Talk:Operation Linebacker

message: The title of this article is not neutral, it is in fact propaganda. Añoranza 12:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you can't forget the South Vietnamese were involved. How about March 1972 attempted Democratic Republic of Vietnam's invasion of, and the Republic Of Vietnam's temporarily successful defense of the Republic Of Vietnam. That, my friend, takes into account both sides perspectives, thereby being more neutral. "Easter Offensive" is highly offensive because it is a propaganda term linking war o what some consider a holy day, thereby giving an impression of a just crusade on North Vietnam's part, and makes it appear as though South Vetnam laid back and helplessly took a beating. Likewise, it uses the proper names of the countries involved, not the colloquial American usage of North or South Vietnam.--Nobunaga24 15:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it is a propaganda name, thus not neutral and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Añoranza 20:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, you sound like a broken radio. What do you propose as an alternative? The operational name is the most relevant, concise, and historically used one. --Mmx1 20:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems other disagree with you on the POV issue, perhaps a vote? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know there is an ongoing discussion. Until consensus has been built, the POV-tag has to stay. Añoranza 20:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct hence the need for a vote. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ongoing discussion? You against the world? There is no ongoing discussion, just one individual. There is a consensus. You alone disagree. On page, after page, after page...... The tag here, and everywhere else, needs to go. --Nobunaga24 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Since no one has apparently seen this since I posted it, I went myself to the first source listed and found and corrected an obvious error made in transferring from source to article, and what appears to be an inadvertant contradiction on the same source page, which list 14 aircraft lost to MiGs "during Freedom Train" (middle of the page) but at the bottom of the page lists 1 lost to MiGs during "Freedom Train". (The latter is correct, a USN F-4B of VF-51 off the Coral Sea on April 27). I believe Head's to be is a partial accounting of losses, self-described as "through June 1972", and thus includes mainly Linebacker losses, and so edited the narrative as shown. I still question the remainder of the paragraph, which does not define the period by dates. The figure of "63 VPAF aircraft destroyed, 19 air-to-air" is clearly in error except by defining a narrow period. The Navy alone shot down more than 19 -during Linebacker and the AF about 40. If this is to be an "A" article, then this critical part of the article ought to (a) be clear, and (b) accurate. The error I found in the article, and the app. contradiction in the source, suggests that it is not yet so. A word about sources, particularly those listed as "government documents": no matter which side one looks at these campaigns, one needs to remember that all of these authors have an axe to grind. Tilford's, for instance, is in much dispute and is NOT a history, much less a definitive one, but an argument. Moreover the fact that he's published by Air University does not bestow a mantle of unassailable credibility on his hyperbole--he was a ranking civilian (former USAF) on staff at AU and the book is in effect self-published with government funds. (Schlight's monograph was written somewhat in response.) AU is a funny animal, very (some would say "overly") concerned about its "image" in academia since 1980, and prone to go against doctrine.--Buckboard 10:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Just curious concerning the facts gleaned from Tilford's work. What exactly do find contradictory or contrary to fact (as you accept them) in the quotes from his work in this article? The only move from straight fact was his positive opinion that the AF had moved to a more modern phase, is that out of line? RM Gillespie 12:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that was directed me and taken to be a rant, then you have my apology. I have no real problems with any of this article, but losses in this and other US operations has been something I've studied repeatedly for 30 years. The page I referred to above was the page (of Tilford) cited in the article as the source for the figure used. On that page the information given contradicted itself--"14" in one reference, "1" in another. The "1" was correct. IJMO but Tilford is an academe who uses his past service as a USAF officer where it helps him to establish credibility; otherwise he backs away from it. I've read his stuff and in my opinion it would be polemic if, say, it were about Catholic doctrine rather than Air Force doctrine. My main thrust is that we tend (I am as culpable of this as anyone) to see "US govt" and consider it a document, when it is actually an academic argument. As I said, if it came off as a rant (which to me it did on re-reading) then I apologize because the work done before is excellent.--Buckboard 11:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RE Earl Tilford

message: Have reverted all instances of references to NVA and NVN from the article. There is not and never has been a nation named North Vietnam. There is not and never was a military force named the North Vietnamese Army. Both are western constructions and since we are striving for historical accuracy (see above) I believe we should use the titles prefferred by each belligerant power. Also removed reference to Communist China when it was already refferred to as the People's Republic and another reference to "Red" China. RM Gillespie 15:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RE NVN and NVA

message: This article is written from the perspective of the US.  For example there is a lack of info on the DRV politics and mention of DRV players (or notable pilots, whereas notable US pilots are given a lot of attention). I know this may be due to the ease of finding info on US pilots and politics in english, but it would be nice if it could be somehow be made less US-centric. There has to be SOME information on DRV politicians and players.  User:Brentt 20:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article could use some DRV perspective

message: Just dropping by this article. In the info box it states that there were 104 american air combat losses out 134 shot down. In the article it becomes clear that 104 were lost in combat, the other 30 due to non-combat losses. Of the 104 only 24(+7 induced) were due to air to air combat. Do I understand this correctly and if so, should the info box be clarified? 
Bas van Leeuwen (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. combat losses confusion 

message: I propose that Battle of Haiphong Harbor be merged into Operation Linebacker. I think that the content in the BOHH article, involving a 15-30 minute skirmish in the context of the larger operation can easily be explained in the context of OL, and the OL article is of a reasonable size that the merging of BOHHF into it will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Fladrif (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: So many errors, so little time.  Here are a few...
Shrike Missiles were airborne missiles, not ship launched, and the only missiles the Rowan carried were short range anti-submarine missiles called ASROCs.  
It was highly unlikely that there were Redeye missiles aboard as well.  Not standard issue.  If they were on board they would have been manned by Gunners Mates, not Signalmen.  Their use in combat which involved friendly aircraft was not advisable in any case.  
Was on same class of ship as Rowan off coast of South Vietnam and North Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin.  
Jeff4 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion moved from Battle of Haiphong Harbor 

message: G'day all, as part of a quick review of old Milhist A-class articles, I have noticed that this article currently doesn't meet the project's referencing requirements for its A-class articles. As such, I have marked these in the places where I think they are needed. I also think that the US air order of battle section needs references. Is anyone able to add references in these places? If not, I intend to nominate the article for an A-class re-appraisal. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have listed this article now for A-class re-appraisal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Linebacker. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing citations

message: The portion describing Adm. Jim Holloway's request for air support during the Haiphong bombardment mentions planes from USS Coral Sea.  But in his memoir he wrote that he communicated with "Raven 44" which most likely was an Attack Squadron 93 flight off USS Midway.  Though the squadron was known as the Blue Blazers, the radio callsign was Raven.
<ref> http://uss-newport-news.com/hist/operation_lions_den.pdf <ref>
Curly2004 (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admiral Holloway's aircraft arrival 

message: It has been said in a number of credible sources, including Ethell and Price, that this aircraft was finally downed by a SAM. In his book MiG-21 Units of the Vietnam War, Istvan Toperczer credits the aircraft to a MiG-21 of 927 Fighter Regiment piloted by Vu Duc Hop. Now, I understand that emotions can run pretty hot on these things. I also understand that there are several good sources that back the SAM claim, including Cunningham himself. But given the detail provided, I’d suggest that it is disputed. Not wrong - disputed. Flanker235 (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cunningham-Driscoll shootdown disputed