Talk:Con Thien

9,265 wounded (?)

How so if 9000 fought? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.192.115 (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Replacements, the battle went on over an extended periodMztourist (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Article needs some work

Besides needing cleanup there's some information that would add some value to this article. 1. the reason Con Thien was under heavey assualt. It provided a perfect stategic view for routes leading south. 2. The muddy conditions there are not mentioned. The mud bogged down everthing that moved. The only vehicle that could move around was the LVT. http://homepages.vvm.com/~sstickley/Gordon/Img0088.htm 3. "Hill of Angels" is the local name for it. 4. The road lead to the hill was minded so heavily that they bulldozed a completely different road to it.War (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV lacking

This article has been edited by Mztourist since 2010 and has a USMC biased POV.

• NPOV lacking - There is a USMC bias to the sources.
• NPOV lacking - Until I added Special Forces det A-110 and the Seabees, the article stated the only troops at Con Thien were USMC and the Viet cong. That is what the info box still shows. Also missing from the combatant list are the Luc Luong Dac Biet and the CDIG forces that were at Con Thien. Mztourist deleted this content as trivia or self promoting. Trivia that could have been listed, is that the combined Special Forces/Seabee action at Con Thien was a repeat of Dong Xoai.
• NPOV lacking - Poor research
• NPOV lacking- Mztourist deleted reference letter of Capt. Chamberlain giving the Special Forces chronology of the battle as trivia.
• NPOV lacking - The article lists only the USMC casualties with the other troops ignored.
• NPOV lacking - Historical balance of record and statements of facts.
• NPOV lacking - The article states that it became a USMC base in 1966 when the Special Forces did not create the base until Jan 1967. The Army turned it over to the Marine Corps in late July 1967
• NPOV lacking - Mztourist deleted footnotes showing the Commanding Officer of SF det- A110 received the United States second highest valor for his actions at Con Thien. Mztourist stated information was trivia.,
• NPOV lacking - Mztourist removed all references to the Seabees as "self promotion?" when they were clearly involved in the battle supporting the Special forces and were included in the Captain's award document.
• NPOV lacking - All references deleted by Mztourist were non-USMC.
• NPOV lacking - Mztourist deleted the reference "Letter of Appreciation" from Capt to the Seabees for their support as trivia. Also deleted as trivia was the second endorsement of that letter by General R.E. Cushman Jr. (USMC) Commanding General of III Marine Amphibious Corps. Trivia would be stating that Gen. Cushman would later become Commandant of the Marine Corps. Other trivia that might be listed is that on the 4th and 5th endorsements that letter the Special Forces det is mis-identified with a typo as A-100.

• Vandalism - Mztourist has twice completely removed the Seabees from this battle. In doing this Mztourist has left the citing of Special Forces det A-110 un-referenced.

bees from this battle. In doing this Mztourist has left the citing of Special Forces det A-110 un-referenced.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)

Mcb133aco you have been on WP for several years now and so you are expected to be familiar with the rules that apply here. In relation to your comments about the Special Forces at Con Thien, before your changes to the page it stated under Location: "was originally established as a Special Forces/CIDG camp before being taken over by the Marines in December 1966." Obviously the US Army document which is WP:RS contains details not contained in the official USMC history, so those can be included on the page. Facebook is not WP:RS and so cannot be relied on for anything. Lukanic's book is clearly self-published and so not WP:RS. A letter commending the Seabees is clearly trivia/self-promotion and doesn't belong on the page. I will make suitable amendments based on any WP:RS you have provided. I note that many of your edits here on WP do not give WP:RS and I will revert any non WP:RS changes that you make to pages that I watch. Finally you should be very careful about accusing an experienced user like me of POV and Vandalism and should not engage in WP:CANVASSING as you did here: [6]. If you disagree with any user you are expected to follow WP:BRD and discuss the disagreement on the Talk Page.Mztourist (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"Mcb133aco I note that your User page states that "I'm the Public Affairs Officer of U. S. Naval Mobile Construction Battalion ELEVEN" accordingly a..." This is the beginning of the Wikipedia notification of your response I received in my email and it does not correlate here. If you go back and read again, that was a request posted to my talk-page to write NMCB 11's Wikipedia article.

Had never heard of canvasing until AustralianRupert mentioned it when I requested a neutral POV. I believe there are 3 standards for working on Wikipedia: 1. neutral POV, 2. that the material is factual and 3. the footnotes prove it. Those expectations I expect for everyone editing on Wikipedia. The only concerns I have for all of Wikipedia's rules is that I at least meet the minimum standards to keep my efforts from being deleted. Beyond that, I will not put the time or effort into learning Wikipedia's fine print. Anything that I have posted that is in error please delete or correct. I have no interest in disputing opinions, facts are facts no matter the source.Mcb133aco (talk)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk)

Mcb133aco as I said earlier, you have been on WP long enough to know the rules here, providing WP:RS is one of the most basic that Users are expected to comply with. NPOV applies to pages, WP:BRD applies to disagreements. Mztourist (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

References