Talk:Battle of Lima Site 85

message: "Americans" is a plural noun; "American", "Hmong" and "Thai" are adjectives; "killed" can be a verbal noun, and modified by adjectives; or a verbal adjective modifying nouns; adding -s to "American" makes "killed" do both. --Pawyilee (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Americans 

message: Are you certain that the Thai government did not send troops here on its own accord? The Thai government supported South Vietman and sent troops to fight under its own authority rather than as mercinaries.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I"m troubled by the ref to "Thai Mercenaries" too, but a friend in Mukdahan whose knows some of the survivors who allegedly said they were only in it for the money, and that meets the definition of mercenary. for the more-or-less official Thai position, refer to Border Patrol Police. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well lots of soldiers in national armies fight for the money, but that doesnt make them mercenaries. Legally if the soldiers were from a Thai goverment sanctioned unit and sent there on government orders then they wouldnt be mercenaries.XavierGreen (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thai Border Patrol Police, as well as their hirelings, were a national arm, if not an army. I favor either NOT calling the hirelings mercenaries, or apply the same term to the 'sheep-dipped' Americans who had been technically discharged from their national military arm and were at the time hirelings of Boeing. Pawyilee (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it back to Border Patrol Police "volunteers".Mztourist (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Thai Mercenaries

message: The lede is much too long. Recommend everything following largest single ground combat loss of United States Air Force members during the Vietnam War be merged into Background, which already repeats much of what's now in the lede.--Pawyilee (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is suppose to summarize the content of an article, which is four paragraphs maximum.Canpark (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I defer to others' judgment on the lede. Did my amendment to the "memorial" sentence help matters? I also added the info to Operation Arc Light. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I tend to think the lede's too long as well. Noticed that with some other articles as well. Just because the lede CAN be four paragraphs doesn't mean it SHOULD be. And those paragraphs don't need to be massive.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  lede 

message: *Wiktionary has postumus. 
::Neither that nor Posthumous recognition will serve. Wiktionary is a wiki, so suggest amending it with an applicable definition. Won't do it, myself, as I don't know their criteria. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review Comments comments 

message: What happened to the link to Operation Arc Light? Not only does it have info on the Arc Light/CombatSkyspot memorials, but also informs that the terms were sometimes synonymous. If nothing else will do, stick it in See also: --Pawyilee (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arc Light link 

message: Added Wiktionary sheep-dipping definition; that entry would benefit from a citation, i.e., reliable source using the term as defined. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sheep-dipping" of the airmen involved 

message: I didn't find any definition of "sheep-dipping"in the article. If there was one it has been removed. I had to look it up since I am not familiar with the "argot" (another fancy word meaning "jargon" or "slang") of the Central Intelligence Agency. See:
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency argot for a cover assignment given to covert operatives—see wikt:sheep-dip#Verb
It just irks me no end when I come here to wikipedia to learn something new and leave more frustrated than when I arrived. 
Linstrum (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sheep-dipping" of the airmen involved 

message: Raven Forward Air Controllers were preceded by "sheep-dipped" enlisted "Butterflies" who operated in and out of their own Lima Sites. I considered adding the Ravens (and Butterflies) to See also, but guess both these and many other clandestine operations are subsumed in Project 404. Can't help but wonder if that's in some way related to the HTTP 404, or just a case of spooky action at a distance. --Pawyilee (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also spooky action? 

message: IP address 71.207.98.187 is making numerous edits, large and small to this page. While I believe these are being done in good faith, I also believe they are excessive, almost requiring a citation for every sentence used. Mztourist (talk) 05:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by IP address 71.207.98.187 

message: It appears my earlier edit may have resulted in an edit war when I identified numerous problems with this article (including several tags), as an editor who doesn't have a username then addressed those tags and performed what seems to be other improvements and additions.  It looks like User:Mztourist then began the war by reverting the anon editor's post by claiming he couldn't post talk to the anon editor's user page at Talk:71.207.98.187 despite being able to post at this talk page about the article.  I just added a small section (Battle of Route 602 to the article in the sectioning created by the anon editor) but withheld some additional substantial edits since I'm concerned they will likewise be thrown out.  30 SW (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not starting an Edit War, just getting the attention of IP 71.207.98.187 who appears to be making excessive edits to the article. Mztourist (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War 

message: I checked the anon editor's claim about "Linder innuendo" in an edit summary and it appears that source is the reason this article was so poorly written: it has been based (prior to my earlier edit) almost verbatim on the CIA report in Chauhau's book and written by Linder, which in addition to the innuendo, has been discredited by one of the contemporaries of the battle: "full of factual errors and several mistakes in interpretation" (Secord).  I'd like to reassessed the article, but again; am concerned of an somewhat loose cannon just reverting and throwing out the baby with the bathwater like in the edit war.  30 SW (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Discredited Linder report

message: ...the battle resulted in the largest single (clarification needed). I agree, but don't know how to go about it. Technically, the airmen who died were not USAF, as they had been "sheep-dipped" as civilian contractors, though their USAF status was restored posthumously. One of the external links, which I haven't checked to see if it is still linked, attempted clarification. USAF ground personnel, like me, received NO ground combat training, except for one of the two career fields in the Security Police, and even they seldom engaged in what you might call ground combat, and I never heard tell of any of them suffering any casualties, although as Air Police in the Korean War, they did. My wife is hollering at me, so I have to leave it at this.--Pawyilee (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't need to restore it after all, just copy it with a dated title. This should help clarify why there were so few ground combat losses, keeping in mind it was true of most REMFs, though a large part, if not THE largest, were USAF technicians.  My wife quit hollering. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest USAF ground combat loss of the Vietnam war era 

message: The attributions for the painting illustrating this article are incorrect.  It was NOT the work of a CIA employee and, therefore, NOT public domain.  The painting was commissioned by two former CIA officers and painted by U.K. artist Keith Woodcock. It was donated to the CIA collection at the University of Texas Dallas Research Library in Richardson, Texas, by the individuals that had commissioned it.
Under copyright law, the copyright to the work is retained by the artist, unless he has assigned his rights.  There is no evidence available that this is the case.
You only need to google "Keith Wookcock artist" to verify this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chhamilton3 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I will email him and ask if he objects to it being used only on this page Mztourist (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: CIA artworks are not public domain.  If there is any connection between CIA and public domain, it is usually that CIA works are not in the public domain, not the reverse.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Painting illustrating aerial shoot down 

message: from a french bourgeois (who now has time to discover that, while during the spring of 1968 he was erecting barricades and hurling cobble-stones at policemen to keep the right to become like his friends MD or bank executive, more serious things were happening on the planet) : "Does one know why the North-Vietnamese army did'nt send some Migs to straff off the Lima Site 85 instead of sending old Antonov crop-sprayers, and then commandos clambering up the cliff ? Thanks beforehand for your answers (and for your very good text, which I just summed up in WP fr. And could you be so kind, & copy your answer on the "discussion page" of the french article, I'm afraid my memory about the questions I ask here & there is not as good as it used to be...Arapaima (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the main author, and the one to which I contributed no longer exists. But to answer your question, the NVA simply had no way to train intensively in the air, and so made do with what they had. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: A question

message: The article refers to 1,000 soldiers of the Kingdom of Laos.  But if this was the 1,000 Hmong commanded by the CIA, they weren't Laotian, but Vietnamese mercenaries.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laos forces 

message: Hello, all,
My snooping into edit history reveals that this article has undergone serious change since it was adjudged GA. I am working on the citation problems. The cite style has been partially changed since then; I am going to restore it to the short form used to gain its GA status. Also, there are cites now lacking in spots; I also intend to clear them up.
Georgejdorner (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamping the article 

message: Hello, fellow editors,
After a thorough reading of the Edit history, plus a comparison of the approved GA text of 1 August 2011 versus the current version, I have come to the conclusion that the current article is irreparable in its present form. Differing citation styles have been added to the GA version. The Reference section is totally changed. Much added material remains uncited. This article has deteriorated from its GA status.
I am going to revert to the GA version to begin revamping the article. I have saved a current version for reference. I intend to work through it, salvaging such useful material as I can cite to a source, and adding it to the GA text. I also have the Secord/Wurts book at hand, along with A Day Too Long; I will refer to them, of course.
Georgejdorner (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a revert 

message: Hello, my fellow editors,
There are several accounts of this raid, no two of which seem to agree with one another. Having made some corrective edits that diminish detail, I want to leave notice of my reasoning. This is based partially on my personal experiences while stationed next door to Military Region 2; I was based in Military Region 1.
Some accounts state only two or three AN-2s took place in the raid. Although two or three may have been all that were visible at a given time, there were four planes.
More problematic is the identity of the type of Air America helicopter. In my experience, Air America operated H-34 Choctaws. Without any specific source for reference, I edited the text to simply read "helicopter". Incidentally, in one version I have read, the Air America pilot is said to shadowed the AN-2 from above and downed it by depriving its wing of lift.
There is even more confusion about the Air America crew chief's assault rifle. I have seen it variously identified as an M-16, an AK-47, and a Swedish K sub-machine gun. I never saw an M-16 while I was in Laos, though some few CAR-15s were about. An AK-47 is possible. A Swedish K fires a pistol bullet—kind of small rounds to down an airplane. At any rate, the weapon in question has become, in the text, "assault rifle".
The above is a bit lengthy, I know, but accuracy is paramount.
Georgejdorner (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an Air America Huey, there are numerous references for this.Mztourist (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Air America (airline)#Helicopters shows that they didn't operate any Hueys, although they had some of the civilian equivalents, the Bell 205.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That really is splitting hairs. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The North Vietnamese air raid 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Lima Site 85. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717102828/http://combat-skyspot.tripod.com/commandoclub.htm to http://combat-skyspot.tripod.com/commandoclub.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Lima Site 85. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161227015927/http://www.laoveteransofamerica.org/ to http://www.laoveteransofamerica.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified