSMACV (theater)
Vĩnh Lộc, ARVN II Corps (theater)
Richard Larsen, IFFV (theater)
Harry Kinnard, 1ACDC (theater)
Chu Huy Man, B3 Field Front (theater)

Tnguyen4321 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)