Talk:Phoenix Program

Dual accusations

Just a warning here there are accusations from BOTH sides that this page is not NPOV PLEASE dont just edit it randomly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.169.226 (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the appropriate place to jump into this debate, so please correct my wiki-etiquette. I'm a bit of a Phoenix Program scholar with a working paper the program. Source wise, I've found Moyar's account the most accurate. In contrast, most of the sources cited on this page right now are anecdotal, journalistic, or people making claims based on contemporary journalistic accounts. The recent rewrite of the page as "anti-Phoenix" is not only biased, it's factually wrong in lots of places. The most obvious and blatant place is the claim that "Few of the prisoners survived—most of them were tortured to death." The modal person was arrested and then released in a short amount of time either because of limited judicial resources, poor evidence against them, the family paid small bribe, or they were actually Viet Cong and the VC had sway in the area. It was such a problem that Phoenix was criticized at the time as just a revolving door. The less egregious misconceptions on this page just show unfamiliarity with the history of the program. Phoenix as a whole was a intelligence coordination program, it monitored and directed the efforts of existing police, miltiary, and paramilitary forces. PRUs were a novel addition, but they represented only a small share of total targeting. The RF/PFs did the majority of targeting. Of the "26,369 killed" only a fraction of those were actually killed by the program. An estimate of the real number is something I'm working on, but a lot of those claimed kills were people that were killed in ordinary operations and then either legitimately or illegitimately claimed as matching someone on the blacklist postmortem. In sum, this page has always had some problems but has apparently taken a real turn for the worse recently.

Whitewash?

The Phoenix Program was notorious for abuses that went beyond stated aims and rules, and resulted in the abuse, torture and murder of thousands of Vietnamese by US military/intelligence personnel. This article now reads like a sanitized whitewash, or propaganda, that misleads students of history. It appears to have been edited over the past few years with a bias towards legitimizing and justifying the program, and downplaying the documented abuses. Look at the now-archived Talk pages for some relevant discussion, and some of the older versions. It appears that comments critical of the Phoenix Program, US policy or US military personnel have been removed, often with no discussion or comment. Sometimes the alleged grounds for deletion was inadequate references, but this seems to have been applied in a selective, biased fashion. Rather than correcting the reference, the sentence was deleted. US critics of the Program, and the war, have been downplayed. One editor appears to have been User:TDC, who was blocked from editing Wikipedia, and seemed to have a nationalist-US POV agenda; there may be others. Dehma1 (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism !?

20.000 + thousand civilians : medical doctors, nurses, teachers, professors, ordinary workers, managers, artists, students, many anonymous individuals without any social significance, etc. murdered in barbaric fashion, first tortured, often raped, and than butchered for sole purpose of TERRORIZING civil population. Every victim was tagged with one card - AS of spades.

CIA former employees, chiefs of stations, directors and deputy directors talk openly about "Operation Phoenix" (referring to Phoenix Program) in French documentary ARTE France 2003 "CIA: Secret Wars", using description and words mentioned above !

List of CIA employees talking about Phoenix Program, among other historical facts, can be previewed here.

Besides, intro to this article constitute pure propaganda. --Santasa99 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Anything particular? Saying the whole article is propaganda isnt going to help. You can always add to it yourself if you have good references.Dougy05050 (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Article NPOV

The sources in this article are completely atrocious in light of the number of high quality sources available on this subject. Polemical sources should not be substituted for high quality academic works. I have tagged the article until these issues are addressed or I have time to address them. ZHurlihee (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. And you need to specify exactly which part of this article violates exactly which part of WP:NPOV before you re-add the tag. You can't just say "there's a problem" and then slap a tag on the entire article. You need to specify exactly what the problem is. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above ... the articles sources are almost entirely polemic in nature and full of serious errors. One such error is in Otterman's book when he uses information from former US Navy SEAL Elton Manzione (Manzione was never a SEAL and lied about his service). As such, the article is in need of a great deal of pruning, attribution and additional material from sources such as the following:

• Stuart Herrington’s “Stalking the Vietcong”
• John Cook’s “The Advisor”
• John Plaster’s SOG
• Dale Andrade’ “Ashes to Ashes”
• and Moyar’s account of Phoenix

The article as it is currently written is a left wing screed. If you disagree, I would ask you to get a third opinion. ZHurlihee (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Left and right-wing bias. In my opinion this is where the discussion turns from the above section started May 23, 2011 by ZHurlihee asserting "The article as it is currently written is a left wing screed." Here is the May 23 version of the article. ZHurlihee then did a lot of editing of the article, and on June 1 Dehma1 asserted below that "The article now reads like a right-wing screed." Here is the June 1 version of the article]. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I am gobsmacked by User:ZHurlihee's assertion and his WP:POV edits on this article. The article now reads like a right-wing screed. As noted above, earlier versions of this article (going back years) present a more balanced portrayal than the US military sources or revisionist historians with an axe to grind, who ZHurlihee seems to rely on, and who have an inherent conflict of interest. There are now decades of scholarship which document in excruciating detail the murders, torture and rape of thousands of innocent civilians which occured under this program. To selectively emphasize those sources which whitewash the history not only does a disservice to those who sufferred or died, but also to those who are trying to draw objective lessons from Vietnam (which resulted in an ignominious defeat for the USA) to apply to current 'counterinsurgency' killings. There are still areas that new research may shed light on. E.g., few studies to date have examined the broader impact on Vietnamese society, or the inflammatory impact in Vietnam created by the program's abuses. Dehma1 (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input here. The sources I used here are all high quality and non polemic. Several of them are academic studies and a great deal more needs to be added to the article. According to WP:RS these are considered the highest quality sources. Concerning the abuses, I would tend to agree with Colonel Finlayson’s assessment that the majority of the allegations tend to be anecdotal, unsubstantiated, and false or as Moyar and Andrade document, made by individuals who later shown to unreliable. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Military sources have WP:COI issues. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Military sources have WP:COI issues." Are you really not going to respond to this ZHurlihee? There couldn't be any more obvious principle than not treating an invading military as a completely neutral source on content related to their invasion. This has been pointed out. Are you unwilling to respond?

Thank you for your input, ZHurlihee, to the extent you keep it truly balanced, and not merely Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. You have selectively chosen sources that are on only one side of a highly-contentious program. This is not NPOV. You have also deleted a dozen sources from the bibliography on the other side of that issue, including: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Again, this is not NPOV. You cite only two sources (one from RAND which is funded mainly by DOD and one from a US military source) in order to make the sweeping generalization: "generally viewed by both US Military and former North Vietnamese officials as being the most productive counterinsurgency operation of the conflict and dealt a serious blow to the Viet Cong and the VCI," while ignoring many other sources which conclude it was not only a failure but actually made the situation worse by inflaming broad-based sentiment against the US. This is not NPOV. You rely heavily on work by Dale Andrade, who is employed by the U.S. Army, and Mark Moyar, who was employed by the U.S. Marine Corps until he joined Orbis Operations (a US paramilitary company operating in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the UAE). This selective reliance is not NPOV. You deleted a dozen related WP links, all of which are critical of the US role, including: Pentagon Papers, Russell Tribunal, My Lai Massacre, Winter Soldier Investigation, Human Rights Record of the United States, War crimes and the United States, Tiger Force and Tiger cages. You added a link about the Iraq war (rather oddly), Awakening movements in Iraq. This is not NPOV. You removed a half-dozen WP Categories from the article, all of which are critical of US policy in Vietnam, including: [[Category:Dirty wars]], [[Category:Terrorist incidents in the 1960s]], [[Category:Terrorist incidents in the 1970s]], [[Category:Torture in Vietnam]] and [[Category:War crimes in Vietnam]]. This is not NPOV. In every case, your edits show a consistent bias. Again, Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing is not NPOV. Dehma1 (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Dehma1, The sources I have included are all academic. While some individuals may object to the heavy use of them because of their connection to the US military, they are all very well researched and the authors are considered experts on this subject specifically and on military history in general. Andrade and Moyar, from everything I have read, are highly regarded scholars and noted for their study on this subject.

In general, the majority of my edits have been made to add to the factual content of the article. The who what when where why and how of the subject were extremely thin. The majority of the article was claims of abuses from some less than reputable sources, specifically Douglas Valentine. Valentine’s book, which is the primary source for nearly all of the critical material, has some grievous issues with both its factual accuracy as well as the individuals he interviewed. I wont get into specifics here, but a rather devastating review was performed in 1990 in the Foreign Intelligence Literary Scene by US Naval commander Fred Brown. I think given the issues with Valentine’s work on the subject, he shouldn’t be used a source for anything in the article and sources that rely on him should be used to cite opinion only, not fact. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My cursory memory of the last few months of editing is that a lot of stuff has been deleted by all "sides" in this discussion. WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints be entered to make something neutral. Be bold and return everything with a semi-reasonable reference. State the source in the text. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree on issues of opinion not on matters of fact, which the article up to this point was sorely lacking. I have been busy in the real world, but plan on finishing most of my edits this week. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Military sources have WP:COI issues. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How so? ZHurlihee (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Military sources have WP:COI issues." "How so?" Is this an honest question, ZHurlihee? Do you honestly not understand why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LockheedChomsky (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I think he's saying that using nothing but U.S. military sources for a U.S. military counterinsurgency program might not give you the complete picture about what is going on. That would be like writing the article Al Qaeda based exclusively on Al Qaeda literature. At Wikipedia, we try to write articles with a WP:NPOV (neutral point of view), not a WP:USMPOV (U.S. military point of view). What would be best is to, wherever possible, write the article based on high quality secondary sources that are not published by the military, which obviously has a conflict of interest when writing about its own wrongdoing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Include all sources, military and otherwise. WP:NPOV requires all significant viewpoints. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear on what I meant. The reason I said "wherever possible" is that I understand that sometimes all we will have available is U.S. military sources, in which case it will be OK to use them (carefully). But non-military sources are preferable to military sources, as far as reliability is concerned (note that "non-military" doesn't mean that they won't hold the same views as the military -- just that they aren't under the editorial control of the military). I'm not opposed to including military sources -- I just prefer higher quality sources without the COI, and think we should use military sources very carefully, and only when we don't have other sources that are covering the same topic. The military's view can still be included, of course, but it's best to get their views from a publisher has no COI and a more balanced editorial process, rather than directly from military publications. Anyhow, what we certainly shouldn't have is an entire article citing nothing but military sources, which is where things seem to be headed at this point. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The article, as I found it, was nearly devoid of facts and was derived almost entirely, if the sources were any indication, from polemic opinion. Every article should be fact based and academic sources subject to peer review, whether they be from military historians or not, are preferable. That’s the RS policy. Considering the bulk of all material of a factual nature on the subject comes from military historians, it naturally follows that the article’s content should come from these. Please note that I am not saying that the entire article should be derived from these sources, just the bulk of it, as the majority of the other sources on the subject are certainly no without their own biases, and as I have demonstrated, show an astonishingly low lack of credibility considering the magnitude and severity of what they alleged. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the tag can stay up for now since some reasons have been given for it. Concerning WP:NPOV I suggest including all referenced views in the article, and let the reader decide.

I am not passing judgement on any of this, and will not be editing the article in any serious way. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Valentine as a source

Douglas Valentine’s book (the source for the “eel rape” quote) was based, in large part off many fraudulent sources. Among these include Elton Manzione who Valentine claimed was a US Navy Seals. Needless to say (or I wouldn’t be posting this), he wasn’t and this, and many more, were all documented in a review on Valentine’s book by US Naval Commander Fred Brown in Foreign Intelligence Literary Scene shortly after the books release. I have a copy of the article, but I dont knwo how to make it available for use here. Use of Valentine and derived material is not acceptable. ZHurlihee (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

RE. Elton Manzione[12] was not a SEAL and was represented as such by Douglas Valentine. Valentine has been known to invent quotes or take them out of context.

Like: "The implication or latent threat of force alone was sufficient to insure that the people would comply" quoted here as well. Attributed to William Colby, meaning that the USA was using threats and intimidation to bully the vietnamese.

Colby’s actual quote was: "the implication or latent threat of force alone was sufficient to insure that the people would comply with Communist demands." Meaning that the communists were using threats and intimidation to bully the vietnamese. Valentine simply inverted the meaning of someone else's quote to suit his agenda. V7-sport (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Valentine quoted the whole sentence in his book. See here. In the book he says that the US Phoenix program was mimicking the insurgency. So maybe Valentine conflated the two sentences in his mind? --Timeshifter (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are some very high-quality sources you've found there :) ... But, seriously, even if they did close to satisfying WP:RS, they would still be irrelevant when discussing the validity of Valentine's work on Phoenix, which is widely cited throughout the scholarly community, and as far as I know is only criticized (on trivial grounds) by a U.S. military source. Valentine's work is notable, detailed, and widely cited, and there is no grounds in policy for its removal. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Brown's review in Foreign Intelligence Literary Scene is devastating and most definately qualifies as a WP:RS. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link to Brown's review posted anywhere? --Timeshifter (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The best I could do is scan it and post it somewhere. I had to get a copy from my local library. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The book was not based "in large part" on fraudulent sources, regardless of what US Naval Commander Fred Brown claims. The book is one of the most respected works on Phoenix, and is widely cited in the scholarly community. A U.S. military officer's claims regarding the work do not give you license to remove what is clearly a WP:RS. If you disagree, I suggest that you take the source to the reliable sources noticeboard, and ask for an outside opinion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you point out where has it been praised in the "scholarly community"? I'm curious to see what one of these scholarly communities looks like.

To to be clear, Jrtayloriv, I'm not hounding you. This article has been on the far end of the long term "to do" list as it has issues, but I saw "Douglas Valentine" pop up and was reminded just what a fabulist he is. Have a look at that speech I posted and the actual quote it was based on. IMHO that kind of thing, as well as relying on proven liars as his sources disqualifies him as a lying partisan hack.V7-sport (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, the book was, as Brown documents, based in no small part off of fraudulent sources and deceptive presentation of source material. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to find anything seriously fraudulent about Douglas Valentine. Mistakes, yes, fraudulent, no. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Passing a witness of as a US Navy seal and then claiming the Navy destroyed or altered his personnel file when confronted with the evidence (both documentary and first person corroboration) speaks of fraud to me. 173.200.137.74 (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Come back when you have a user name, and people will pay a lot more attention to you. Also, where are the links? Finally, even if true, it sounds like a mistake, not fraud. Please don't try a Swiftboating campaign on Wikipedia against Douglas Valentine. Stick to the facts. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point Timeshifter, do you have any links or citations to back what you say about Valentine and how he defended his use of frauds? ZHurlihee (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What fraud? Links? Hyperbole does not succeed on Wikipedia. That is a newb tactic. Do you want to be perceived as a newb? --Timeshifter (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote prior, much of that is detailed at some length in the Foreign Intelligence Literary Scene review. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Intelligence Literary Scene (FILS) is an outlet for ex-spooks, their handlers, wannabes and their enablers in the military and related schools. It was started by Thomas Francis Troy of the CIA, after his retirement in 1982. The CIA states: "In the early 1990s, it was published by Ray Cline’s National Intelligence Study Center until the Internet made it obsolete."[13] It is by no means an objective source, and certainly no more so than Valentine or any of the other sources which User:ZHurlihee has deleted. Its articles often fail to address the most important questions, while burying into minutiae or arcane methodological issues. See the posting above, on the POV changes in the past month. All those need to be restored. Teeparty (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, FILS was a credible source, however it isn't being used as a source here. Valentine has been shown[14] to take quotes out of context to the point of inverting their meaning and to rely on proven liars as his sources. At this juncture at least, the same cannot be said for FILS.V7-sport (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Writers depend on sources. Valentine did not "rely" on one bad source. He had many sources. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Having shown that he was willing to take quotes out of context to invert their meaning and at the very least, use "sloppy sourcing" (It isn't hard to verify if someone went through BUD/S and was on a SEAL team, and it isn't, frankly, all that smart to believe that someone who was 18 at the time was an advisor as well as a SEAL.) ought to disqualify him as worthy of inclusion.V7-sport (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You ignored what I previously wrote. Another example of talk page incivility. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I have missed something, but it's clear that I haven't ignored what you have written, and I certainly haven't been uncivil with you.V7-sport (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it clear? --Timeshifter (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I addressed what you wrote and gave you a rebuttal. While we are doing this, reformatting the page during the middle of an ongoing discussion serves to reframe peoples arguments in a way that they had not originally intended. No one here was addressing this in terms of "Left-wing bias" and "Right-wing bias" and putting these discussion breaks, where you have and without consensus serves to give the impression that the "right wing bias" section that you created has generated a lot more discussion. I hope you don't think it uncivil, but I believe it's only fair that these be removed. If you wish to start another section elsewhere I don't object. V7-sport (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(unindent). You did not address some of my points. See all my previous replies in this section. Your paranoia is showing. I added the left and right-wing sections simply to allow others to enter in the discussion more easily, and in the section that interests them. It is commonly done on talk pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling me "paranoid" is a personal attack. Which point did I not address? "I dispute that segregating other peoples responses into your own format is commonly done and again, even if it were that wouldn't make it right or fair. Per BRD I'm going to remove them until we can come to a consensus. V7-sport (talk) 04:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Lighten up. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

???? Look, I'm making an effort to play nice. I'de appreciate the same. We may disagree but that doesn't mean it should degenerate into unproductive territory. V7-sport (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not a rebuttal or even an acknowledgment of what I have written. Please be WP:civil and engage in the process in WP:good faith. V7-sport (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Source Douglas Valentine directly

Comment. About this diff. I assume this is the Douglas Valentine info you are talking about. I did not add it myself, nor did I return it to the article when it was removed. It does not name the original source (as in who witnessed it). So I don't think it should be in the article. It is not about Valentine's claims in my opinion. It is about the original sources. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't studied the issue enough yet concerning his reliability as a source. But if his writings are to be used as a reference, then I suggest referencing them directly rather than second hand via other authors' interpretations. The full text of his main book on Phoenix is online here:

• http://www.american-buddha.com/phoenixprogtoc.htm

Do not use that as the reference though because I do not know if the website has permission to post the full text. Use something like this as a reference:

• Douglas Valentine. The Phoenix Program. 1990. [15]. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Background history

Also, why was this sourced info removed? Who are the original sources for the info provided by Moyar and Andrade ? --Timeshifter (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• The reason the material was removed is that it is one-sided and off-topic. It exclusively discusses the political organization of the VC from the view of people who disliked them enough to drop bombs on them. This is hardly in line with WP:NPOV. If you want to have a history of the Viet Cong in the villages, then it needs to be written neutrally, not from U.S. military sources only. Furthermore, I don't believe that a detailed history of the Viet Cong belongs in this article. I think it belongs in Viet Cong. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the need for neutrality. A short background history is necessary to put Phoenix in context. I, and most readers, would also like the military viewpoint. It should not be in the narrative voice of Wikipedia, though. --Timeshifter (talk)

Agreed -- my problem is not with the inclusion of the U.S. military viewpoint, but rather with the inclusion of this viewpoint in Wikipedia's voice without balance by explaining how the majority of Vietnamese people saw it. Talking about "shadow governments" and "political indoctrination", without mentioning that this is how the U.S. military (which was at war with the VC) sees it, and that there are other views, is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Anyhow, I'm going not going to be too involved here for a bit. User:V7-sport is stalking me from article to article, and I believe he is simply looking for an argument (as the majority of his edits are to talk page arguments). I'm going to deny him that, and do my best to avoid him, and work on articles elsewhere. I hope that won't give the impression that your views on NPOV are a minority, but I don't wish to spend more time dealing with him. Take care, and good luck.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

How does one determine how the majority of the Vietnamese people saw something?

Is it only by looking at those who joined the VC? I don't think so. We could see in the migration south during the war, the struggle to evacuate in the fall of Saigon, and by the boat people for years afterwards, that a lot of them didn't want to live in that kind of a brutal regime. Most Vietnamese people really wanted peace. None of the VC supporters did.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how one can say how the majority of Vietnamese people saw things. You would think that most people wanted peace after awhile, whether combatants or not. And I am guessing most people did not want to live under any brutal regime, be it French, American, or Vietnamese-controlled. This uncertainty concerning the background of the war is why viewpoints must be attributed in the text of the article and not just in the references. Otherwise the narrative voice of Wikipedia is used for spin, and to imply that certain points of view are "the truth," when in fact they are just opinions of certain people. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• re: the quote -- Blakely was quoting Valentine, a secondary source who is describing the types of torture witnessed by the people he interviewed. If the assertion he is making is contested in a reliable source, then we should attribute the statement to Valentine. Otherwise we should do what we do with other statements of fact from reliable sources; namely, assert it as fact in Wikipedia's voice with a citation to Valentine. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dale Andrade and Mark Moyar are reliable and not bombers of some kind as far as I know. Especially compaired to other authors that are listed as sources. (I notice that Nick Turse the guy who praised the columbine murderers as "revolutionaries" is one of the sources. The passage was well sourced notable as it establishes the reasoning behind the counterinsurgency methodology. V7-sport (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not check who Dale Andrade and Mark Moyar are yet. But if they are military, or ex-military, then there might be WP:COI issues. We need to separate the WP:NPOV viewpoint of background history from the military viewpoint of Phoenix. It needs to be clear in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by COI issues. That someone is or was previously in the armed forces shouldn't disqualify them as a reliable source. (Indeed, some of the harshest and most effective critics of military policy come from the military itself and especially the affiliated colleges.) It might be said that someone like "Michael Otterman" who runs "americantorture.com" or Noam Chomsky who has made enough off of his books and lectures railing against the USA foreign policy to live in one of the most expensive communities in USA (both are cited here) might have a conflict of interest as well. The military viewpoint of Phoenix is notable, especially since the military has found itself looking to previous COIN operations to better understand the counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. V7-sport (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said. Most people have biases. That is why all significant viewpoints must be in a Wikipedia article. And it must be clear in the article itself who is providing the viewpoint, and not just in the references. "The military viewpoint of the Viet Cong infrastructure was..." And so on. Historians have a different viewpoint of the varying levels of civilian support and/or fear of the insurgency. Much of the Vietnamese population saw the overall insurgency as nationalism first and communism second (as Robert McNamara came around to seeing). Many in the Vietnamese population saw the insurgency not on communist terms, but as a completely justified rebellion against French and American tyranny, rigged elections, death squads, torture, and exploitation. So just having a sterile military viewpoint of the civilian infrastructure of support is not WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Dale Anadre is a historian at the U.S. Army Center of Military History and is a prolific author on the subject of Vietnam. Mark Moyar has a wiki entry. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Re.Timeshifter, "The military viewpoint of the Viet Cong infrastructure was..." would be fine if it were a DOD press release or Army spokesman, however I don't believe the authors were in the military or speaking on their behalf. (As an aside, and as a personal opinion; I don't think McNamara would be an effective judge of what was going on in the average Vietnamese head, or much of anything else quite frankly. He spent his later years excusing the failures of judgment he made in Vietnam. Pointing to his micromanagement and incompetence might be one of the few things that unites all sides of the political spectrum.) If you have some reliable sources that are valid counterarguments to the point being made then put them in.V7-sport (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

He got the nationalism part right. That is basic common sense. Too bad it took him and many others so long to figure out just how important it is. As if Vietnamese don't shout their version of "USA, USA, USA". As in "Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam." My point being that we should not put the current background history in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. I clarified who it comes from. It comes from Lieutenant Colonel Ken Tovo. Also, William Rosenau and Austin Long of the RAND Corporation. And finally, Dale Andrade, an historian at the U.S. Army Center of Military History. Military and Rand Corporation hardly qualify as WP:NPOV. Please stop the BS. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think what I have posted was BS, nor was it my intention to post BS. I have also treated you with civility. That said, I don't have a problem with you attributing what was said to whomever said it, however their names should suffice, especially since Finlayson, at least, was retired when he started writing.V7-sport (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I added "retired." And you have not treated me with civility. You say one thing and do another. You deleted the attribution I added. And what about this accusation of stalking and argumentation? You are rapidly losing any credibility. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think his former rank is germane to what he is saying here. People can have several careers throughout a lifetime. What I wrote was "I don't have a problem with you attributing what was said to whomever said it, however their names should suffice" so no, I haven't said one thing and done another. Deleating what you wrote after I addressed it on the talk page is part of the BRD cycle WP:BRD and there was nothing uncivil about it. Restoring it without consensus is technically edit warring although I'm not going to get bent out of shape about it. I even addressed the whole "stalking" thing above. No need to do so over and over as it is between him and me. Again, what i have posted is not BS, it is a legitimate difference of opinion as to what the article should look like and I offered a compromise (Using his name). V7-sport (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

His status as a retired military officer is germane. It points out that he is ex-military, and in the eyes of many people, that is part of a point of view, and needs attribution. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Was, say, Howard Zinn's status as "ex-military" important to whatever he had to say? Should we change all of his quotes to reflect his veteran status? These "many people" can see it in the references section, it's already posted there. Or they can click on that for a biography. Having it in the text isn't wiki policy. V7-sport (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Many more people have heard of Howard Zinn than the military sources used in this article. The point of attribution in the text in contentious articles is to provide enough info to take the text out of the narrative voice of Wikipedia. Taking opinion out of the narrative voice of Wikipedia is wiki policy, and there are various ways to do that. Only facts should be in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not that's the case is irrelevant, We don't cite Zinn as a former military office whenever he is brought up. We don't write, Former Lieutenant in the John Kennedy Jr USN/R (retired) admired Air force one. And, by the way, his former rank is already in the references, which it needn't be but which I don't object to. Citing it to his name is sufficient attribution and doesn't duplicate the verbiage. V7-sport (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. Understand the spirit of what Wikipedia is trying to do. WP:NPOV is number one in Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it appears that your point is that anyone with a military background has to be labeled as such so that people will know that they have a particular bias. That isn't the case and it hasn't been policy here. Regardless, his former rank is already listed in the references. In terms of NPOV, I wonder if you would do something for me. I was going to compose a "WTF, why are you being so rude to me" letter but when I went to your talk page the first thing I saw was "Note the flag. :) Even Americans have to cite their sources". I wonder if you would replace "Americans" with some other minority group and see if it still flies. Isn't that something of a bias, Timeshifter?V7-sport (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not a rebuttal or even an acknowledgment of what I have written. Please be WP:civil and engage in the process in WP:good faith. V7-sport (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how Nick Turse is referencing anything specific in the article. So I have no problem with removing his references. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a look, he may have been quoting someone. I pulled it. V7-sport (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As it stands now the background section reads has the following language:
Background
See also: Viet Cong
The following background history section comes from Lieutenant Colonel Ken Tovo. Also, William Rosenau and Austin Long of the RAND Corporation. And finally, Dale Andrade, an historian at the U.S. Army Center of Military History. For alternative viewpoints see Viet Cong.
Which is un-necessary. The "For alternative viewpoints see Viet Cong" is a replication of the "see Viet cong" link, (which should stay.) and the blurb abut the various authors qualifications is also un-necessary. One wouldn't put "the following background information comes from Noam Chomsky, an anarchist-socialist and critic of US foreign policy. For alternative viewpoints see whomever." It should be removed.V7-sport (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the duplication: {{see also|Viet Cong}}.

Attributions similar to how I have done it are found on many wikipedia pages. Especially contentious Wikipedia pages dealing with casualties and conflicts. And yes, people are sometimes attributed in the text with things like "prominent conservative so-and-so wrote..." --Timeshifter (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Attributions similar to how I have done it are found on many wikipedia pages" Like where? Look, anyone can simply click on the number to see who these people are. What you have created is a disclaimer and as such it's editorializing. V7-sport (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a disclaimer that these are partly opinions, and not necessarily facts or the full picture. It removes these opinions out of the narrative voice of Wikipedia. As to where, look around. I have 20,000 edits on Wikipedia, and I am not making this up. I don't have time to educate editors inexperienced with contentious pages. Ask around. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimers and other editorializing is against wikipedia policy. You made the assertion that such disclaimers were "found on many wikipedia page" which I asked you to back with an example. However even if you were able to it wouldn't make it correct. V7-sport (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimers are not editorializing. And why did you bother to ask for examples if you weren't going to pay attention to them anyway. Jrtayloriv was right. You seem to spend a lot of time on talk pages. I suggest you take a break. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is editorializing and I asked you for an example to see if you could come up with one. instead I got an uncivil remark about me being inexperienced. I am spending time on the talk page trying to address our difference of opinion. I reverted what you wrote and moved on to the discussion, instead of addressing what I have written you have offered up personal attacks and edit warred, simply reverting without trying to find some consensus. One would have thought that someone with so many edits would have handled an opportunity to collaborate better. V7-sport (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see my previous replies, and have a nice day. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not a rebuttal or even an acknowledgment of what I have written. Please be WP:civil and engage in the process in WP:good faith. V7-sport (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete background section

It is possible that Jrtayloriv may have had the right idea. It may be better to delete the current background section since it does not meet WP:NPOV standards, and it may not be possible in the limited space available here. Instead we can link to Viet Cong for the background. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The background section should stay, minus the unnecessary disclaimer which only reiterates information already available in the references.V7-sport (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I see in this diff that you returned this: "The following is the background narrative according to military or ex-military sources. See Viet Cong for more viewpoints."

If that stays, then I think this section even with its right-wing bias can stay. If not, then WP:NPOV requires that it be removed. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I added additional "non military" sources to confirm what was written, taken from the see also link that you wanted to include. The idea that a military source, or even a book written by a former member of the military is inherently POV and must be prefaced with a disclaimer is not policy at Wikipedia. It's not verifiable and in my experience it doesn't reflect reality.V7-sport (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It is common sense that U.S. military personnel writing books published by U.S. military publishers are not the best place to get balanced coverage of the U.S. military's actions. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Are academics who make their living writing polemics against the actions of the US government are the go-to people for balance? I backed what was published by a publishing houses affiliated with the military with secondary sources. My point was that being in the military doesn't disqualify someone from being able to author a legitimate reference on the subject.V7-sport (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As usual, you are misrepresenting the positions of other editors, and demolishing straw men. I never said that "academics who make their living writing polemics against the actions of the US government are the go-to people for balance". I said that writing a history of the Viet Cong sourced almost exclusively to U.S. military sources is not likely to be balanced. Do you disagree with this? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I never wrote that you had stated that. Please don't accuse me of misrepresenting anything when I have posed a question. To answer your question, I disagree that the article is "almost exclusively to U.S. military sources". There are several sources who were formally in the military, that does not make them less objective and that does not make them "military sources". "As usual, you are misrepresenting the positions of other editors" is uncivil, and as I have pointed out, incorrect. V7-sport (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are misrepresenting what I said. I stated that the history of the Viet Cong here (not the entire article) is sourced almost exclusively to military sources, which is true. As you were told in your ANI thread about this, it is not uncivil to say that you are misrepresenting people when you are. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"I stated that the history of the Viet Cong here (not the entire article) is sourced almost exclusively to military sources" There is no history of the Viet Cong section in the article. Could you be specific about what your objection is? Not to beat this to death, but you stated: "As usual, you are misrepresenting the positions of other editors, and demolishing straw men. I never said that "academics who make their living writing polemics against the actions of the US government are the go-to people for balance" indicating that I had written that you had "said" that "academics who make their living writing polemics against the actions of the US government are the go-to people for balance" . I never wrote that you said that. Ironically, you mischaracterized what I wrote while you erroneously accused me of doing the same.. So no, when you write 'it is not uncivil to say that you are misrepresenting people when you are" you are incorrect. I wasn't misrepresenting anything and it is uncivil to be tossing out those allegations. I will however, learn to muddle through without your approval.V7-sport (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that you were implying that I was suggesting that we base the section on "academics who make their living writing polemics against the actions of the US government", as will be anyone else who reads this thread. I have no interest in wasting more of my time with your nonsense. I've filed an RFC, where we can discuss whether or not Valentine's work is reliable. Feel free to comment there. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that you wrote that I had "said" something that I had not ad called that a mischaracterization of what you had when when it wasn't? "I have no interest in wasting more of my time with your nonsense." would probably mean that I am not going to get an apology even though it's obvious (and pretty funny) that you were mischaracterizing what I wrote while accusing me of mischaracterizing what you wrote. V7-sport (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I cant see any good justification to get rid of the background section. Many authors discussed this material In great detail when describing the rationale for Phoenix. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Killcullen

I removed Killcullen, because his view that Phoenix was primarily an aid and development program is both fringe and absurd. All of our sources, including the U.S. military sources state unequivocally that it was primarily a counterinsurgency program. That said, I was incorrect that SWJ is not a reliable source in some cases. A look at their low-quality site, and the fact that they would publish something so inaccurate made me jump to an incorrect conclusion. Sorry about that. Anyhow, Killcullen's incorrect and fringe view does not warrant inclusion here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now I'm not surprised that they published something so inaccurate, considering the following statement from their editorial policy:

We would like to provide our authors more editorial review than they get, which is next to none. We only make minor formatting and mechanical edits; we'd do more if we were better staffed. In the meantime, let's not let your red pen or our lack of enough of them get in the way of good ideas reaching the right eyes and ears promptly.

This lack of editorial control means that Killcullen's work is an WP:SPS, not a reliable source that is under proper editorial control. (Which is secondary to the fact that it is inaccurate and contradicts every other source we have here.) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Lack of editorial control signifies that it's an [[WP:SPS].... Very well then. V7-sport (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re the Valentine quote, he is not a reliable source as he has been shown to use quotations out of context and rely on fraudulent sources. I'm still interested to see where he has bee praised in the scholarly community by the way.V7-sport (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any articles that have been written specifically praising Valentine's work (nor do I need to be); however, as I said before, he is widely cited (and, thus, obviously considered reliable by the people citing him -- examples of whom would include Otterman, Blakely, [16], [17], [18], etc. etc. etc.).

That said, I do understand your concerns about Manzione, who I also consider to be dubious having looked into his history. But that certainly does not imply that Valentine's entire work is inaccurate. It implies that statements from Manzione are possibly inaccurate, depending on what the truth about Manzione is. I actually would question directly including statements from Manzione in this article, without mention of the controversy over his history. However Valentine's work is by no means based in whole, or even in large part, on Manzione's testimony. Anyhow, Valentines work is notable, widely cited, and published by a professional publisher -- it is clearly an RS. If you have anything from WP:RS that would indicate that this is not a reliable source, please provide it now. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Per Timeshifter "It does not name the original source (as in who witnessed it). So I don't think it should be in the article."
• Per ZHurlihee " Valentine’s book, which is the primary source for nearly all of the critical material, has some grievous issues with both its factual accuracy as well as the individuals he interviewed."
• Per 173.200.137.74 "Passing a witness of as a US Navy seal and then claiming the Navy destroyed or altered his personnel file when confronted with the evidence (both documentary and first person corroboration) speaks of fraud to me."
• I wrote RE. Elton Manzione[19] was not a SEAL and was represented as such by Douglas Valentine. Valentine has been known to invent quotes or take them out of context. Like: "The implication or latent threat of force alone was sufficient to insure that the people would comply" quoted here as well. Attributed to William Colby, meaning that the USA was using threats and intimidation to bully the vietnamese. Colby’s actual quote was: "the implication or latent threat of force alone was sufficient to insure that the people would comply with Communist demands." Meaning that the communists were using threats and intimidation to bully the vietnamese." That was an example of him misattributing a quote to someone who said the exact opposite and (at best) relying on a source that was an obvious liar. That he has been cited elsewhere doesn't confirm his reliability, Jayson Blair was widely cited. (which is why I asked to see the praise you said existed) Indeed, what brought me to this page was seeing a reference to Valentine pop up in the edit summary and knowing about the fake SEAL/misattributing quotes history, as well as the other lies factual inaccuracies CDR Fred Brown caught him in. V7-sport (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: Timeshifter: see my response to that statement above.

RE: Zhurlihee -- He has provided a U.S. military source that criticizes Valentine's work. I hardly see this as grounds for claiming it is not an RS.

RE: You and the IP -- You have provided original research about an unrelated quote culled from some low-quality non-RS websites, coupled with repetitions of the fallacious argument that Manzione being included in Valentine's work somehow makes the entire book invalid. I don't accept this, and there is nothing in WP:RS or elsewhere that supports your view. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"RE: Timeshifter: see my response to that statement above." ???

"RE: Zhurlihee -- He has provided a U.S. military source that criticizes Valentine's work. I hardly see this as grounds for claiming it is not an RS." Well no, that's not correct. The source was not a military publication.

RE: You and the IP -- You have provided original research about an unrelated quote culled from some low-quality non-RS websites" What I have provided are a couple of examples of Valentine putting his name to publications or speeches that have proven to be un-true. From taking a quote out of context in a speech in order to invert the meaning or relying on an obvious liar to publish something that was false. There's no way around that and even you acknowledged that "I do understand your concerns about Manzione, who I also consider to be dubious having looked into his history."V7-sport (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"RE: Timeshifter: see my response to that statement above." -- My mistake. See the RFC below.

"Well no, that's not correct. The source was not a military publication." -- US Naval Commander Fred Brown is not a military source?

"RE: Your original research" -- Already responded to above. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"US Naval Commander Fred Brown is not a military source?" No, he is not, he is someone who was once in the military. The source was an academic journal that he was writing in. A "military source" is something published by the military. Just because someone WAS, or even IS in the military doesn't mean that thy are speaking on behalf OF the military.

"Already responded to above", well no, you just wrote what I posted off as "original research". In fact it was a demonstration that your "well respected" author was taking someones quote and truncating it to the point where the exact opposite meaning of that quote was what he was representing as being said and using that lie as the basis for a speech. Waiving it away as "original research" is not persuasive, as it is a clear demonstration that the man lied. V7-sport (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Admin Intervention on User:V7-sport and User:ZHurlihee

I came to this Discussion page to engage in discussion. However, after having read the above and reviewed recent edits to this article, it seems that users V7-sport and ZHurlihee are engaged in wanton NPOV editing disguised as WP:CRUSH, WP:Edit waring, WP:Ownership (tag-team), and other WP policy violations. V7-sport did a blanket revert on my edits (see comparison), which s/he merely labeled as "Restoring properly sourced info per BRD." (The comparison shows it is far more than this, and reveals a consistent NPOV with ZHurlihee, namely to minimize critisize of the Phoenix Program, to play up its benefits, and to selectively choose sources affiliated with the US military.) Reading the discussion and revision histories leads me to suggest that at least a temporary block be imposed on user V7-sport. Teeparty (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm here if you want to collaborate.V7-sport (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This type of "Please block this user request" is generally frowned upon, and will go nowhere. And using poor sources and writing biased content are (unfortunately) not generally considered to be blockable offenses anyway. I understand that it is frustrating to deal with this sort of behavior, but the best way to handle this is to use some form of dispute resolution to deal with it, rather than getting into battles with them. V7-sport spends most of his time arguing with other users, and feeding into that will just end up being a waste of your time. The best way to handle it is by filing RFCs and bringing other people in to provide other views. He won't admit fault, and won't change his position in the face of contradictory evidence, but that doesn't matter if his view is a minority. And I believe that his views on this will be a minority if you bring in uninvolved outside editors, who are on the whole reasonable and open-minded.

That said, some of your additions were unsourced and otherwise problematic. I would suggest that you be careful to provide reliable sources and don't try to "balance" Zhurlihee/V7's policy violations with policy violations of your own. Again - I realize that it's frustrating, but it will get sorted out. Just be calm and patient, and deal with it through mediation, rather than argumentation. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have a question, all you need to do is ask. I have been more than willing to work out a compromise that works for everyone. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC: With attribution, is Valentine's "The Phoenix Program" a reliable source?

Douglas Valentine's book The Phoenix Program is widely cited in reliable sources ([20][21][22], etc. etc. etc.), and is published by a professional publishing outfit, William Morrow and Company. Some users have expressed concern over the credibility of Valentine's work, given his inclusion of interviews with Elton Manzione, who possibly lied about his service as a Navy Seal, and because of a U.S. military officer's criticism of Valentine's work. With attribution (i.e. "Douglas Valentine states X") is The Phoenix Program a WP:RS? Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, is RS with attribution -- I think that because the work is notable, widely cited in other RS (indicating that the people citing it believe it to be accurate), and professionally published that it can be used as an RS with attribution. I do believe that Elton Manzione is dubious, but I don't feel that his inclusion implies that the entire book is inaccurate. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to restate the rebuttals so far.The consensus on this forum has been No.

• Per Timeshifter "It does not name the original source (as in who witnessed it). So I don't think it should be in the article."
• Per ZHurlihee " Valentine’s book, which is the primary source for nearly all of the critical material, has some grievous issues with both its factual accuracy as well as the individuals he interviewed."
• Per 173.200.137.74 "Passing a witness of as a US Navy seal and then claiming the Navy destroyed or altered his personnel file when confronted with the evidence (both documentary and first person corroboration) speaks of fraud to me."
• I wrote RE. Elton Manzione[23] was not a SEAL and was represented as such by Douglas Valentine. Valentine has been known to invent quotes or take them out of context. Like: "The implication or latent threat of force alone was sufficient to insure that the people would comply" quoted here as well. Attributed to William Colby, meaning that the USA was using threats and intimidation to bully the vietnamese. Colby’s actual quote was: "the implication or latent threat of force alone was sufficient to insure that the people would comply with Communist demands." Meaning that the communists were using threats and intimidation to bully the vietnamese." That was an example of him misattributing a quote to someone who said the exact opposite and (at best) relying on a source that was an obvious liar. That he has been cited elsewhere doesn't confirm his reliability, Jayson Blair was widely cited. (which is why I asked to see the praise you said existed) Indeed, what brought me to this page was seeing a reference to Valentine pop up in the edit summary and knowing about the fake SEAL/misattributing quotes history, as well as the other lies factual inaccuracies CDR Fred Brown caught him in. V7-sport (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Timeshifter was referring to a particular statement from Valentine's work, not to the book as a whole; and I have replied to this above, explaining why this is not a cause for concern. Zhurlihee, the IP, and V7-sport (who form the "consensus" that V7-sport speaks of) have made a few statements about the credibility (which I also agree is questionable, at best) of one of the people that Valentine interviewed (Elton Manzione) and repeatedly implied that this means that the entire work is inaccurate (in spite of the fact that numerous reliable sources, including scholarly sources, feel that it is accurate enough to cite in their own works). Zhurlihee has cited a U.S. military officer who has criticized Valentine's work, and V7-sport has provided the type of low-quality original research you see above regarding something completely unrelated to the work in question. There is no "consensus" here, other than among an IP, a disruptive U.S. foreign policy edit warrior, and a person who has been trying to rewrite this article using nothing but military sources. I'd ask that people not be taken in by the rhetoric and carefully analyze the "evidence" that V7-sport is providing. I think you'll find that the work is easily reliable enough to be cited with attribution for factual assertions. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that -- I had drafted a response to Timeshifter's comment, and thought I had posted it. I hadn't so I have stricken that statement above -- apologies. Basically, all I was going to say was that Valentine is a secondary source. He is basing his statements off of research from primary sources, such as documents, interviews, etc. His statement regarding forms of torture used is a synthesis of things that he has gathered from multiple primary sources. Valentine was not claiming that one person said this, but was rather making a statement that he felt was supported by his research. Thus, I feel that it is fine to include with attribution to Valentine. Anyhow, sorry about the mixup. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Timeshifter stated, RE. the material you want to put in: "I don't think it should be in the article". If you find a source that the author used "questionable, at best" that reflects poorly on the credibility of the author as well. The former "U.S. military officer" (as if that hurt his credibility) outlined glaring inaccuracies in his work and I have shown that he took a quote, out of context to the point of completely inverting it's meaning and used that as a basis of a speech he used. You characterizing people who you disagree with as "disruptive U.S. foreign policy edit warrior" is uncivil and stating that someone who was in the military is a "military source" is inaccurate.V7-sport (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

My characterization of you (not "people who disagree with me") was completely accurate, as a quick glance at your edit history and block log will affirm. Anyhow, the reason I filed this RFC was to avoid wasting further time with you, so I'll just wait for other people to comment. My favorite part of Wikipedia is not the talk pages -- I've got other work I'd rather be doing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your characterization of me is a WP:uncivil And a WP:personal attack and no, it isn't accurate. V7-sport (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Timeshifter can speak for him/herself, but V7-sport's characterization of Timeshifter's views and V7's assertion that there is a consensus is deeply misleading. For now, here are some of Timeshifter's comments about Valentine, from which I conclude Timeshifter's view is Yes, is RS with attribution:

I have yet to find anything seriously fraudulent about Douglas Valentine. Mistakes, yes, fraudulent, no. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, where are the links? Finally, even if true, it sounds like a mistake, not fraud. Please don't try a Swiftboating campaign on Wikipedia against Douglas Valentine. Stick to the facts. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Valentine quoted the whole sentence in his book. See here. In the book he says that the US Phoenix program was mimicking the insurgency. So maybe Valentine conflated the two sentences in his mind? --Timeshifter (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Valentine did not "rely" on one bad source. He had many sources. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

But if his writings are to be used as a reference, then I suggest referencing them directly... --Timeshifter (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Teeparty (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, is RS with attribution. I see nothing that makes this author an unreliable source. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, is RS with attribution: Valentine's work is widely cited in academic literature.

1. E.g., Google Scholar lists 95 scholarly works that mention Valentine and The Phoenix Program, and 71 works that cite his book. For example:
   1. Gary Hess, "The Unending Debate: Historians and the Vietnam War," Diplomatic History, Volume 18, Issue 2, pages 239–264, April 1994.
   2. Lt. Col. Ken Tovo (USA), "From the Ashes of the Phoenix: Lessons for Contemporary Counterinsurgency Operations," Strategy Research Project submitted as part of Master of Strategic Studies Degree, U.S. Army War College, 18 March 2005. [24]
2. Valentine is the author of four non-fiction books.[25]
3. Valentine himself continues to analyze Phoenix, we might want to include his more recent work, e.g. "The Dangerous World of Indefinite Detentions: Vietnam to Abu Ghraib," 37 Case W. Res. J. Int'l Law 449 (2005-2006)

In short, it clearly meets the WP criteria for RS. Teeparty (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Teeparty -- I agree with you in many respects, but I would like to point out a few things:

1. While Tovo (a U.S. military officer) does cite Valentine in many places, he is also critical of certain parts of Valentine's work. Tovo seems to think that much of The Phoenix Program is valid, and often cites it as a reference (rather than merely citing it to demonstrate something that he feels Valentine got wrong). However, there are several cases where he is saying things along the lines of "Valentine said this, but Moyar/Andrade/etc. question these claims". I just wanted to clear this up so that people don't get the idea that Tovo totally accepts Valentine's findings. He accepts many of them, but also rejects other parts. (On a side note: I've got no problem discussing the controversy over some of Valentine's claims, but don't feel that it should be purged from the article because there is controversy over it)
2. The number of books an author has published does not necessarily indicate anything about the reliability of one of their other works, so I'm not sure what you were getting at when you mentioned that Valentine has published 4 books. Could you clarify what you were trying to say there?

Anyhow, overall I agree with you regarding the (rather obvious) reliability of Valentine, but I just wanted to clarify that bit about Tovo for people who might not feel like digging through it right now. Also, feel free to just go ahead and add any pertinent information from places like your Case W. Res. J. Int'l Law source. Just make sure that you write it in a neutral tone, attribute opinions, and don't include your own thoughts on the subject along with the information from the source. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. -- Also, would you mind removing the bold text from your statement regarding what you think TimeShifter would say, so that people do not get the mistaken impression that it is another "!vote". It's not a big deal, but it would just be helpful for people glancing over the page. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• No - unless the material can be independently sourced, not merely duplicated, by another source. His use of fraudulent sources, knowingly so, should be enough to exclude this as a source from the article. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

NO, calling someone a seal when they werent in the seals is a serious screw up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.122.8 (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, with attribution. It is a published book by a well known author, and oft-cited (as mentioned above); however, due to worries about the qualifications of the author it may be best to use another source for controversial remarks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation page for other Phoenix programs

Maybe rename this page so we can have a disambiguation page referring to other Phoenix programs, eg DARPA Phoenix Program ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Just one question about including a statement from Chomsky's book in this article: What makes Chomsky a reputable source of information on when Phoenix was terminated? He has absolutely no credentials whatever in this respect. He does, however, have radical points of view and is a well-known political activist. Are these his credentials as a source on Phoenix? Is this good enough at Wikipedia? FoundersFan (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Photograph

The decapitation photograph needs to be properly sourced. I remember seeing this photo run in our local underground newspaper, and wondering where it came from. In the present instance, there's no indication that any of the soldiers in the photograph have anything to do with the Phoenix program, and indeed, since the point of Phoenix was infiltration, it's unlikely uniformed soldiers had much to do with it. What the photo really shows is an atrocity, and that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the Phoenix program. It should be either properly sourced, or it should be deleted. Theonemacduff (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Article is the objective truth!

"We don't need to cite any sources for the incredibly biased claims in the lede; read the rest of the article for justification."

Here's what it says:

• "Between 1968 and 1972, Phoenix "neutralized" 81,740 people suspected of NLF membership, of whom 26,369 were killed. Although many of these were innocent civilians, a significant number of NLF were killed, and between 1969 and 1971 the program was quite successful in destroying NLF infrastructure in many important areas.

That doesn't justify the claim that civilians were the sole, deliberate targets of the operation. Far from it. If you want to make those claims in the lede, you can't say that no sources are needed because it is the lede.

You can't understand why anyone would think this article is biased? It just doesn't make any sense? WP:RS says that no editorials are reliable for statements of fact. I was told on the Cold War talk page that Noam Chomsky is a WP:FRINGE source, never to be used in articles unrelated to him. Counterpunch is a neo-Nazi blog. Polemical sources like John Pilger should never be used in articles like this. Why are there a mountain of links to radical left-wing sites in external links? Could it be that this page was edited mostly by radical leftists who weren't alive at the time? Could it be that they are biased? Could their bias possibly show? Why does the article use mocking quotation marks around the word communist (as in "communist" plans repeatedly emphasized attacking the government’s pacification program and specifically targeted Phoenix officials)? Were the North Vietnamese communist? Is that right-wing propaganda? Evidence is needed to assert that the targets of the program were the "civilian infrastructure" of the Viet Cong. It's absurd to cite polemical pseudo-scholars. Any expert on the subject could tell you this entire article is a ludicrous joke. I need to talk and explain why sources are needed and polemics aren't allowed? You can't just use random pictures, either; is that a picture of the phoenix progam? Do you know? Do you care?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, TheTimesAreAChanging. I removed your "POV" tag because you placed it without explaining on this Talk page what content you feel is in violation, and why. You ask, "You can't understand why anyone would think this article is biased?" I never indicated anything one way or another about level of understanding. You placed a tag without the required justification on the article Talk page. Any Wikipedia editor should be able to immediately determine why such a tag was inserted.

As for the appropriateness of sources to be cited in support of assertion of fact, or listed under External Links, I do know it's a fact that every scholar is "Fringe" or "Polemical" if that source in any way contradicts any other source -- so I have no doubt someone, somewhere, told you that ___(insert any source here)___ is to never be used. In reality, most sources can be used on Wikipedia under specific circumstances, and WP:RSN is the place to go for a determination as to if, when and where any particular source may be suitable.

You lost me with the first quote in your comment. What is its source? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The quote is from this article! The one you told me to read, as if I had not. How familiar are you with this page? Why do you refuse to address the issues I have raised, pretending to be "lost" by the quote I mentioned? If you think any random website is a WP:RS, you're dead wrong. Technically, no editorials or political magazines are supposed to be used for statements of fact. There are also lots of unsourced claims in this article. You're the one playing games here; you don't need to give a detailed explanation for tags on the TP. It's up to you to explain why the tags aren't needed; to any sane person, it should be obvious why I want them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging -- Please try to be more civil and assume good faith -- i.e. try to stick away from comments like "You're the one playing games here" and "to any sane person, it should be obvious why I want them", and focus on article content. Also, Xenophrenic is correct that you do need add explanations for tags you place on the articles -- it is not obvious why you want them there, and it is Wikipedia policy that you explain your reasons for adding them. That said, Noam Chomsky is certainly a reliable source, regardless of what you were told at Cold War. He is a world-renowned scholar with dozens of widely published books and essays on U.S. foreign policy and military history. You might not agree with his views, or like him, but he certainly satisfies the criteria for WP:RS. As far as the quote in question, I don't understand what your issue is with it. Could you explain why you have a problem with mentioning that civilians were also killed (which is clearly backed up by several of the sources)? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is what I say that hard to understand? I think the quote is just fine! Of course civilians were killed; it was a war. My point was that it is inaccurate to claim that the target of the Phoenix Program was "the civilian infrastructure of the Viet Cong." I asked for this claim to be cited; Xenophrenic said that citations were not needed in the lede and that the rest of the article provides ample evidence. Clearly, at least some quotes from the article (such as the one I mentioned) and some sources don't seem to agree that the program deliberately sought civilians as the primary target. I did explain my reasons for the tags, just not on the TP. Have you read the WP:RS guidelines? Sure, Chomsky can be cited for his opinion and The Weekly Standard and The Nation and National Review can be cited for their opinions; but they shouldn't be used for statements of fact.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be a reasonable assumption that after 17,000+ edits to Wikipedia, I have probably read WP:RS, wouldn't you say? Your views on Chomsky and WP:RS are simply not correct. If we include one of Chomsky's opinions we must attribute it to him. If we include a historical fact from one of his books, we use it just like we use facts from other books -- i.e. without attribution (unless there is a claim that contradicts it -- then we attribute both claims in the article).

As far as claims that civilians were targetted deliberately see [26][27], although this is pretty clear from a reading of some of the other sources already in the article as well. If you feel the need to add these sources (both of which are from university presses) to that statement, by all means go ahead. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for historical facts Chomsky can be used, and you'll notice that he isn't very frequently. I'm only repeating what a more senior editor told me; I would suggest that you ask someone for clarification. I'll tell you the editors name, if you want. Regardless, I'm pleased to get somewhere with you, as I couldn't with Xenophrenic. Thank you for providing sources. Do these sources support the claim that civilians were the primary targets? If so, then I would support adding them.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources above claim that civilians were deliberately targeted. As far as being the primary targets [28][29][30] -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you please add those to the lede when you get the chance?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure -- I'll do so some time tonight. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"We don't need to cite any sources for the incredibly biased claims in the lede; read the rest of the article for justification." --TheTimesTheyAreAChanging

The quote is from this article! --TheTimesTheyAreAChanging

Sorry, but I still do not see that quote anywhere in this article. In fact, doing a word search for: "read the rest" comes up empty, and doesn't appear to pertain to the Phoenix Program anyway. Perhaps you are mistaken? As for not getting anywhere with Xenophrenic, you only needed to first explain what your concern was (instead of merely placing an unexplained tag), as you just did when you were again asked to do so by Jrtayloriv. Once you did that, things moved forward nicely; wouldn't you agree? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears as though you completely misunderstood everything I wrote.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of the term Insurgency

Obviously this is a fairly new term,probably arrived since the Iraq war in conventional use.To be insurgents you need to be fighting against the recognised government of a country. South Vietnam was not recognised by the UN at all. Vietnam was divided in the 1954 Geneva accords on a temp basis until 1956 when elections should have been held. The Americans and Diem did not want elections held as Ho Chi Minh would have won them so they set up the South Vietnam state. The people fighting against that were Vietnamese so they were not insurgents against any recognised government,it was a civil war that had been going on since the end of WW2.Please provide you thoughts or evidence that states otherwiseZrdragon12 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just add this piece on the Geneva accords:

The Geneva Agreements, which were issued on July 21, 1954,[11] carefully worded the division of northern and southern Vietnam as a "provisional military demarcation line",[12] "on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal".[12] To specifically put aside any notion that it was a partition, they further stated, in the Final Declaration, Article 6: "The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary"..Zrdragon12 (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

An insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents. Zrdragon12 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've reverted a number of recent edits. Some of the edits I reverted were made with the following justifications:

• You don't repeat cited material in external links or further reading.

Actually, I do -- in some cases, so that is half-right. I try not to repeat cited material in external links. However, per WP:FURTHER, I will present relevant sources under the Further Reading section, if the Reference section has grown too large to serve as a general reading list.

• Dead link.

Links may come and go, but information doesn't; one just needs to put in a little extra effort to find a suitable replacement link in most cases.

• This copyright violation of a propaganda tract which is largely unrelated to the Phoneix Program is not an appropriate external link. If it were, every external link about the Vietnam war in existence would be acceptable.

While it may not be related to the "Phoneix Program", it is largely related to the "Phoenix Program", with 30 references to it, a section devoted to it, as well as coverage of directly related programs. As for the "copyright violation" charge, the site had full rights to make the work available, but just so we don't have to argue about it, I've replaced the link with one directly to the author's site.

• The source is clearly wrong and should be removed then. If only a third were killed, then nearly all of them did not die.

If you feel a cited source is "clearly wrong", you should raise your concern at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I've rechecked that source, and the present article wording accurately conveys that information. You appear to be confusing the number of civilians killed by the Phoenix Program (which equates to about a third of the total "neutralized") with the number of civilians captured through the Phoenix Program who were killed. Hopefully that helps. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

22 references are "too many", so you need to duplicate some in Further Reading? By what process did you evaluate which sources to repeat?

Per WP:ELNO, external links are sources that would be added to the article if it were featured--which presumably doesn't include Youtube videos. In fact, "Infocollective"'s summary of Valentine's book doesn't qualify, either.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, from WP:EL, but I'm not arguing to keep that video snippet in our article (I actually thought I had left it out during this last edit). I recognize it from a larger segment of video, and I may try to track down a better (and more informative) source for it. The Info Collective doesn't appear to be a summary to me, although that's how it is described. Looks more like content notes for someone writing a paper or thesis. Doesn't add much to our article, but might be useful for article development. By the way, I didn't use a process to "evaluate which sources to repeat", in fact I didn't even check to see if they were cited in the article body. I added entries to Further Reading I felt would be informative to the reader. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening para confusion

The opening para says that "Few of the prisoners survived—most of them were tortured to death, and those that survived the torture sessions were generally killed afterwards" but then says later "By 1972, Phoenix operatives had "neutralized" 81,740 suspected NLF operatives, informants and supporters, of whom 26,369 were killed." 26,369/81,740 is 32% killed, so the earlier quote seems to be a gross exaggeration. Mztourist (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

IP 88.104.212.150 deleting solid information

This user has been removing this information cited in Vietnam and America: A Documented History:

"Intelligence gathered during interrogation was often used to direct "search and destroy " missions aimed at wiping out whole villages or groups of villages. In some areas where the population was believed to support the NLF strongly, entire provinces were subjected to campaigns of destruction and mass killing."

and changing it to this:

"Intelligence derived from PIC interrogations was often used to carry out "search and destroy" missions aimed at finding the enemy and destroying them."

My version is the following:

"Intelligence derived from PIC interrogations was often used to carry out "search and destroy" missions aimed at wiping out whole villages or groups of villages. In some areas where the population was suspected of having strong VC sympathies, entire provinces were subjected to indiscriminate bombing raids and mass killing."

So I'm just requesting for other users to vote on which version is more in line with the source. Thanks.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

IP 88.104.212.150 also seems to believe that he is the decider of what is "dubious" or "controversial". He doesn't like what it says, so therefore, it is "dubious".--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

IP 88.104.212.150's reason for the deletion is the following:

"It is unacceptable to claim as fact that US tactics were "mass killing"

It is not his place to decide what is or isn't acceptable.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this source precisely says US tactics were "mass killing". It needs to be clarified. Any intentional mass killing would have been by unauthorized U.S. troops or by the RVN forces (also possibly rogue). Of course, one's definition of "mass killing" probably varies.

I find this claim that mass killings in Vietnam were not authorised to be deeply dubious. I have seen multiple American military planners, talking about how to increase the amount of casualties they caused in assassination programs and bombing campaigns. Remember that approximately 10% of the population of Vietnam was killed during this conflict.--Senor Freebie (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

That part of the source was written by Seymour Hersh. He's a notable author, but not one who's trusted by everyone. In fact, I wouldn't believe a word he says. It's not that he's always wrong, but that I can't know that he's giving the full story.

As such, I think it would be fine (assuming you can accurately explain how you interpret the source) as long as this article says within the text that it's Hersh making these claims. Caveat emptor.

He uses the phrase "search and destroy" but I don't know who he's quoting. I don't think we can use those words if we don't understand the source or the context. There's nothing illegal about search and destroy when it's within the laws of war and rules of engagement. Context matters.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hersh isn't the only one reporting this though. Vietnam War reporter Jonathon Schell reported it also:

"In The Military Half, legendary Vietnam War reporter for The New Yorker Jonathan Schell details the devastating effects of American bombings and ground operations on the provinces of Quang Ngai and Quang Tin in South Vietnam. Schell provides first-hand accounts of the bombing runs and how they contributed to the destruction of the two provinces, giving a new generation of Americans an inside look at why the Vietnam War, years after its conclusion, is still a hot topic of debate in our country."

--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As for the "mass killing" thing, I might be able to find an estimated number of people killed. Although, I would think that wiping out whole villages and entire provinces would qualify as mass killing. --Boba Fett TBH (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Mass killing usually refers to mass deliberate killing of civilians so estimated number people of killed(combatant and civilian) is not going back up your claim. Schell's claim also doesn't imply or back up that the deliberate aim of search and destroy was "mass killing" and to subject entire provinces to indiscriminate bombing. Regardless my definition was well sourced so how do you justify removing it? 88.104.212.150 (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's it right there: the word "deliberate."

Plus, we also need to sort through agit-prop, which some, like Hersh are too close to. That's why we need to attribute various claims in the body of the text.

It seems (although it's hard to tell here) that Jonathan Schell is only talking about the effects. The people who claim to care about the Phoenix Program are supposed to be concerned about the intent. If that's true here, then we should distinguish between intentional and collateral, as well as who was doing it. That last part is another of the problems here in that the U.S. is being blamed for things that South Vietnamese forces may have been doing.

Keep in mind that this was a war (as like now) where the critics made it fully acceptable for civilians to mingle with combatants.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You are setting an arbitrary bar impossibly high. When you bomb a village, the intent could not be any clearer, especially when then the reason for the bombing has been established, which was villagers suspected sympathies for the VC. If we were talking about an "official enemy" this wouldn't be complicated for anybody.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think its that high a bar and what would be defined as a mass killing should be pretty clear(ie deliberate targeting of lots of civilians). Not heavy collateral or even "indiscriminate bombing". I personally don't think most of this "search and destroy" stuff should be here especially in the manner you have written. A mention that Phoenix intel was used to carry out "Search and Destroy" missions is definitely enough. The quotes below the paragraph are certainly out of scope and not needed. Regardless since this is a controversial debated topic I think attribution would be needed for the claims if they are kept. Ie for Hersh's claim about "mass killings", "wiping out villages" and "indiscriminate bombing" and Schell's claim about "70% of buildings". I be would OK with a version with attribution. It does however still seem dishonest to not talk about what they are targeting in search and destroy mission ie the Viet Cong which my sources and plenty of others do mention. I don't see why you have a problem with mentioning that "search and destroy" mission were aimed at destroying the Viet Cong by killing them. What is wrong with that? 88.104.213.240 (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll say, "according to reports by so and so". And the sources referring to Phoenix doesn't say it was "aimed at wiping out Viet Cong" though. It says "whole villages" and "entire provinces" where the population was believed to support the VC strongly.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thats good enough for me. I still disagree with most the line but a compromise will do. And regarding "Search and Destroy" I think its fairly clear that they were used to kill Viet Cong even if your sources describe it differently. I read the relevent sections in Schell's book and it is pretty clear that they are trying to kill Viet cong even it they destroy an entire village because VC fire from it which pretty much the "indiscriminate bombing", "whole villages", "entire provinces", "villagers suspected sympathies for the VC" etc you are referring to. Regardless attribution will do. 88.104.213.240 (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The wording still does not fit to how Schell describes the mission in his book. The 2nd line also needs to attributed.88.104.213.240 (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Out of interest who claims the operation resulted in mass killings and what does he specifically mean? 88.104.213.240 (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not complicated. When you wipe out a village suspected of "communist sympathies", the occupants are not collateral damage. By the standard you are advocating, the Hitler page would have to be cleansed as well.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Well we still disagree but who exactly said "mass killing"? Was it Seymour Hersh? 88.104.213.240 (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You just engaged in a revert war and still did not provide a source to support your claim. You also violated our agreement here on the talk page by continuing to misrepresent the provided source with "commentary" and POV.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I completely disagree that I misrepresented anything with "commentary and POV". The agreement was too have attribution with regards to the claims of "mass killing" etc. I did not remove any of that. I could provide page number but is is fairly obvious that when Schell talks about Search and Destroy that US soldiers are trying to eradicate the VC. How is this not clear? Do you not know where I am coming from? Regardless I have changed more in line with your view. Is this fine? And also no need for the slanderous reference to Hitler. Regards. 88.104.213.240 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your commentary does not reflect what the source says. We need intervention on this.--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You also removed this entire part:

"In some areas where the population was suspected of strong VC sympathies, entire provinces were subjected to indiscriminate bombing raids and mass killing."--Boba Fett TBH (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Current revision is fine. 88.104.209.126 (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The right spelling

In different places of this article, the name of a witness is reported both as "K. Milton Osborne" and "K. Milton Osborn".

What's the right spelling?

--Filippof (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Phoenix Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070625022447/http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr06/Andrade-Willbanks.pdf to http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr06/Andrade-Willbanks.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Phoenix Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928142425/http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/MyLaiPhoenix.html to http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/MyLaiPhoenix.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718102901/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/phoenix-scfr-19700217.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/phoenix-scfr-19700217.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Phoenix Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101221233032/http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/org.wgbh.mla%3A65c9763227c226e106cadd63f7ef9024ad4e3224 to http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/org.wgbh.mla%3A65c9763227c226e106cadd63f7ef9024ad4e3224

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Phoenix Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917183147/http://www.douglasvalentine.com/the_phoenix_program_11712.htm to http://www.douglasvalentine.com/the_phoenix_program_11712.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928142528/http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/LettersGood.html to http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/LettersGood.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070622184714/http://www.counterpunch.org/homeland2.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/homeland2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824174303/http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine0824.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine0824.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/org.wgbh.mla%3Aa23370d5564726bb0e43a60dbafb06ae9916d140

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

"War crimes"

Senor Freebie you must follow WP:BRD rather than edit warring with me as you have done here: [31] and here: [32]. As I said here: [33] you don't put refs in the lede. You don't get to decide that there were US war crimes, you need to present the relevant information from your refs in the appropriate section, if multiple WP:RS shows that war crimes occurred, then your statement can go in the lede. In relation to my deletion here: [34] which you also reverted here: [35], I deleted this because I didn't regard it as being from an RS, in addition it repeated an account already contained under the Torture section. Mztourist (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD does not apply in this instance and it is an abuse of that policy to refer to it.

Mztourist stated that they had a problem with my edit stating that widespread war crimes occurred as a part of the Phoenix Program, and I corrected that problem that they complained about. Then they deleted the subsequent edit, implying that any further reverting of that would be edit warring. Which is a false claim. If they have a problem with the sources that I provided, after they asked for them they need to make their case here. In detail.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD always applies. I have set out my comments above already and await your response. Mztourist (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a very strange statement to make, when I outlined very clearly why it does not. Why did you not address my specific point as to why it doesn't apply here?--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

What is strange about it? And why don't you think WP:BRD applies to you? Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been explained to you. Do not pretend that it hasn't.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

As you haven't responded to my comments above

Your comments are less than 2 hours apart. It is utterly unreasonable to expect a response from someone within 2 hours on this platform.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

You posted this new thread after I had posted my comments and you also found time to come and WP:Casting aspersions on my Talk Page. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No I did not. Stop making statements that have no basis in fact.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I have looked at the sources you provided as follows:

• The New York Time Story covers the Thanh Phong incident which is already addressed on Bob Kerrey.

If the editors at that article think that this is a reasonable source for a BLP it's good enough for here.

Its perfectly fine for what it says, but it doesn't say a war crime occurred. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Why would you make a statement like that, did you read the article? The article discusses the fact that the massacre of women and children at Thanh Phong was a war crime:

Gary Solis, a war-crimes expert at the United States Military Academy at West Point who wrote a book on Son Thang, says that atrocities were more common in Vietnam than we knew. While there were 122 convictions for war crimes in Vietnam, he says, "In my opinion, war crimes occurred that were never reported."

Did Kerrey and his men commit crimes of war, or were they just applying the basic rules of a dirty war as best they understood them? "Let the other people judge whether or not what I did was militarily allowable or morally ethical or inside the rules of war," Kerrey says. "Let them figure that out. I mean, I can make a case that it was."

Why would you make a claim that it didn't?--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It is unclear if any war crime occurred.

This is a very interesting statement. Can you expand on how you think massacring unarmed children is not a war crime?

The story makes it very clear that there are conflicting accounts of what occurred. Kerrey wasn't reprimanded or prosecuted for any crime. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

So?--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I also don’t see where it states in the story that this was part of the Phoenix Program.

That's established in other sources.

What other sources? Identify them specifically. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The other sources which I posted that support the fact that the Phoenix Program involved widespread war crimes. The sources that you have removed from the article, presumably because you have read them. Even though you are making statements that make it clear that you either have not, have not comprehended them, or are being dishonest about their content.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• If you look above on this page Douglas Valentine has his own POV and its debatable whether or not his two books which you present are RS, but his views are already presented on the page.

Just because you don't like the factual view that massacring unarmed civilians is a war crime doesn't mean it's not a valid POV for the lede of the article.

The lede needs to be a balanced summary of information presented in the body of the page, what you have written is not supported by multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just because you don't like these facts and the sources I presented doesn't meant it's not "RS".--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• I can’t access this source [36] other than the summary, but don’t see that it proves US war crimes.

Have you tried a library?

They're locked down. Have you tried finding a better source that actually supports what you're saying? Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just because you don't have the time to go to a library doesn't mean that it's a bad source. Please try not to cast aspersions on material you refuse to access but are more than happy to delete form the article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• The LA Times story also covers the Thanh Phong incident, but Alexander Cockburn has his own strong POV

Just because you don't like POV's doesn't mean that you get to delete them from articles when they're backed up by many sources. That you also don't like.

Again you need to provide multiple WP:RS, not problematic POV pieces. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just because you don't like POV's doesn't mean that you get to delete them from articles when they're backed up by many sources.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

the article is riddled with inaccuracies such as “It’s pretty clear that Kerrey’s raid was part of the CIA’s Phoenix program (as was My Lai, where “Task Force Barker” killed 504 men, women and children the preceding year).” My Lai was not part of the Phoenix Program, it occurred during Operation Muscatine and so its reliability is questionable.

Got a source that contradicts them? Or do you just not like the implication?

You can look at My Lai Massacre and Operation Muscatine and their underlying sources, none of them will support the statement that My Lai was part of the Phoenix Program. Implication is very much what you are relying on here. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not RS. Especially Wikipedia articles that you appear to take a personal interest in editing. Especially considering that you have repeatedly deleted sources referring to the Phoeonix Program and My Lai in the same breath from this artlcle. Please deal with source material that you are willing to present for argument.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

To summarise Senor Freebie if you want to say that war crimes occurred you need to either present RS

Done. Repeatedly.

No they don't. You have presented one RS about Thanh Phong which isn't clear that it was part of Phoenix and 3 POV sources of questionable reliability. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of what I presented.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

of war crimes prosecutions for US actions under the Phoenix Program

This is not the bar that is required to state that something is a war crime.

Uh, yes it is. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Please try to present actual arguments.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

or provide a lot more RS of incidents that are clearly war crimes committed by US forces.

You want more than 5 sources for one claim?

Yes, multiple RS of war crimes, which you haven't provided despite repeatedly claiming you have. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a completely inaccurate statement as I have had to address repeatedly above.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

What you have provided so far certainly isn't well-sourced

Just because you don't like the POV doesn't mean it's not well sourced.

As advised above, its not well sourced, presumably because RS that support your POV don't exist. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a completely inaccurate statement as I have had to address repeatedly above.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

and nor does it support you adding a definitive statement that "The program lead to widespread war crimes by American forces" . Mztourist (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Except that the sources support that statement.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As I have shown above, they don't. Your statement has not been on the page previously, presumably because it is not backed by multiple RS. You can take this to DR or RFC if you wish, but in accordance with WP:BRD (which is mandatory) you should self-revert your changes now until the issue is resolved. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The issue you had with the previous edit is resolved. You have not made any reasonable claims, nor even apparently bothered to actually access the sources I presented. It seems to me that you are not intent on editing this article from a neutral perspective and are just trying to strong arm it to a version that you agree with.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Mztourist that the sources provided by Senor Freebie are sub-par and that the focus should be on building up the entire article with academic sources rather than inserting opinion commentary into the lede without consensus. For the record, WP:BRD always applies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I suggest that any other editors Google the two usernames above. They frequently edit the same articles and agree with each other on what I posit are subjective positions. I think that if they are not sockpuppets of each other, they are at the very least allies, and while the user; timesareachanging isn't presenting any new arguments or evidence they should be disregarded.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#User:Senor_Freebie_won't_follow_WP:BRD_and_consensus_and_is_making_false_accusations Mztourist (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Senor Freebie was indefinitely blocked on 27 May 2020. Mztourist (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

28 June 2020

By this diff: [37] I reverted various changes to the page which ComicsAreJustAllRight made with the comment "rvt to last good version. Please don't engage in political debate on this page". Firstly proper citing of a webpage is unarguable. Gary Kulik in his book War Stories calls into question the claims regarding war crimes during the Phoenix Program, particularly those made by K. Barton Osborne (who is later incorrectly referred to as K. Milton Osborn). In accordance with WP:WEIGHT if Osborne's claims are presented then contradictory RS information such as that of Kulik should also be presented. We don't need to repeat Osborne's story about a dowel being inserted in a detainee's ear. Nick Turse is the source claiming that war crimes were common and so it is correct to make this clear. We don't list in the See Also section links that are already contained in the body of the page.Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

12 July 2020

By this diff: [38] I have reverted the 3 July edits by IP 98.28.42.70 who stated "removed outlier opinion unsupported by any other sources" and "removed unsubstantiated claims unsupported by bulk of literature". Gary Kulik is a WP:RS, if you have a problem with the source take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for a review. In relation to the comments that Kulik's claims are "unsupported by bulk of literature" no justification is given for this assertion. In fact the existing sources on the page are all rather biased to one viewpoint and adding Kulik gives WP:WEIGHT to the page and so must be retained, even if some authors like the anonymous IP don't like what he says. Mztourist (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Reword Lede to Improve Preview

I would like to suggest that the first lines be reworked slightly, but I am unwilling to touch the lede of a well-maintained article without consensus. Wikipedia's page preview captures the first part of the lede. This should give people enough info to know whether they want to read the article. Right now, all that shows is the portion up to In 1970, CIA responsibility was phased out, and the program was put und... A reader (me, for instance) now only knows that it was a CIA program in the Vietnam War which is not very illuminating.

I suggest the first lines be changed to something like, "The Phoenix Program (...) was designed to attack and destroy the political infrastructure of the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. It was initially coordinated by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Vietnam War, involving..." (links omitted). I am not partial to that particular wording, but hope that we can educate readers better with a little more description at the top. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The USA

personally there is a problem with calling this article Phoenix. There are people affected by the fight against communism or people whom support it in this country and I do not think Wikipedia is a reliable source for real time or RTC, or RMS Resource management resources this way. Databases are exploited being breached. The people that are supporting domestic terrorism on our country are that type terrorist. They could be added to SDN list of OFAC or on it already. 170.62.29.181 (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

K. Barton Osborne

In the "Torture" section, we read:

Osborne's claims have been refuted by author Gary Kulik, who states that Osborne made exaggerated, contradictory and false claims and that his colleagues stated that he liked making "fantastic statements" and that he "frequently made exaggerated remarks in order to attract attention to himself." Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented. Torture was carried out by South Vietnamese forces with the CIA and special forces playing a supervisory role.

In the article's lead, we read:

The program, which lasted from 1967 to 1972, was designed to identify and destroy the Viet Cong (VC) via infiltration, assassination, torture, capture, counter-terrorism, and interrogation. The CIA described it as "a set of programs that sought to attack and destroy the political infrastructure of the Viet Cong." The Phoenix Program was premised on the idea that North Vietnamese infiltration had required local support within noncombat civilian populations, which were referred to as the "VC infrastructure" and "political branch" that had purportedly coordinated the insurgency.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Skornezy (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what point you're trying to make. There are numerous contradictory sources as to what went on under the Phoenix Program. Osborn made various claims about Phoenix which are cited on the page, Kulik refutes them. Mztourist (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Did the Phoenix Program start in 1967 or not? Skornezy (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The only source that I can access online that is cited is Finlayson. It doesn't say when Phoenix commenced. I'll review some offline sources and see what they say. Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

William Colby said: [39] "The Phoenix Program... essentially began to operate in mid-1968". Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Mid-1968 can still cover Osborne's time in Vietnam. Skornezy (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, the use of the word "essentially" indicates an earlier de jure date imo. Skornezy (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Highly unlikely, Osborne would have been rotating out by then. Also see RAND page 7 [40] "Phung Hoang was created by decree in 1968". Mztourist (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

"Highly unlikely" is just your opinion which has no bearing. Besides, the creation of the Phoenix Program was just a formality; the CIA were running the same type of programs as Phoenix as early as 1964.

Koven, Steven G. (2014). Responsible Governance: A Case Study Approach. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-46087-9.

By 1964 ... "Sophisticated" interrogations techniques were taught by the CIA and used in addition to older methods like electric shock, beatings, and rape. By 1965, the CIA was engaged in counterterror programs in which teams of interrogators were recruited, supplied, and paid by the United States. Counterterror teams used intimidation, kidnapping, torture, and assassination against Vietcong leaders and suspects. ... By 1967, CIA activities were consolidated into what was known as the Phoenix program.

It's entirely possible that Osborne was also referring to these earlier programs. Skornezy (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This page is about the Phoenix Program, not what was being done beforehand. If you think Osborne is talking about events before the Phoenix Program then it shouldn't be on this page. Now I told you not to editwar Woodruff but you did. What do you think makes him an unreliable source but Osborne a reliable one? I just checked Lewis Sorley's "A Better war" he states on page 67 that "The program never really got off the ground, admitted Colby, until President Thieu signed a decree in July 1968." So multiple sources confirm mid-1968, so Woodruff's comments about Osborne are perfectly valid, you can undo your edit. Mztourist (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Also Woodruff is a much more respected historian and author than Kuzmarov who you added as a source who is clearly biased and not RS with titles such as "Warmonger: How Clinton's Malign Foreign Policy Launched the US Trajectory from Bush II to Biden" and "Obama's Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State". Mztourist (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

"This page is about the Phoenix Program, not what was being done beforehand."

Right, but there's also a "Background" section. It's definitely relevant that the US military and CIA were systematically torturing and murdering before Phoenix was officially founded.

Osborne's claims are discussed in reliable secondary sources so he deserves inclusion, if it were just Osborne's primary source claims on their own then I would probably would not support inclusion. I'm also going to have to revert your edit on when Phoenix began back to the longstanding version; most sources seem to state that it officially began in 1967 (although the CIA had been doing what the Phoenix Program did pas early as 1964). RAND and Colby are not impartial observers, and Sorley only relays Colby's comments.

"Also Woodruff is a much more respected historian and author than Kuzmarov."

This is just objectively not true because Woodruff is NOT a historian. He doesn't have a degree in history! He has a master's degree in psychology, which is irrelevant to the topic of the Vietnam War's historiography. The only relevance Woodruff has is that he was a U.S. Marine who fought in Vietnam, which arguably makes him a WP:primary source and those are usually iffy on Wikipedia. What you think about Kuzmarov's other works is irrelevant; the citation is academic scholarly literature, a gold-standard source for Wikipedia. Skornezy (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The US military and CIA were not "systematically torturing and murdering before Phoenix was officially founded" that is you imposing your obvious biases. Osborne is discussed in Pilger who is a hopelessly biased source. Saying Rand and Sorley are not impartial is ridiculous. Have you actually read what any of the existing sources say about the start date? Who says you have to have a degree in history to be a historian? Who says that Kuzmarov's comment is academic scholarly literature? So here are some more RS of the start date: Kelley Where we were in Vietnam page F-52 "In Jul68 general concept of attacking VCI directly was approved by President Thieu when he signed document creating the Accelerated Pacification Campaign (began 1Nov68." The Vietnam Experience Nineteen Sixty-Eight page 183: "The allies fought back launching the Accelerated Pacification Campaign on November 1... and put into operation the Phoenix Program, an attempt to neutralize the Vietcong infrastructure." James Willbanks Vietnam War Almanac page 277 November 1968 "Operation Phoenix begins." So start date is November 1968. Woodruff was right and your comments about him getting the date wrong are disproven.Mztourist (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Also read the Strategic and operational effect section, does it mention 1967? No it doesn't. Mztourist (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Everything you don't like is "hopelessly biased" and I'm just "imposing [my] obvious biases." None of that is constructive, so I'm not going to bother with it. I'll address your sources though.

The "Accelerated Pacification Campaign" is not the same as the Phoenix Program. Sources seem to distinguish the two as separate entities.

• Ekins, Ashley; McNeill, Ian (2012). Fighting to the Finish: The Australian Army and the Vietnam War, 1968-1975. Allen & Unwin. pp. 35, 63. ISBN 978-1-86508-824-2.

In 1966, CORDS chief WIlliam Colby established Provincial Reconnaissance Units (PRUs), managed by the CIA. These six-man combat teams of South Vietnamese, usually led by American or Australian advisers, conducted covert intelligence to collect information on the VCI in the hamlets and villages and carried out special operations to capture and eliminate VCI cadres as part of the controversial Phoenix (Phuong Hoang) programme.

The primary initiative was the Accelerated Pacification Campaign, introduced under the new CORDS chief William Colby in November 1968.

• Beckett, Ian Frederick William (2001). Modern Insurgencies and Counter-insurgencies: Guerrillas and Their Opponents Since 1750. Routledge. pp. 201–202. ISBN 978-0-415-23934-9.

Built on the special platoons established in Quang Ngai province in 1965, Phoenix began as the Intelligence Co-ordination and Exploitation Programme (ICEX) on 16 June 1967. It utilised existing CIA and South Vietnamese resources and became officially named Phoenix on 20 December 1967. ... The shocks of the Tet offensive revived Phoenix in the same way that it led generally to the Accelerated Pacification Campaign (APC) in November 1968.

I also just noticed that you selectively quoted that RAND Corporation report you cited earlier, it actually says:

In June 1967, in an effort to centralize and better coordinate anti-VCI operations, Ambassador Robert Komer, the director of Military Assistance Command, Vietnam’s (MACV’s) overall pacification program, Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support (CORDS), won approval for a CIA plan to establish a program called Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation (ICEX), later known as Phoenix.

Skornezy (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes your sources are biased. If you don't like Woodruff then go to WP:RSN and take it up there. I have provided multiple sources that show that Phoenix began in November 1968. Why don't you provide a source that shows the results for Phoenix in 1967? In relation to these new sources you have provided:

Ekins: CORDS wasn't established until 9 May 1967, not 1966! So PRUs did not function under CORDS before then. I don't think Colby was even in Vietnam in 1966/7 as noted Colby was the new CORDS chief in 1968. So with all those mistakes Ekins is not reliable.

Beckett: he's describing an evolution of intelligence gathering, what became Phoenix built on earlier efforts. Phoenix was part of the Accelerated Pacification Program. That is already detailed on the page, though in the wrong place.

So is RAND reliable now? I didn't selectively quote from RAND, its a massive report, I quoted the relevant provision. Yes ICEX was one part of what later became Phoenix. The report also states "The central element of coordination was Vietnamese, as the Saigon government provided the bulk of the manpower." So whatever the US did in June 1967 didn't create Phoenix. As I said that is already detailed on the page but in the wrong place. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"If you don't like Woodruff then go to WP:RSN and take it up there."

Nah, Woodruff is an unreliable non-expert contradicted by most academic scholarly sources on the basic facts of the Phoenix Program.

Why don't you provide a source that shows the results for Phoenix in 1967?

I did. I provided many sources on top of the sources that were already cited in the article. Not my problem you're having trouble grasping that.

"So with all those mistakes Ekins is not reliable."

So Ekins and McNeil—both distinguished academic historians (Ekins being the head of military history at the Australian War Memorial)—is somehow "not reliable" because of your own original research but Woodruff—a random U.S. soldier, whose only credentials on the topic was that he fought in Vietnam—somehow is reliable. Is this a joke?

"Beckett: he's describing an evolution of intelligence gathering, what became Phoenix built on earlier efforts."

Do you suffer from dyslexia or something? Beckett clearly says it was formed in 1967: "Phoenix began as the Intelligence Co-ordination and Exploitation Programme (ICEX) on 16 June 1967 ... and became officially named Phoenix on 20 December 1967."

"So is RAND reliable now? So is RAND reliable now? I didn't selectively quote from RAND, its a massive report, I quoted the relevant provision."

I never said RAND is unreliable, just that it wasn't impartial because of its close ties to the U.S. military and government. And yes, you did selectively quote the report. Don't even try to play the "its [sic] a massive report" excuse; the paragraph I cited was on the same page from where you got your quote-mined sentence. Skornezy (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You have to follow proper procedure. If you think Woodruff isn't WP:RS then you take it to WP:RSN, you don't just decide to delete it because it disagrees with your views. You seem to like stable versions when it suits you: [41] but impose your view whenever it doesn't. The page was stable before you arrived. You haven't provided any source that shows the results for Phoenix in 1967, because Phoenix didn't start until 1968. Ekins' quote is wrong on multiple counts, his position doesn't change that. WP:NPA: "Do you suffer from dyslexia or something?" Beckett is contradicted by multiple WP:RS on the start date of Phoenix. So what if RAND has ties to the US government? I am not making any excuses, nor selectively quoting, I initially used RAND to prove the 1968 date, not to describe the evolution of US counterinsurgency programs. You clearly have no interest in actually improving the page to accurately describe the evolution of what became Phoenix, rather you just want to just want to reinforce your view that the US military and CIA were systematically torturing and murdering people. I have asked for more eyes on this page at the Military History page: [42]. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"you don't just decide to delete it because it disagrees with your views."

I deleted Woodruff because (1) Woodruff is not an expert on the topic, and (2) because higher quality reliable sources directly challenge him on basic facts of the Phoenix Program.

"You seem to like stable versions when it suits you: [41] but impose your view whenever it doesn't."

There's a difference between removing a single sentence from an unreliable source and reverting you when you completely overhaul the article.

"You haven't provided any source that shows the results for Phoenix in 1967, because Phoenix didn't start until 1968."

I did, but in your mind? Probably not.

"Ekins' quote is wrong on multiple counts, his position doesn't change that."

He isn't wrong, but I'm not even going to bother engaging in your original research since it's pointless. You're not getting anywhere by trying to "refute" academic scholarship with your own misguided original research.

"WP:NPA: "Do you suffer from dyslexia or something?"

Where's the personal attack? I'm genuinely asking because the way you misread and misconstrued Beckett 2001 was both shocking and impressive. I don't see how any rational person can read that excerpt of Beckett 2001 and think that the program started in 1968.

"Beckett is contradicted by multiple WP:RS on the start date of Phoenix."

Nope, but I see you're no longer claiming that Beckett was "describing an evolution of intelligence gathering, what became Phoenix built on earlier efforts"; now Beckett 2001 is just "wrong." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"So what if RAND has ties to the US government?"

That makes them partial to the U.S. government's POV. Not like it matters since the RAND report says Phoenix began in 1967.

"I am not making any excuses, nor selectively quoting, I initially used RAND to prove the 1968 date, not to describe the evolution of US counterinsurgency programs."

That's not what the report said; you quote-mined it.

"You clearly have no interest in actually improving the page to accurately describe the evolution of what became Phoenix, rather you just want to just want to reinforce your view that the US military and CIA were systematically torturing and murdering people."

Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but the article does seem to support the notion that "the US military and CIA were systematically torturing and murdering people." Not sure how that makes me POV though. Also, who did you ping? I suspect you're now trying to improprely WP:Canvass the article to push your preferred version.Skornezy (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't pinged anyone, as advised above I asked for more eyes at Military History. Calling someone dyslexic and accusing them of quote mining and canvassing are all personal attacks. Mztourist (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said you don't get to decide that "Woodruff is not an expert on the topic", you must go to WP:RSN. Your second reason of "because higher quality reliable sources directly challenge him on basic facts of the Phoenix Program." The only "basic fact" is when the program actually started, for which I have provided multiple WP:RS, but which you have rejected for spurious reasons

"There's a difference between removing a single sentence from an unreliable source and reverting you when you completely overhaul the article"? You are asking below for your supposedly "undisputed edits" to be retained, so you're not just "removing a single sentence". As this debate dragged on I tried to improve the article by clearly explaining the evolution of what became Phoenix, something you obviously aren't interested in.

Go on, provide the RS that shows the results for Phoenix in 1967, you claim to have provided it but you haven't - prove me wrong. Your edit here to change the date from 1968 to 1967 doesn't cut it: [43]

You say Ekins isn't wrong, but he clearly is. CORDS wasn't established until 9 May 1967, not 1966. PRUs existed but did not function under CORDS before then. I don't think Colby was even in Vietnam in 1966/7 as Ekins later noted Colby was the new CORDS chief in 1968, but again prove me wrong, provide RS that Colby was there in 1966/7 and organised the PRUs

Becket was describing the evolution of what became Phoenix, he was wrong about the start date.

The RAND report states "Phung Hoang was created by decree in 1968" no quote mining at all. RAND does not state that Phoenix started in 1967, like Becket it describes the evolution of intelligence gathering that became Phoenix. Mztourist (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you're just repeating yourself ad nauseam, so this discussion isn't going anywhere.

you don't get to decide that "Woodruff is not an expert on the topic"

I'm not deciding that Woodruff is an unreliable source. Woodruff's lack of credentials; only being notable becauseh he's a WP:primary source (a U.S. soldier deployed to Vietnam); and the assertions he makes that are at odds with superior academic scholarship is what's deciding that.

"The only "basic fact" is when the program actually started"

Pretty major basic fact to mess up..

"for which I have provided multiple WP:RS, but which you have rejected for spurious reasons"

You haven't.

"There's a difference between removing a single sentence from an unreliable source and reverting you when you completely overhaul the article"? You are asking below for your supposedly "undisputed edits" to be retained, so you're not just "removing a single sentence"."

What are you trying to say? The only thing I've removed is Woodruff because he's not an expert.

"Go on, provide the RS that shows the results for Phoenix in 1967, you claim to have provided it but you haven't - prove me wrong"

I did.

"You say Ekins isn't wrong, but he clearly is.

That's your own original research. Not valid.

"Becket ... he was wrong about the start date."

That's your own original research. Not valid.

"RAND does not state that Phoenix started in 1967."

It does: "In June 1967 ... won approval for a CIA plan to establish a program called Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation (ICEX), later known as Phoenix." Skornezy (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

And you're just repeating yourself ad nauseam, avoiding addressing the issues while insisting that your POV is correct:

You are deciding that Woodruff is an unreliable source, something that's for RSN, not you to decide. You also don't get to decide what is "superior academic scholarship". Woodruff does not "mess up" the start date of Phoenix

Sorley, Kelley, RAND, Vietnam Experience, Willbanks are all RS, but you ignore all of them

You added a New York Times article and Kuzmarov

I've called you out and you have failed to provide any RS showing the results for Phoenix in 1967. Claiming repeatedly that you have done so is dishonest, just like you changing the 1968 to 1967 in the Strategic and operational effect section even though the sources don't say that

NO OR on Ekins, just verified facts, he's wrong on multiple counts and you have failed to provide any RS that supports his errors

Also no OR on Beckett getting the start date wrong, I have provided multiple RS

"later known as Phoenix" doesn't mean that Phoenix started in June 1967. As shown in multiple RS, ICEX was a precursor to Phoenix. Mztourist (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep arguing all you want, but I've already addressed all of this. Woodruff is still not a reliable source and the Phoenix Program officially began in 1967. Please provide better sources, preferably scholarly academic ones. Skornezy (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No I've proven you wrong on multiple counts, but you won't accept it, so we're in dispute. So I'll wait until other editors come to this page or you can escalate it through the usual dispute resolution mechanisms. We're both on editwar warning so any edits to the page will be straight to ANI. Mztourist (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I never actually bothered to verify Woodruff's book, but even he says the Phoenix Program began in 1967. So, I guess my earlier criticism of him was moot because I wrongly assumed that he was cited correctly in the article.

On page 64, Woodruff writes:

This American contribution to the Phung Hoang Program was officially born on December 20, 1967, under the operation name, "Phoenix"

I still oppose inclusion of Woodruff because he's not a relevant expert on the subject of Vietnam; he's not a historian, not a political scientist, and not even a journalist. His only notability to the topic was that he fought in Vietnam as a U.S. soldier.

Moreover, Woodruff's book has been described as providing "a revisionist military history of the war" and "demonstrates in his opinion that the war was won militarily before the United States unilaterally withdrew from the conflict" (see: Vietnam stab-in-the-back myth); Woodruff was also criticized for "not sufficiently address[ing] why the United States became involved in Southeast Asia in the first place." Skornezy (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Its funny, the writer of the bibliography is James Willbanks, the same author who says Phoenix started in November 1968. Mztourist (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

So? Skornezy (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

So you think Willbanks' critique of Woodruff's book is valid and credible, but his statement that Phoenix started in November 1968 isn't. Mztourist (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because Willbanks' statement on the latter is in the minority to the scholarly consensus (and that of the U.S. government). Skornezy (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"Scholarly consensus"? How many books have Sims, Peterson and McCoy written? Are they historians? Did you even notice that Koven just quotes entirely from McCoy? Mztourist (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

These questions are either repeats (like asking where the scholarly consensus that's right in front you) and/or irrelevant. Skornezy (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No, they're valid questions that you're avoiding answering. If you assert there is scholarly consensus anyone is entitled to query that. Mztourist (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've answered your "queries" a million times by now. I sent you a list down below. Skornezy (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to provide RS that show the results of Phoenix in 1967 (which would definitively prove it was operating then) but you have failed to do so, while repeatedly claiming that you have provided such sources. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I have here. It's not my fault you're in denial about them. Skornezy (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you not understand the word "results"? Where is the RS that says "In 1967 Phoenix killed X VC and captured Y VC"? Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

We're talking about when the program began. Skornezy (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I have been repeatedly asking you about. If Phoenix began in 1967 then there would be results for 1967. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. RS says Phoenix began in 1967. Deal with it. Skornezy (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If there aren't results for 1967 then it wasn't operational in 1967. I have provided multiple RS saying Phoenix began in 19678. Deal with it. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mztourist, we should not be citing someone as a source for historical claims who has no relevant qualifications as a historian, and whose work has specifically been criticized by professional historians—it's that simple. Remsense ‥ 论 06:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense how do you conclude that Woodruff has "no relevant qualifications as a historian"? He has written two books about the war. Have you checked that criticism of him has come from "professional historians"? As I have told Skornezy repeatedly, WP:RSN is the appropriate forum for determining the reliability of Woodruff as a source. Mztourist (talk) 07:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I came here from the related post on RSN. This is another where this may be discussed, thank you very much.

Your argument would seem to be that any history book is reliable due to its author having proved their reliability by virtue of writing a history book? That seems problematic. Woodruff does not have a degree in history or any related discipline, nor do they have a PhD that would generally certify their training in conducting original research. It was also trivial to verify that James Willbanks by contrast is a professional historian with relevant qualifications, so I'm not sure why you would bother asking. Remsense ‥ 论 07:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

A topic should not be discussed in two different places simultaneously, as the topic has been opened at RSN and you have commented there that is the only place I will discuss Woodruff's book. Mztourist (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

If there aren't results for 1967 then it wasn't operational in 1967.

Like I said, you're splitting hairs and also engaging in original research once again.

I have provided multiple RS saying Phoenix began in 1967.

Ha! I like that Freudian slip. On a serious note, you haven't demonstrated a consensus among RS that the program began in 1968. Skornezy (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Asking you to provide RS to prove something isn't OR. You haven't demonstrated a consensus among RS that the program began in 1967. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

RS has been provided here. I'm done engaging with you. Skornezy (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, RS of results of Phoenix for 1967 which you have repeatedly failed to provide. As Intothat noted below and as many of the sources you provided show, precursor programs may have become part of Phoenix, but that is not the same as them being Phoenix. I'm delighted to hear that you're done engaging with me. Mztourist (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You're in denial and misrepresenting what the sources say. Skornezy (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It gets worse for Woodruff and his advocates:

Levesque, Christopher (2014). "Not Just Following Orders: Avoiding and Reporting Atrocities during the Vietnam War" pp. 25-27

Mark Woodruff follows a similar line of thinking, and attacks the notion that American troops committed atrocities other than the My Lai massacre by claiming it was unique because records of similar events do not exist, and erroneously stating that it became public due to the efforts of a soldier who witnessed the massacre.

Continuing with his argument, Woodruff attempts to discredit all veterans who alleged atrocities in Vietnam by exposing individuals who claimed combat service in Vietnam, but who had limited or no service in Southeast Asia. However, in his rush to condemn all GIs who claimed to witness American war crimes, Woodruff ignores the individual experiences of the majority of the soldiers who voluntarily spoke to reporters, participated in ad hoc war crimes hearings, or contacted their congressmen. This means that he ignores the motivations of GIs who supported the war along with those who wished to stop it, or who wanted American tactics in Vietnam to change.

Skornezy (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Both of you have been edit warring over this, and you've both broken the three-revert rule. Given you are attempting a conversation here, I've decided not to give out any warnings or blocks, but instead to revert the page to the last stable version and protect it for 24 hours. Please attempt to establish a consensus on what, if any, changes need to be made during that time. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger Some of my other undisputed edits were caught in the crossfire. Can you reinstate them?

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix_Program&diff=prev&oldid=1258151564

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix_Program&diff=prev&oldid=1258159459 Skornezy (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  The page should remain at the pre-EW version for 24 hours. After that, if these aren't disputed, they can be re-added. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Alright. Skornezy (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  I dispute all changes made by Skornezy Mztourist (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  @The Bushranger Can something be done about @Mztourist repeatedly accusing me of not acting in good faith? See: "imposing your obvious biases ... You clearly have no interest in actually improving the page to accurately describe the evolution of what became Phoenix, rather you just want to just want to reinforce your view that the US military and CIA were systematically torturing and murdering people ... Claiming repeatedly that you have done so is dishonest ... You really are devoting a lot of time to pushing your POV here, rather than actually improving pages ... The anti-US POV that you push across multiple pages. Why am I assuming you're not acting in good faith? ... seems pretty disingenuous ... I don't AGF from you at this point." Skornezy (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG with comments like this: [44]. Mztourist (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Okay? I was frustrated and I already apologized to you for that one comment. Meanwhile, you're still accusing me of acting in bad faith and have been doing so since this dispute began. Skornezy (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  You apologized for calling me dyslexic 4 minutes after you complained to Bushranger here, seems pretty disingenuous. I also have "provided numerous reliable sources for my claims" but you've trashed all of them. Then, not satisfied with the debate above, you created a whole new discussion below with the rather insulting title that I'm in denial, so yeah I don't AGF from you at this point. Mztourist (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  "seems pretty disingenuous"

  There you go again.

  "I also have "provided numerous reliable sources for my claims" but you've trashed all of them."

  With the exception of Woodruff, who is not a reliable source and contradicted on some of his basic claims by academic sources, I didn't "trash" any of your sources. I only pointed how most don't say what you think they say, how the overwhelming viewpoint among RS is contrary to what you claim it is, and how one source 41 years-old and should be substituted for newer material.

  "Then, not satisfied with the debate above, you created a whole new discussion below with the rather insulting title that I'm in denial"

  You repeatedly said that I did not have RS that support that Phoenix officially began in 1967, when I kept citing RS that do say that, you said: "Go on, provide the RS that shows the results for Phoenix in 1967, you claim to have provided it but you haven't - prove me wrong ... you have failed to provide any RS showing the results for Phoenix in 1967 ... RS that support your POV don't exist" So, yes, I do believe you are in denial that I have not provided RS. I don't think of that as insulting.

  "so yeah I don't AGF from you at this point"

  At this point? You accused me of "imposing [my] obvious biases" when this dispute first began! Skornezy (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I said at 09:26 that we're in dispute and I'd wait until other editors come to this page or you can escalate it through the usual dispute resolution mechanisms. I'm not going to debate this further with you. Mztourist (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

And then 30 minutes later you said I have an "anti-US POV that [I] push across multiple pages," that I'm "devoting a lot of time to pushing [my] POV here, rather than actually improving pages," and that I was acting in bad faith. Skornezy (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I have not reached any agreement with Skornezy on changes to this page. Another uninvolved user gave input which Skornezy ignored (see Blowtorch section below). Skornezy requested a third opinion here: [45], but then withdrew the request here: [46]. Skornezy then went and made all their edits again: [47], which is a continuation of the edit-war and clear breach of your edit-war warning and I request they are blocked. Mztourist (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

None of my recent edits were reverts of your additions or pertaining to our dispute on when the Phoenix Program started, so I don't know what you're talking about. Skornezy (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@The Bushranger are you going to action this or do I need to take it the Editwarring noticeboard? Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest taking it to WP:EWN, with the note that as you were, before I protected the page, also edit-warring, to be cautious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed in you ducking this. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the Phoenix Program really did officially begin in 1967; Mztourist is in denial

• Finlayson, Andrew (June 2007). "Counterinsurgency: The Tay Ninh Provincial Reconnaissance Unit and Its Role in the Phoenix Program, 1969-70". CIA.gov. Center for the Study of Intelligence – via Central Intelligence Agency.

"In late 1967, the prime minister of South Vietnam decreed that all of his government's anti-VCI activities be integrated into a program he dubbed Phung Hoang, after a mythical bird endowed with extraordinary powers. Komer promptly renamed the American advisory effort after the nearest Western equivalent, the phoenix."

• Sims, Christopher J. (2015). The Human Terrain System: Operationally Relevant Social Science Research in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-58487-717-2.

One of the programs under its umbrella was the Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation Program, created in July 1967 and in December 1967 it was renamed as Phoenix.

• McCoy, Alfred W. (2012). Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 94. ISBN 978-0-299-28853-2.

"Despite promising growth since its inception in mid-1967, Phoenix was still troubled by "its poor press image, highlighted by charges that it was a program of assassination."

• Koven, Steven G. (2014). Responsible Governance: A Case Study Approach. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-46087-9.

By 1964 ... "Sophisticated" interrogations techniques were taught by the CIA and used in addition to older methods like electric shock, beatings, and rape. By 1965, the CIA was engaged in counterterror programs in which teams of interrogators were recruited, supplied, and paid by the United States. Counterterror teams used intimidation, kidnapping, torture, and assassination against Vietcong leaders and suspects. ... By 1967, CIA activities were consolidated into what was known as the Phoenix program.

• Beckett, Ian Frederick William (2001). Modern Insurgencies and Counter-insurgencies: Guerrillas and Their Opponents Since 1750. Routledge. pp. 201–202. ISBN 978-0-415-23934-9.

Built on the special platoons established in Quang Ngai province in 1965, Phoenix began as the Intelligence Co-ordination and Exploitation Programme (ICEX) on 16 June 1967. It utilised existing CIA and South Vietnamese resources and became officially named Phoenix on 20 December 1967

• Rosenau, William; Long, Austin (2009-07-07). The Phoenix Program and Contemporary Counterinsurgency (Report). RAND Corporation.

In June 1967, in an effort to centralize and better coordinate anti-VCI operations, Ambassador Robert Komer, the director of Military Assistance Command, Vietnam’s (MACV’s) overall pacification program, Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support (CORDS), won approval for a CIA plan to establish a program called Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation (ICEX), later known as Phoenix.

• Peterson, Roy E. (2011). Fight of the Phoenix: Order of the Delta Dragon. AuthorHouse. p. 130. ISBN 978-1-4634-1773-4.

The Phoenix Program was born in 1967.

• Tovy, Tal (2009). "The Theoretical Aspect of Targeted Killings: The Phoenix Program as a Case Study". Journal of Military and Strategic Studies. 11 (4).

The Phoenix Program began at the end of 1967, and was accelerated after the Tet Offensive, which began on January 30, 1968.

Skornezy (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you feel the need to list sources again, but in response:

• Sorley, Lewis (2007). A Better war: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam. Harvest. p. 67. ISBN 9780156013093.

The program never really got off the ground, admitted Colby, until President Thieu signed a decree in July 1968.

• Kelley, Michael (2002). Where we were in Vietnam. Hellgate Press. p. F-52. ISBN 978-1555716257.

In Jul68 general concept of attacking VCI directly was approved by President Thieu when he signed document creating the Accelerated Pacification Campaign (began 1Nov68

• Rosenau, William; Long, Austin (2009). The Phoenix Program and Contemporary Counterinsurgency (PDF). RAND Corporation. ISBN 978-0833047458.</ref>

In June 1967, in an effort to centralize and better coordinate anti-VCI operations, Ambassador Robert Komer, the director of Military Assistance Command, Vietnam’s (MACV’s) overall pacification program, Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support (CORDS), won approval for a CIA plan to establish a program called Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation (ICEX), later known as Phoenix. As the ICEX name suggests, coordination of intelligence was the program’s paramount objective. While simple in theory, coordination can be extremely problematic in practice. One need only glance at recent arguments about the failure of both the interagency process in the United States and more-specific failures of intelligence coordination to realize the ubiquity of the coordination problem even in mature democracies. In the case of Vietnam, the problem was compounded by the unstable political structure of South Vietnam and the fact that coordination had to occur between two parallel interagency processes, one American and one Vietnamese. This chapter details the apparatus that was constructed in an attempt to pull together all of these disparate elements into a cohesive campaign against the VCI. The central element of coordination was Vietnamese, as the Saigon government provided the bulk of the manpower. This program was known as Phung Hoang, named after a mythical Vietnamese bird somewhat similar to the phoenix. Phung Hoang was not an independent bureaucratic entity; rather, it was a structure of coordinating bodies composed of the numerous agencies involved in the anti-VCI campaign. Phung Hoang was created by decree in 1968, and by 1970, these coordinating committees were organized at the national, regional, and provincial levels. These committees included representatives from the National Police, the Special Police Branch, the National Police Field Force, the Chieu Hoi amnesty program, the RD cadre, the Military Security Service, the military intelligence and current operations staff (G2 and G3, respectively), the Provincial Reconnaissance Units (PRUs), and others. It is perhaps indicative of the coordination problems of the GVN that it had in effect not one but three separate, national-level police forces, each with its own distinct interests.

• Willbanks, James (2013). Vietnam War Almanac: An In-Depth Guide to the Most Controversial Conflict in American History. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781626365285.

Operation Phoenix begins (under heading November 1968)

• Dougan, Clark; Weiss, Stephen (1983). The Vietnam Experience Nineteen Sixty-Eight. Boston Publishing Company. p. 183. ISBN 0939526069.

The allies fought back launching the Accelerated Pacification Campaign on November 1... and put into operation the Phoenix Program, an attempt to neutralize the Vietcong infrastructure

Mztourist (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I should note that the "Accelerated Pacification Campaign" is not the same as the Phoenix Program (see Ekins, Ashley; McNeill, Ian 2012 and Beckett 2001), so Kelley 2002 and Dougan & Weiss 1983 don't apply. Besides, the latter source is 41 years-old; we've learned a lot about the Vietnam War since then and there's much newer scholarship to cite.

Sorley 2007, citing CIA Director William Colby, says that Phoenix "never really got off the ground ... until President Thieu signed a decree in July 1968"; that's not the same as saying it was created in July 1968.

That only leaves us with Willbanks 2013, who—at least according to Mztourist's blockquote—is not particularly elaborate on its founding. The overwhelming balance of the sources, including those connected to the CIA and U.S. military, thus far says that the Phoenix Program began in 1967. Skornezy (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

As you're fond of saying, that's your opinion/OR and you're misreading/misrepresenting what the sources I provided say. You really are devoting a lot of time to pushing your POV here, rather than actually improving pages. Mztourist (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

What POV? Why are you assuming I'm not acting in good faith? Skornezy (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The anti-US POV that you push across multiple pages. Why am I assuming you're not acting in good faith? Hmmm it could be the numerous personal attacks and generally insulting tone of your comments. Mztourist (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If it's about asking if you were dyslexic, then I apologize; I didn't intent for that to come across as a personal attack, I just failed to see how one could conclude what you concluded about Beckett 2001, but again I'm sorry. Why are you still accusing me of not acting in good faith? What exactly about my edits is "anti-US POV?" I'd like to think I'm improving the articles that I edit. Skornezy (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Blowtorch

Have either of you looked at Frank Jones's biography of Robert Komer (titled Blowtorch)? It does reference planning for the program that became Phoenix in December 1967 (p 165), but states funding wasn't secured until the end of that year and that it was to be part of the 1968 pacification campaign. Just because something existing in concept in 1967 doesn't mean it actually started or became operational at that time. And Jones' source for that date is a report from Ellsworth Bunker to LBJ at the end of December 1967 (Report #32). Komer's planned program mentioned above does not necessarily indicate there's a direct line to Phoenix, since at least part of the concept originated with the GVN. Intothatdarkness 20:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on my cursory skimming of Blowtorch on Google Books, I'm not seeing anything that says the Phoenix Program "became operational" in 1968. "Komer's planned program mentioned above does not necessarily indicate there's a direct line to Phoenix, since at least part of the concept originated with the GVN." So he's not referencing Phoenix? The sources here says that Phoenix began as the Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation (ICEX) in June 1967, "utilised existing CIA and South Vietnamese resources," and was renamed to "Phoenix" in December 1967. Skornezy (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I have the book and didn't skim it on google. Amazing how that works. But there's nothing that supports Phoenix being operational in 1967. A precursor organization isn't the same thing. You'll also note I didn't say Phoenix "became operational" (your quotes) in 1968, only that it didn't "become operational" in 1967. If it wasn't called Phoenix explicitly in 1967, it wasn't Phoenix. It was a precursor program and should be described as such. Doing anything else is OR pure and simple. ICEX may have evolved into Phoenix (when combined with GVN program ideas that didn't come into play until December 1967), but it wasn't Phoenix at the start and can't be called that. Intothatdarkness 23:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"I have the book and didn't skim it on google. Amazing how that works. But there's nothing that supports Phoenix being operational in 1967.

OK, so post the excerpt that supports your claim. I read page 165 and did not see anything that supported what you're claiming.

"You'll also note I didn't say Phoenix "became operational" (your quotes) in 1968, only that it didn't "become operational" in 1967."

So when did Phoenix become operational if it wasn't in 1967, according to you?

"A precursor organization isn't the same thing ... If it wasn't called Phoenix explicitly in 1967, it wasn't Phoenix. It was a precursor program and should be described as such. Doing anything else is OR pure and simple. ICEX may have evolved into Phoenix (when combined with GVN program ideas that didn't come into play until December 1967), but it wasn't Phoenix at the start and can't be called that.""

Multiple reliable sources, many from relevant academics, say that the ICEX was the Phoenix Program under a different name. It's pretty much the same program, it just underwent a name change in December 1967. Skornezy (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much the same program is not the same thing as the same program. Perhaps part of the issue here is that you seem to think it is. And according to Jones and other sources, Phoenix became operational in 1968 (in part because funding dedicated to it became available and in part because that's when the GVN authorized the program). But I'll leave you to your clear misunderstanding of how things work. Sorry to have wasted my time here. Intothatdarkness 01:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"And according to Jones and other sources, Phoenix became operational in 1968"

What sources? I read page 165 of Jones and did not find anything that said ICEX/Phoenix was not operational in 1967.

Why are you arguing my semantics instead of addressing that reliable sources say that the ICEX is the Phoenix Program under a different name? It's the same program:

• Sims, Christopher J. (2015). The Human Terrain System: Operationally Relevant Social Science Research in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-58487-717-2.

One of the programs under its umbrella was the Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation Program, created in July 1967 and in December 1967 it was renamed as Phoenix.

• Beckett, Ian Frederick William (2001). Modern Insurgencies and Counter-insurgencies: Guerrillas and Their Opponents Since 1750. Routledge. pp. 201–202. ISBN 978-0-415-23934-9.

Built on the special platoons established in Quang Ngai province in 1965, Phoenix began as the Intelligence Co-ordination and Exploitation Programme (ICEX) on 16 June 1967. It utilised existing CIA and South Vietnamese resources and became officially named Phoenix on 20 December 1967

• Rosenau, William; Long, Austin (2009-07-07). The Phoenix Program and Contemporary Counterinsurgency (Report). RAND Corporation.

In June 1967, in an effort to centralize and better coordinate anti-VCI operations, Ambassador Robert Komer, the director of Military Assistance Command, Vietnam’s (MACV’s) overall pacification program, Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support (CORDS), won approval for a CIA plan to establish a program called Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation (ICEX), later known as Phoenix.

• "CIA Programs to Induce Desertions and Defections in South Vietnam". Office of the Historian. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 19 November 2024 – via Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume VI, Vietnam, January–August 1968.

The Phoenix Program, formerly called ICEX (Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation)...

Skornezy (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Intothat, I don't have that book, but it certainly agrees with the sources I do have and what I've read of the evolution of what became Phoenix over the last couple of days. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC) MACV reports for 1967 describe the precursor efforts but don't mention Phung Hoang or Phoenix, while for 1968 they're used repeatedly. Mztourist (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

According to Jones the name originated with the GVN and came into use after the authorization decree was signed. He doesn't give a date (sadly), but says it was several weeks after Komer's funding request. Since that's mentioned in the cited Bunker report to LBJ (late Dec 1967) I think it could be safely proposed that the name (and associated program) didn't formally exist until January 1968 at the very earliest, and even then probably mainly on paper. Precursor programs don't count, since they aren't always the same in many areas. Intothatdarkness 01:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"Precursor programs don't count, since they aren't always the same in many areas."

The ICEX wasn't a precursor program, it's Phoenix under a different name. Skornezy (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Using abbreviation VC

I propose to standardize the use of the abbreviation VC throughout the page. The abbreviation is given in the 2nd para of the lede "the Viet Cong (VC)", but then both VC and Viet Cong are used subsequently. We use the abbreviation VC across almost all Vietnam War pages. I am raising this here first to avoid edit-warring accusations. Mztourist (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason to disagree with you on this proposal. Leemyongpak (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

On Viet Cong, the abbreviation "VC" is rarely used. The term "VC" was mostly used by American troops during the war; I think wikivoice instances of "VC" should be changed to Viet Cong, per the Viet Cong article. Skornezy (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

VC is used as an abbreviation on practically every Vietnam War page and it is appropriate to use that abbreviation here also, particularly as it is already in the lede and then used in the VCI abbreviation. Mztourist (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yet somehow it's not used in the article where it matters the most, i.e., Viet Cong. Skornezy (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to its use on this page. Mztourist (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's very relevant. Skornezy (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You need to explain how its relevant. In any event Leemyongpak agrees with me so we are the consensus. Mztourist (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree as well. VC is the standard used in the vast majority of Vietnam War articles. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"vast majority of Vietnam War"

Which articles? Viet Cong doesn't use it. Skornezy (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Any number of them. And I'm done wasting my time with someone who is clearly Wikipedia:Nothere. But feel free to keep posting and proving my point. Intothatdarkness 13:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are you not assuming good faith? Which articles use VC and how are they more notable than Viet Cong which doesn't use that abbreviation? It's a legitimate question. Skornezy (talk) 13:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Try reading the entire article, especially this. You've demonstrated a very trenchant pattern of editing in this article, misconstruing sources and generally pushing your view in the face of all evidence to the contrary (enough that you've been blocked from editing the article for two weeks due to edit warring). And as for your VC question, just click on some of the linked articles at the end of the main one. Both the articles on Kit Carson Scouts AND NLF and PAVN Battle Tactics use VC (including in the lede of the second article). From there you can do your own research. Intothatdarkness 14:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"misconstruing sources and generally pushing your view in the face of all evidence to the contrary"

What sources have I misconstrued? You're lobbing allegations at me without presenting any evidence.

"Both the articles on Kit Carson Scouts AND NLF and PAVN Battle Tactics use VC (including in the lede of the second article)"

Alright, so the first article is rather small, is rated as "start-class," i.e., only one grade above "stub" and was half authored by your friend Mztourist, this is a pretty terrible choice to prove your point. The second article is much better though.

On one hand, Viet Cong does not use "VC" at all and Vietnam War has 28 instances of "VC" and 78 instances of "Viet Cong." On the other hand, Tet Offensive has only 7 hits for "Viet Cong" and 34 hits for "VC." So I guess it doesn't matter at the end of the day since there's no consistency among the articles. Skornezy (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"You need to explain how its relevant"

I did. The Viet Cong article doesn't use the abbreviation, so why should this page? That other, less notable pages use the abbreviation is a pretty weak argument.

"In any event Leemyongpak agrees with me so we are the consensus."

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY & WP:POLL: counting how many people "support" your proposition is not consensus. Skornezy (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Intothat is absolutely right you're Wikipedia:Nothere. You clearly think that consensus only exists when you've acheived what you want. Mztourist (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"You clearly think that consensus only exists when you've acheived what you want."

Of course you're going to agree with your friend, but why do you think you can read my mind? Skornezy (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not like its just this article, its clearly your standard MO across all pages you edit. Mztourist (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I scratched out Mztourist's millionth violation of WP:AGF. Skornezy (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You really want to return to ANI so quickly? Mztourist (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure you really want to do that given the plethora of WP:AGF violations you have committed? Skornezy (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Go for it. AGF states ""assume good faith" encourages editors to start with the belief that others are trying to improve Wikipedia." I certainly started with that belief at 10:32 on 18 November but it soon disappeared over the course of my interactions with you. Mztourist (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

History section redraft

I propose that the 2nd and 3rd paras of History are moved up to the beginning of the section and amended to read as follows (with relevant refs): "On 9 May 1967 all pacification efforts by the United States came under the authority of the Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support (CORDS). In June 1967, as part of CORDS, the Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation Program (ICEX) was created, from a plan drafted by Nelson Brickham. The purpose of the organization centered on gathering and coordinating information on the VC. The 1968 Tet Offensive showed the importance of the VCI. In July 1968 South Vietnamese President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu signed a decree implementing Phụng Hoàng, (named after a mythical bird) to coordinate the numerous South Vietnamese entities involved in the anti-VCI campaign." This redraft reflects the agreed position of all RS. We don't need details of what inspired Brickham as he is linked. When Phụng Hoàng and Phoenix (the US advisory effort to Phụng Hoàng) actually started remains open to discussion. Again, I am raising this here first to avoid edit-warring accusations. Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this makes sense, although I'd substitute "demonstrated" for "showed" in the sentence about Tet and the VCI. That's personal preference, though. Intothatdarkness 12:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"In June 1967, as part of CORDS, the Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation Program (ICEX) was created, from a plan drafted by Nelson Brickham."

I think it should be mentioned that the ICEX was renamed to Phoenix in December 1967.

"The 1968 Tet Offensive showed the importance of the VCI."

This should probably just say "Phoenix expanded after the Tet Offensive in January 1968" or something like that.

"In July 1968 South Vietnamese President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu signed a decree implementing Phụng Hoàng, (named after a mythical bird) to coordinate the numerous South Vietnamese entities involved in the anti-VCI campaign."

According to Finlayson, the decree was signed in late 1967: "In late 1967, the prime minister of South Vietnam decreed that all of his government's anti-VCI activities be integrated into a program he dubbed Phung Hoang" Skornezy (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

My proposed edits are to incorporate what should be unobjectionable changes, with other contentious issues of dates and names left for further discussion. So none of your proposed changes would conform with that as they are all contentious.

Apart from Finlayson I haven't seen any RS that the South Vietnamese PM signed a decree in late 1967. Mztourist (talk) 13:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, so the article stays how it is for now. Skornezy (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No, Intothat agrees that it should be changed to what I wrote, we are the consensus. Mztourist (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY & WP:POLL: counting how many people "support" your proposition is not consensus. Skornezy (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments as above. Mztourist (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Both versions are contested, mine and yours. There is no consensus. Skornezy (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing contested in what I wrote, what is contested is what you want to add. If you claim to be HERE you should be able accept unobjectionable changes supported by all RS. Per WP:BRD we are supposed to discuss changes to try to reach consensus see: WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and specifically "The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group.". So unless you clearly detail what is incorrect in the redrafted paragraph that I have proposed above "using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense", then the changes should be made. Mztourist (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I elaborated on what should be changed, rather than attempting to reach a compromise you cited that you had "consensus" just based on the number of people who support your proposition and claimed that you did not have to change a thing. That's not how consensus works, per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY & WP:POLL. Skornezy (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You didn't "elaborate on what should be changed". You insisted that contentious issues be added as you want them. That's not DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Mztourist (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I very clearly elaborated on what changes you could make for me to accept it. It's not like I dismissed your redraft out of hand completely for no reason.

"You insisted that contentious issues be added as you want them."

And so are you. (I can already tell your next response is going to be circular going back how you have "consensus" simply based on your friend supporting inclusion, but that's not how consensus works per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY & WP:POLL) Skornezy (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Explain exactly what is contentious in the paragraph I proposed. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I did. [48] Skornezy (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

No you did not, you keep trying to add your desired position to everything. I ask again, what are your specific objections to the paragraph I proposed? Mztourist (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

"you keep trying to add your desired position to everything"

This is exactly what you're trying to do. I proposed compromises, you rejected them. This conversation is going nowhere so you do not have consensus as of now. Seek other avenues. Skornezy (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

For example for "In July 1968 South Vietnamese President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu signed a decree implementing Phụng Hoàng"

You can say "In late 1967 or mid-1968, South Vietnamese President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu signed a decree implementing Phụng Hoàng" to reflect the conflicting sources. Skornezy (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

So that's your only objection? Well its clearly wrong, all the RS says that Thiệu signed the decree in July 1968, not late 1967. As I noted above, only Finlayson says that the South Vietnamese PM signed a decree in late 1967. Saying that "In late 1967... South Vietnamese President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu signed a decree..." is factually incorrect and cannot be put on the page. Mztourist (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

"all the RS says that Thiệu signed the decree in July 1968, not late 1967"

Except the ones that don't. Like I said, if you're not willing to compromise then there is no consensus. Seek other avenues. Skornezy (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

What RS are you referring to? To adopt your wording you need to provide RS that President Thieu signed a decree in late 1967. Mztourist (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

"What RS are you referring to?"

Finlayson who is published on the CIA's own website. Skornezy (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Finlayson doesn't say President Thieu signed a decree in 1967! He says "In late 1967, the prime minister of South Vietnam..." Prime minister is different from President! The PM of South Vietnam in late 1967 was Nguyễn Văn Lộc. So you're wrong. Mztourist (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, so say that the PM signed a decree in late 1967 and the president signed another decree in mid 1968. Problem solved.

No, only Finlayson says that. Its contentious and cannot be included unless and until other RS support it. Also to adopt your approach, Finlayson is not a historian, he's a retired Marine who joined Phoenix in July 1969 and so cannot be relied on for the early history of Phoenix. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "no"? Again, you're refusing to engage in compromise. There's nothing contentious about when a PM signed a decree. Apparently, the PM signed one decree, the president signed another. Those aren't even conflicting assertions. Skornezy (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly only Finlayson says the PM signed a decree in late 1967, so unless other RS says this it doesn't get included. Secondly just because Finlayson's claim isn't conflicting, that doesn't make it correct. Thirdly you have failed to address why Finlayson can even be relied on as a source Mztourist (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The CIA is a reliable source for this rather uncontroversial assertion. Your points are weak.

Did you miss the disclaimer? "All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed in this article are those of the author. Nothing in the article should be construed as asserting or implying US government endorsement of an article’s factual statements and interpretations." So all your objections to Woodruff can be ignored then? You say my points are weak but you can't even identify who the source is here. Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a source associated and published with the CIA. I don't see why it's unreliable. Besides, it's completely in line with the CIA's own historiography of the program.

"So all your objections to Woodruff can be ignored then?"

No because Woodruff is a random soldier non-expert that has been trashed by actual scholars. Skornezy (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

No, you don't get to have this both ways. The disclaimer makes it very clear that its the views of the author even if it was "associated and published with the CIA". So the issue then is the credibility of the author, which based on your trashing of Woodruff, must be zero. Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

So what if it's the "the views of the author"? I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary that Finlayson is unreliable about this very uncontroversial assertion. Skornezy (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Using your Woodruff reasoning, Finlayson is not a historian and so not qualified to speak to the early history of Phoenix, only his involvement in it. Mztourist (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Finlayson has not been trashed for his contentious historical assertions; when the PM of South Vietnam signed a decree is not contentious. Skornezy (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are you even fighting with me on this? Just add both decrees. Problem solved. It doesn't even undermine your redraft. Skornezy (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

William Colby testified to Congress that the PM signed a decree in December 1967 and the president signed another decree in June 1968 to make the December 1967 decree "more official." Is that good enough for you? Skornezy (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Read page 6 "Thus, the Phoenix program started in mid-1968". Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

You're quote-mining again, just like you did with that RAND Corporation paper earlier.

The full sentence is "Thus, the Phoenix program started in mid-1968 to bring together the police, and military, and other government organizations to contribute knowledge and act against this enemy infrastructure."

It's basically saying Phoenix began cooperating more with South Vietnamese authorities in mid-1968, not that the program started in 1968.

The CIA itself says that the program officially began when the PM signed a decree in December 1967, which was then made "more official" by the decree signed by the president in June 1968. Exactly the same as what Colby testified to. Skornezy (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume that the Colby quote you refer to was on page 58? "The Phoenix program had a few precursors which were launched by CIA to try to get the different intelligence services there to work together to identify the political apparatus or infrastructure and begin to see who they were. This was formalized in December 1967, in a decree by the Prime Minister. It was then made more official in June of 1968 by a decree by the President."? So you believe that is referring to Phung Hoang? Looking then at the 1975 briefing it says "The Phoenix or Phung Hoang Program was a Vietnamese Government internal security program designed to neutralize the Vietcong infrastructure (VCI). The Government of Vietnam called it Phung Hoang and the American side called it Phoenix. The program was first established in December 1967 by decree of the Vietnamese Prime Minister with the aim of coordinating all efforts against the VCI. In 1968 the program was made more official by a decree of the Vietnamese President." Reading the full sentence that you accuse me of quote mining, what did Phoenix do before mid-1968 then? So I can accept that there was a decree of the Prime Minister in December 1967 establishing Phung Hoang. However we are still left with the ambiguity of what happened between December 1967 and June or July of 1968 when Phung Hoang was actually implemented. Mztourist (talk) 09:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

"However we are still left with the ambiguity of what happened between December 1967 and June or July of 1968 when Phung Hoang was actually implemented."

There is no ambiguity. Phoenix wasn't implemented in 1968, it was implemented in June 1967, renamed to Phoenix in December 1967 (to comply with the PM's decree), and South Vietnamese involvement was "made more official" with the June/July 1968 decree.

This is what McCoy 2012 has to say on page 93:

In December, the prime minister’s office finally backed the ICEX program by issuing a “Directive on the Neutralization of the VCI,” instructing all relevant South Vietnamese agencies to “take full note of the importance of the matter.” By ordering that the “committees in charge of VCI are called Phung Hoang Committees,” the Saigon government gave the program both its distinctive name, Phung Hoang or Phoenix, and its basic organizational character as a collaborative Vietnamese- American pacification effort. Six months later, in July 1968, President Nguyen Van Thieu issued a supplementary directive establishing Phoenix in its final form as “a program, not an organization, to bring about collaboration . . . among all government agencies which could contribute to the identification and neutralization of the VCI.” Within a year, as Vietnamese took control, U.S. officials withdrew from “direct responsibility for the program,” though they remained involved as advisers to the Vietnamese Special Police and coordinators for intelligence gathering “on the American side.”

Anyways, at the end of the day, there were two decrees; your redraft should include that. Skornezy (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Still, it should be included that ICEX was renamed to Phoenix in December 1967, I haven't seen any reliable sources to the contrary. Skornezy (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

No, because what is meant by Phoenix and when it started is contentious. You continue to argue that ICEX was Phoenix. Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Other than you not wanting it, I haven't seen what's contentious about it. Sources are pretty unanimous that ICEX was renamed to Phoenix in December 1967. Who says it wasn't? Skornezy (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you by me and Intothat, ICEX was a precursor to Phoenix. However you claim that ICEX was Phoenix because that would support your POV that Phoenix started in mid-1967. We have multiple conflicting RS on when Phung Hoang and Phoenix started. I am trying to agree a non-contentious paragraph, but you are insisting on including contentious detail. Why can't you accept that renaming of ICEX can be set aside for future discussion? Mztourist (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

What's contentious about the ICEX being renamed to Phoenix in December 1967? Was it not? Skornezy (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

That can be addressed in future discussion after a review of all the RS. The issue is that you regard ICEX as Phoenix, so this isn't just a debate about renaming. Mztourist (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

"That can be addressed in future discussion after a review of all the RS."

Alright then, we can pick up the conversation when you do that. Skornezy (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

So do we finally have agreement that the para should read: "On 9 May 1967 all pacification efforts by the United States came under the authority of the Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support (CORDS). In June 1967, as part of CORDS, the Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation Program (ICEX) was created, from a plan drafted by Nelson Brickham. The purpose of the organization centered on gathering and coordinating information on the VC. In December 1967 the South Vietnamese Prime Minister signed a decree establishing Phụng Hoàng, (named after a mythical bird) to coordinate the numerous South Vietnamese entities involved in the anti-VCI campaign. The 1968 Tet Offensive demonstrated the importance of the VCI. In July 1968 South Vietnamese President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu signed a decree implementing Phụng Hoàng."? Mztourist (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It should pointed out that ICEX was renamed to Phoenix in December 1967. Moreover, Thiệu didn't "implement" Phụng Hoàng, he just made the December 1967 decree "more official" (CIA) in order "to bring about collaboration ... among all government agencies which could contribute to the identification and neutralization of the VCI" (McCoy 2012 citing declassified documents). Since you haven't "review[ed] of all the RS," this is going to have to go on hiatus for a bit. Skornezy (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)