Talk:Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) (United States)

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

Untitled[edit]

Dear Jeff G, everything presented here is my work, research, and words and is not copyrighted. Also any other data or sources are duly noted. If given time I would like to develop this page more. Thank you, Icemanwcs (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Icemanwcs (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff G. Sorry for the confusing I created and thank you for your advice. The text of this website is now released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver 1.0 (CC0), Icemanwcs (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Also, material contributed follow Wikipedia guidelines regarding conflict of interest: "But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."Icemanwcs (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts), Thanks, Icemanwcs (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film section[edit]

This article is supposed to be about the unit. The section about the film is more detailed than needed and involves a lot of opinion/conclusions. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It also needs better/independent sourcing. Intothatdarkness 22:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm considering removal until it can be re-written without a bunch of conclusion/opinion and better sourcing. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could shift the section to Talk just to preserve it and then revise the main section. Intothatdarkness 13:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness and Mangoe, I appreciate Wikipedia's idea not to delete the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam page, but to merge it with the Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) page. There were other concerns expressed about citing secondary sources and visiting the Battle of FSB Mary Ann page, which is certainly well-written and serves as a great example of the standard that Wikipedia seeks. It is my goal to meet all requests and to make my work of similar standard. However, I do need time and I think the decision to merge the two pages will not serve military historians and veterans adequately because the Battle of Signal Hill is a notable battle in and of itself, especially among 1st Cav Vietnam veterans, LRPs, and Army Rangers (there are additional sources I can cite that refer to that mountaintop as Signal Hill). So my thought is melding it with Company E would work but it won't be as searchable and the length of the Battle of Signal Hill page would overwhelm the brief length of the battles presented on the Company E page. Company E needs more development as they fought to the end of the war and they participated in many other battles. However, because of the number those operations and battles, they are only presented in brief on the Company E page. Can Wikipedia reconsider its decision, thanks Icemanwcs (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness, several days ago I revised the Company E in film section to make it less opinionated but the facts are true...I can source key issues. Regarding merging the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam page with the Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) page, I raised issues above why the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam page would best stand alone. And on further thinking I was planning on posting several photos into the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam page. Two choppers crashed on top of that mountaintop because of the altitude strain on engine and rotor lift performance. One, injured two men on insertion, the other severely injured/ killed several men...I have photos of that and other dramatic scenes. Again, to post that detail in the Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) page would be inappropriate as that page addresses many operations and battles (and will addresses more) but only in brief. Please reconsider merging both pages and please let me have one week to address the editorial concerns you addressed. Afterward I will begin plugging in photos to both pages. Thanks, (please note, I didn't see the comments I wrote last night on another talk page so I'm plugging it in both places, Icemanwcs (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that I actually supported a merger into Operation Delaware, which I think is a better spot for some of the information presented in the Signal Hill article. I agree that this one event would overwhelm the Company E page. I can raise the question at MilHist and see if there's any traction there. Intothatdarkness 16:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness, thanks very much for concurring on the Company E page! I would be happy to expand the Operation Delaware page and I agree there is redundancy, but the Operation Delaware page addresses the operation from a division point of view. Whereas the Battle of Signal Hill page is multifaceted, addressing it from the divisional, company, and most of all from the individual, personal level. The Signal Hill page still needs more detail and photos will be added as well as addressing editorial concerns. There is another reason the Signal Hill page should stand alone and that is the photos would bring that specific battle in A Shau Valley to life, but would not adequately address the larger battle, Operation Delaware. Thanks too for raising the issue with MilHist--whatever the final decision is I will make it work. Icemanwcs (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble from a Wiki standpoint with Signal Hill is that it's not mentioned in other sources in the same level of detail. Wikipedia tends to be driven by secondary source coverage. If the detail's preserved to some appropriate degree in the Operation Delaware article, it could be broken back out at a later date if the amount of secondary source coverage of Signal Hill grows. Right now it's just not there. Intothatdarkness 13:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness, I have periodically been working on this page trying to address all editorial concerns, especially the citing of secondary sources to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. I hope you let me keep working on this page and when finished I will cut and paste what is appropriate into the Operation Delaware page as suggested. Please note, when this page was created I mistakenly cited mostly primary sources, academically thinking they would be more appropriate. It will just take time to ferret out the original secondary sources. It should be noted, however, the story and facts are accurate. Moreover, the mistake of citing primary sources is "mine alone" and I would hope that Wikipedia or MilHist would reconsider saving this page as the Battle of Signal Hill was notable and vital, and the men who fought it should not have their history diminished or abbreviated because of me. Icemanwcs (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • We're still not addressing my original question......which is why so much space in the article is being devoted to the film? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Niteshift, I can abbreviate this section more than I already did today if you like. The relevance is Oliver Stone served in this company and his movie Platoon portrays two real soldiers from this company as principal characters and depicts one of them very dishonorably, deliberately killing the former. The film is noteworthy and so is the truth. Icemanwcs (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nobody disputes that the Oscar winning film is notable. Nobody disputes that Stone's service in the unit is worth mentioning. What is being questioned is the amount of space you spend on what you refer to as "the truth", especially when the main source for "the truth" is you. The fact that you look at it as 'telling the truth' and then base it almost exclusively on your own work is troubling and may reflect a real conflict of interest problem. The end result is that you present your own version of "the truth". Also, you might want to read the essay about the truth. Frankly, this should be a two line mention that Stone served in the unit and drew from part of his experience there to write the story shown on Platoon. I'm moving that section to this page, per the suggestion above, to here so it can be ironed out. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the move. The issue here, Icemanwcs, is that you need a source other than yourself to verify what's said here. It would be best if it happened to be a historical source rather than something Stone happened to say at some point or another. Like it or not, it's how Wikipedia works. Intothatdarkness 16:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift, I'll work on the In film section as time allows and will provide additional sources as I think a little more detail there would be useful. You made a great start as to what you were suggesting what needed to be done, thanks. Icemanwcs (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film section[edit]

This is the existing film section:

Oliver Stones' movie Platoon (1986) was based on two soldiers from 2nd Platoon, Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP). Specifically, S/Sgt, John Barnes portrayed by Tom Berenger and Sgt. Juan Angel Elias portrayed by Willem Dafoe.[1]

Oliver Stone served as a rifleman in both the 25th Infantry Division and the 1st Cavalry Division. In April 1968 Oliver Stone volunteered for the 1st Cavalry Division's Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol training, but was dropped from the course. Nevertheless, Stone melds his line experience as an infantryman and the characters of Barnes and Elias through the eyes of a green young soldier (Charlie Sheen).[1] The film depicts troops of Bravo Company, 3rd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment in 1967, who are often drug-induced and undisciplined, and divided between Sgt. Elias' integrity and the battle hardened, but heartless Sgt. Barnes.[2]

Sgt. Barnes honorably retired from the U.S. Army as a Sergeant Major and Sgt. Elias was killed in action in Quảng Trị Province on May 29, 1968, when a grenade he and his team were rigging as a booby trap on an enemy trail accidentally exploded causing the loss of his life and that of Pfc. Donald Robert Miller, and fellow team member, Sgt. Larry Curtis, to lose an eye.[1] Sergeants Barnes, Elias, and Curtis, served multiple combat tours and saw service during the two largest battles of the Vietnam War: the Tet Offensive and the siege of the Marine combat base at Khe Sanh. They were also key participants in one of the most daring raids of the Vietnam War, the Battle of Signal Hill in A Shau Valley.[1]

I'd suggest taking out the "most daring raid" language unless it can be confirmed with secondary sources. If we're talking raids, I think both Son Tay and the real Operation Tailwind would have claim to "most daring raid" status. Intothatdarkness 16:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think that the 2 sentences I left in the article are all the more that should be in it. Fact is, the movie portrays another unit and portrays the characters in much different lights and in highly fictionalized accounts. I feel any discussion of "the truth" about them really belongs in the article about the film. Also, vvmf.org and the source for Elias are not going to pass RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I took the daring raid language out of the original Signal Hill article and don't think it should reoccur here. Your two sentences are all that's needed for this article, IMO. Intothatdarkness 18:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36 and Intothatdarkness, thanks very much for your help and guidance – you certainly know your history. Regarding the Company E article, Operation Delaware section, I'll leave it to you whether "one of the most daring long-range penetration raids" should be removed from this page. If you choose to remove it I think the phrase “daring raid” should remain and should hopefully be reinstated into the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam article because other sources use that phrase as well. For instance: the lead into the article "No Peace in the Valley," Vietnam magazine (cover story: "A Shau Valley Blitz"), Oct. 2008, p.27 “One platoon’s daring raid to take Signal Hill was key to a massive air cav assault in the A Shau Valley.” Or, "Operation Delaware," Saber newspaper, 1st Cavalry Division Association, Mar./Apr., 2009, p.23 “A long-range reconnaissance platoon’s daring raid..." Or, Anatomy of a Division: The 1st Cav in Vietnam, Presidio Press, Novato, CA, 1987, Shelby Stanton, p.145 "The cavalry raid commenced on 19 April 1968..." and p.146 "In one of the most daring opening episodes of the attack, the division’s Company E, 52nd Infantry (Long Range Patrol)..." Or, LRRP Company Command: The Cav’s LRP/Rangers in Vietnam, 1968-1969, Ballantine Books, NY, 2000, Kregg Jorgenson, p.3 "Everyone at division knew what they accomplished on Signal Hill…It was Custer’s Last Stand with a happy ending..." Or, Patrolling magazine, Summer 2010, vol.25 no.1, 75th Ranger Regiment Association, p.58 "A long-range reconnaissance platoon’s daring raid to take Signal Hill." Thanks again for your help and I hope that Wikipedia or MilHist keeps the original “Battle of Signal Hill” page as all editorial concerns will be addressed if given time. Icemanwcs (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure why you're hoping that the Battle of Signal Hill article will be kept. The AfD result was delete and merge here. When you use the 'No Peace in the Valley' article, again it was written by YOU. I don't know why this isn't sinking in, but you've used your own writing entirely too much on Wikipedia. Saying that the article calls it "daring", then offering it as evidence is WP:CIRCULAR since you wrote both. This entire article, and other articles, is entirely too dependent on you and your personal experiences/writing, as sources. The COI here (and elsewhere) is becoming overwhelming. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the Signal Hill stuff is better suited to the Operation Delaware article, and may just make a bold move there once it settles down. As for "daring raid," Stanton's quote is far better suited for that (in Wikipedia terms) than the others. I'll check his two books (Anatomy of a Division and Rangers in Vietnam) to see how it stacks up. If he uses "daring" in both sources then we could keep it. I'm not discounting Jorgensen's account (or yours, Icemanwcs), but it could be considered an involved account (as could yours). Stanton has historical distance and neutrality, which is what Wikipedia wants. Nightshift is right, though, in that the decision to remove Signal Hill as a separate article was made. I just think that in terms of historical framework (and to keep in from overwhelming the unit article) it's better to put it with the operation it was intended to support rather than the unit that carried it out. Intothatdarkness 17:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness, thanks for your thoughts. In a few days I could move the Signal Hill article into the Operation Delaware article and then work expanding the Operation Delaware article so it will appropriately reflect the broader battle, rather than only the platoon's raid. Icemanwcs (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intothatdarkness, the talk page on the Operation Delaware article does not seem to be working so I'll post my changes here as well as on the Edit summary on that page. As suggested, I merged the Battle of Signal Hill Vietnam article into the Operation Delaware page. There is more work yet to do to make it comprehensive and to eliminate text redundancy, thanks. Icemanwcs (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference ankony1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ [Robert C. Ankony, "Perspectives," Vietnam magazine, Aug. 2002, 58--61.]

Link Spam of Icemanwcs who admits on his talk page he is Robert Ankony[edit]

I have spent the better part of two days investigating, reporting, and removing the remarkable amount of link spam placed by User Talk:Icemanwcs who admitted he is indeed Robert Ankony on his talk page. He has created some articles like this one but almost exclusively reference himself and his website as a primary source. Many have advised against this for a long time which he acknowledges but then continues on his merry way link spamming and referencing his own website and writings. This article needs some serious rewriting as it is mostly done by one author referring to himself. 172.56.9.67 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cited source doesn't support conclusion[edit]

I read the "Saber" newsletter (here) which is cited for the sentence that Oliver Stone and Gair Anderson trained together and there's nothing that supports "Stone was dropped from the unit after completing the course." The newsletter actually reads, "Gair lost contact with Stone when he completed his training and started pulling missions in the field." I presume the "he" means Gair Anderson but there are no other details as to why they lost contact. 173.31.200.177 (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)JM[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Company_E,_52nd_Infantry_(LRP)_(United_States)&oldid=1206764275"