This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
The info box provided with this article gives 10 aircraft destroyed and 15 damaged, but the article on Operation Flaming Dart states that this attack destroyed 13 aircraft (4 cargo planes, 4 light aircraft, 5 helicopters) and damaged another 11 helicopters. Can either figure be confirmed? Is there a dispute in the numbers or was one (or both for that matter) source explicitly proven wrong? RocketsFallOnRocketFalls (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to PAVN online source #2 "Pleiku city - the 90th Company", they destroyed total 42 aircrafts of all kinds (Vietnamese: phá hủy 42 máy bay các loại) in this attack. PAVN online source #3 "The only path - Nguyễn Huy Chương - 1965 Spring" provides more details: 37 helicopters, 3 reconnaissance aircraft, and 2 cargo planes (Vietnamese: phá hủy 42 máy bay các loại, có 37 máy bay trực thăng, 3 máy bay trinh sát và 2 máy bay vận tải).
All old sources are offline and very difficult (take a lot of time) to verify. The article's original and main contributor User:Canparkhave decided to throw in the towel since 2011. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PAVN sources cannot be relied on for any account of damage caused to the US/ARVN, they are pure propaganda and report improbably high numbers. Victory in Vietnam, the official PAVN history claims the VC destroyed 20 aircraft and killed over 100 Americans/South Vietnamese. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. All armies need victory, the bigger the better. By the way, consistency in statistics make sources look more reliable. Leemyongpak (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found and added another RS that supports the figure of 10 aircraft destroyed and 15 damaged. I have deleted the Holloway losses from the Operation Flaming Dart page.Mztourist (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The problem is your new RS is still offline, then it is Difficult to verify, for me Impossible to verify. We have an example here with The only path book of Nguyen Huy Chuong (2001) Da Nang Publication. The old - Offline ref #16 says "one combat engineer platoon, one sapper platoon", while the new - Online ref #1 says "one combat engineer squad, one sapper squad". Who in the volunteers here will spend some hours in a library to find and check an Offline book ? Leemyongpak (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RS do not need to be online. I have verified the figures. Mztourist (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:RS : The policy on sourcing is WP:VERIFY.
In turn, WP:VERIFY declares : In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.
I'm that OTHER people and I can NOT check that the information comes from a reliable source. Leemyongpak (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that states that sources must be available online. If you have a problem with this you are welcome to escalate it and you will be told the same thing. You are clearly suggesting that two sources may be wrong just because you do not personally have access to them, which is an incorrect interpretation of WP:VERIFY. Is there any reason why you are bolding various statements?Mztourist (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Important stataments need to be emphasized, if you don't like bold I can use uppercase, or color.
Google it yourself and see what other online sources are available. I don't need to satisfy you. I would note that Nguyen, the main Vietnamese source for detail about the attacks, isn't available online, but only supposedly through a blog site. How do we know that's reliable? Similarly Pleiku City government which you added as a ref is primary, so why should we accept that is a reliable source? Mztourist (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can save a lot of time if you can provide the other available Online source that you found. But it's up to you, I don't force other satisfy me, help each other is Better. Because RocketsFall started this thread, I need his verification as an Other People follow WP:VERIFY rule. You are only one contributor who have verified the figures till now.
For old The only path of Lieu. Gen. Nguyen Huy Chuong, it is a Offline RS verified by User:Canpark - a Reliable Contributor - like you. Maybe he don't need to satisfy us either. I have other online source from PAVN that declares bigger losses of U.S. Army but I think the Online version of Gen Nguyen have more details and everyone can access it. Leemyongpak (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have verified already, whether or not that satisfies you is not my concern. If you have an issue with the refs then do some work yourself rather than just complaining here. A Vietnamese general talking about an operation he was responsible for is not a reliable source. Nor is any Vietnamese source about the war because there isn't free press in Vietnam and all Vietnamese reports of the war even now are state-controlled WP:PROPAGANDA. Canpark was not a reliable contributor, he was always very selective in his references because he always wanted to document PAVN/VC victories. Mztourist (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I know someone think Lieu. Gen. Nguyen memoir is not an RS so I just use it as a minor reference for leader name or note for unit size. User:Canpark used to be a reliable contributor with 5 years contribution and 15 Good Articles. But he is not like you any more, since he have decided to throw in the towel for over 10 years. For both sides, the less losses the less pain. I satisfy with what I have for now not with what someone will give me in the future. Again, let User:RocketsFallOnRocketFalls finish what he started. Leemyongpak (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to verify what I can, some time soon I'm hoping to get my hands on the actual book cited in the Flaming Dart article and double check that. If there's a dispute between reliable sources then I'll list that in the article. Otherwise, I won't push the issue anymore. RocketsFallOnRocketFalls (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have the book Vietnam in Military Statistics by author Micheal Clodfelter in my possession now, and its sources are overwhelmingly USA, USMC, and ARVN, with a lot of information pulled directly from AARs provided by the US military. It confirms the Operation Flaming Dart numbers, listing 5 helicopters destroyed, 11 damaged, and 4 Caribou cargo planes and 4 light scout planes ambiguously mentioned, not specified as either damaged or destroyed. However, it gives no specific source for this information and the bibliography is both very large and not sorted by chapter. It looks like we have a dispute between credible sources if the 10 destroyed and 15 damaged figure can be confirmed by a reliable source.RocketsFallOnRocketFalls (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then change it to five helicopters destroyed and 19 aircraft damaged. Just don't adopt the ridiculous PAVN numbers. Mztourist (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RocketsFall, thanks for your confirmation. For me, Destroyed is equal to Heavily damaged. One less or one more aircraft won't affect much to the result of this PAVN 5-minutes attack, just make curiosity for readers. Leemyongpak (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
