Talk:Operation Attleboro

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Attleboro article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Asian / North America / Southeast Asia / United States / Cold War

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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Vietnam Mid‑importance

	Vietnam portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Military history Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Pritzker Military Library Low‑importance

	This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Close paraphrasing / COPYVIO removed[edit]

An IP has added the following wording with this (and other) edits [1]:

"However, U.S. body counts was problematic at best, fraught with intentional incurracies at worst (double counting, exaggerations, and diffcult terrain all made body counting an imprecise technique for measuaring progress). The Vietcong simply refused to fight, and Attleboro did not break the NLF's political hold in Tay Ninh province, a point that few U.S commanders realized at the time. Once U.S combat units left, NLF quietly returned. Reducing the NLF fighting power had not diminished their political influence within the local hamets and villages."<ref name=Daddis/>

This is taken very closely from the source provided (Daddis "No Sure Victory", p. 7) which includes (see link: [2]):

"Relying on body counts in Vietnam, however, was problematic at best, fraught with intentional inaccuracies at worst. Possible kills, double-counting, estimations, exaggerations, and difficult terrain all made body counting an imprecise technique for measuring progress... While General Du DePuy though Attleboro had crippled the 9th PLAF Division, after the first week of November the Viet Cong simply refused to fight... Reducing the Viet Cong's fighting power had not diminished their political influence within the local hamlets and villages."

Consequently I have removed this information. There are other issues with these edits though, for one adding flags to the infobox contrary to WP:INFOBOXFLAG, and the addition of "Strategic U.S failure" which is cited to Daddis but after I checked (per the edit summary of another IP who previously reverted the addition as well - strangely also an IP 101?) I don't see this wording supported by the source. The source no doubt questions the lasting political effect of the operation but doesn't anywhere say write that it was a "Strategic U.S failure". Anotherclown (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]