Jump to content

Talk:Phoenix Program

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reword Lede to Improve Preview

[edit]

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)[reply]

The USA

[edit]

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)[reply]

K. Barton Osborne

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Did the Phoenix Program start in 1967 or not? Skornezy (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
William Colby said: [1] "The Phoenix Program... essentially began to operate in mid-1968". Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-1968 can still cover Osborne's time in Vietnam. Skornezy (talk) 10:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the use of the word "essentially" indicates an earlier de jure date imo. Skornezy (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Highly unlikely, Osborne would have been rotating out by then. Also see RAND page 7 [2] "Phung Hoang was created by decree in 1968". Mztourist (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Also read the Strategic and operational effect section, does it mention 1967? No it doesn't. Mztourist (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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: [3] 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: [4]. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [5]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
So? Skornezy (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have here. It's not my fault you're in denial about them. Skornezy (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
We're talking about when the program began. Skornezy (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're splitting hairs. RS says Phoenix began in 1967. Deal with it. Skornezy (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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 ‥  06:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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 ‥  07:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
RS has been provided here. I'm done engaging with you. Skornezy (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're in denial and misrepresenting what the sources say. Skornezy (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Alright. Skornezy (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dispute all changes made by Skornezy Mztourist (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG with comments like this: [6]. Mztourist (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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: [7], but then withdrew the request here: [8]. Skornezy then went and made all their edits again: [9], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

[edit]

"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."

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.

"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."

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.

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

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.

The Phoenix Program was born in 1967.

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)[reply]

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

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)

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

Blowtorch

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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:

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.

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

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.

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

Skornezy (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

Using abbreviation VC

[edit]

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)[reply]

I see no reason to disagree with you on this proposal. Leemyongpak (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That's irrelevant to its use on this page. Mztourist (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very relevant. Skornezy (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree as well. VC is the standard used in the vast majority of Vietnam War articles. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"vast majority of Vietnam War"
Which articles? Viet Cong doesn't use it. Skornezy (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I scratched out Mztourist's millionth violation of WP:AGF. Skornezy (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really want to return to ANI so quickly? Mztourist (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Skornezy as you have not provided any valid reason why the abbreviation VC should not be standardized across this page (other than the inconsistent use of the abbreviation on other pages) and both Leemyongpak and Intothat agree with me that the change should be made, I will proceed to make this change as reflecting the consensus. Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History section redraft

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Alright, so the article stays how it is for now. Skornezy (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Intothat agrees that it should be changed to what I wrote, we are the consensus. Mztourist (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY & WP:POLL: counting how many people "support" your proposition is not consensus. Skornezy (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments as above. Mztourist (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both versions are contested, mine and yours. There is no consensus. Skornezy (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Explain exactly what is contentious in the paragraph I proposed. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did. [10] Skornezy (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"What RS are you referring to?"
Finlayson who is published on the CIA's own website. Skornezy (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Read page 6 "Thus, the Phoenix program started in mid-1968". Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What's contentious about the ICEX being renamed to Phoenix in December 1967? Was it not? Skornezy (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Renaming of ICEX doesn't need to be included at present. The CIA statement of "more official" is ambiguous particularly with the wording that follows: if the collaboration only began after Thieu's decree then what if anything did the 1967 decree do? There is no need for this redraft to "go on hiatus for a bit". The whole point here is to agree a redraft that is not in dispute with other contentious issues to be resolved later. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harbury Truth, Torture, and the American Way

[edit]

By this diff [11], User:Skornezy seeks to add Harbury as a ref. Harbury is clearly WP:BIASED and not qualified to write about the Phoenix Program. Mztourist (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Miller, NYT

[edit]

By this diff [12], User:Skornezy seeks to add the statement "however witnesses have stated "American advisers routinely carried out torture" as well. The quote has been contracted, the full quote reads: "Witnesses claimed that members of the program’s teams and their American advisers routinely carried out torture, murders and assassinations, accusations that American officials denied." Either it all goes in or none of it does. Mztourist (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truncated quotes are unacceptable, especially when they change or misrepresent the original quote. Any competent editor should understand that. Intothatdarkness 13:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzmarov in Decolonization and Conflict Colonial Comparisons and Legacies

[edit]

By this diff [13], User:Skornezy seeks to add Kuzmarov as a ref for statements apparently made by William Colby to Congress. If Colby actually said those things, the Congressional record should be provided and the relevant date given. Mztourist (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Here is a link: [14] to Kuzmarov's chapeter. It doesn't provide any ref to support the statements apparently made by Colby. Interestingly it starts: "In November, 1967, Frank Armbruster of the Hudson Institute drafted a policy brief which provided a blueprint for Operation Phoenix..." Mztourist (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy in Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation

[edit]

By this diff: [15] seeks to add Alfred W. McCoy as a ref. As can be seen on his page, McCoy made various accusations of involvement of senior South Vietnamese and Laotian politicians and generals in drug trafficking. As such he is unlikely to be a RS. The ref is used to support claims that an Army investigation largely confirmed Osborn's claims, if that is true, then a better source should be able to be provided. Mztourist (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]