Talk:Phoenix Program

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)

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)

Harbury Truth, Torture, and the American Way

By this diff [1], 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)

The very section you are linking to shows that there is no ban against biased sources on Wikipedia and that you have no right to remove a sourced claim just because of the (alleged) bias of the source. The question is whether Harbury is a Reliable Source, not whether he is biased. I have no idea what grounds you think you have for describing him as 'clearly biased' either, but the issue is irrelevant in any case, unless you want to add some description of Harbury.--Anonymous44 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Because Skornezy repeatedly added biased sources while removing sources that he claimed were biased. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

You are not addressing what I said at all. Again - biased sources are not prohibited and I am saying that you have no right to remove sources with the justification that they are biased. If Skornezy did the same at some point, he shouldn't have, but I am not discussing every single thing he has ever done, I am discussing what you have done and keep doing. For what it's worth, as far as I could see, Skornezy argued that a source was unreliable (written by a non-expert), not that it was biased (although, of course, it was that, too). But this is irrelevant in any case. In addition, unlike Skornezy, I didn't remove the source and its claim, I just added the reliable sources and their claims; you nevertheless reverted my edit.--Anonymous44 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Your source is also unreliable. Mztourist (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Edward Miller, NYT

By this diff [2], 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)

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)

Truncation of quotes is a perfectly legitimate and standard practice on Wikipedia, and this particular quote does not change or misrepresent the original quote - the fact that 'witnesses have stated "American advisers routinely carried out torture"' is still true regardless of the rest of the quote. It can be added also that American officials have denied this, but adding it was no obligation of Skornezy, it was up to you.--Anonymous44 (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It completely misrepresents the quote which is much more nuanced in full. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't misrepresent it, and I have explained why; the full quote just adds the fact that the USG had denied what the witnesses have said (duh). In any case, you should add the rest of the quote if you consider it important, but this is no excuse for you to remove the part of the quote that was added, which is sourced information.--Anonymous44 (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Either the entire quote goes in or none of it goes in. Truncating quotes that only support one POV is unacceptable.Mztourist (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Kuzmarov in Decolonization and Conflict Colonial Comparisons and Legacies

By this diff [3], 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: [4] 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)

There is no such requirement for direct sourcing of citations found in sources. The only question is whether Kuzmarov himself is a reliable source; if he is, and you are not disputing that, we are supposed to trust him about what others have said, too.--Anonymous44 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I am disputing exactly that. We should be able to find that testimony in the Congressional record. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

You haven't said a word about why Kuzmarov shouldn't be considered a reliable source, who he is, what the publication is, etc. If he is a reliable source, then there is no need for us to 'find that testimony in the Congressional record'.--Anonymous44 (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I am questioning the reliability because the quote can't be found in the Congressional Record. Mztourist (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

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

By this diff: [5] 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)

You can't judge the reliability of sources by the claims they contain and the extent to which they agree with your own version of reality. The publication by McCoy is academic and peer-reviewed, and that makes it a Reliable Source for Wikipedia purposes. Your assumption that anyone who accuses senior South Vietnamese and Laotian politicians and generals of wrongdoing must be unreliable is an expression of your own bias. --Anonymous44 (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

No there should be more than one source that supports the claims if they are disputed. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no such rule on Wikipedia. If you think there is one, cite the policy that says so. You can't just 'dispute' information personally - your views as an editor do not override a reliable source; that would be the opposite of what WP:V and WP:NOR are all about.--Anonymous44 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

All part of WP:V, if extreme/disputed claims are made they must be backed by multiple WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Standard academic practice is to use multiple sources if something is contentious or disputed. While I realize Wikipedia is pretty much the polar opposite of academic practice, using multiple reliable sources is the best way to support this kind of claim. Intothatdarkness 22:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)