Talk:Krulak–Mendenhall mission

message: I'm unwilling to change the direct meaning of a sentence without some confirmation, but I've noticed this in the report section:
::Krulak asserted at the ARVN officer corps at all levels were very conscious of the Buddhist issue, but believed that most viewed it in a detached manner and had allowed religious differences to significantly affect their internal military relationship. (emphasis mine)
Surely this should be "had not"? Shimgray | talk | 12:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, a transcription error. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodgy sentence 

message: Hello all, and congratulations on the upcoming Featured status of this article. 
Observation: As of this writing, this article (Krulak Mendenhall mission) is not hyphenated. However, the article for the follow-up mission described is hyphenated (McNamara-Taylor mission). Any thoughts on this? Ought there be consistency between the two? Thanks to all for all the hard work on this. KConWiki (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just going to bring this up.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally when two names are involved, an endash is used - I've just moved McNamara-Taylor mission to comply with this. I agree that this article should probably use an endash too. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphenization? 

message: I am struck by the content of the photos: a portrait of Krulak leads off, a series of canned pix of various persons peripheral to the mission (Kennedy, Diem, etc.) follows, and not a single picture of Mendenhall—half of the named portion of the mission.  Surely, there are photos of him out there, probably even of him in S. Vietnam.  How about it, Wikipedians? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some quick googling and didn't find much. I did see this, but there are probably copyright issues there. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos? 

message: In the section "Report and debriefing", it is not clear whether Victor Krulak was liked and trusted in the US Department of Defense, or not.  Perhaps there were differences of opinion between several groups, within the DoD?  That is, between the high-ranking generals and admirals, the career civil servants, and the political appointees.  The passage contradicts itself, stating that Krulak was both "universally liked and trusted in the Pentagon", yet "regarded "with great suspicion on the Virginia side of the river [the Pentagon..."
Here's the passage...
The Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric noted that Mendenhall was regarded "with great suspicion on the Virginia side of the river [the Pentagon, headquarters of the Defense Department]",[9] whereas Krulak was "universally liked and trusted in the Pentagon, both on the civilian and military side".[9]
68.35.173.107 (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert, but I don't see any indication otherwise. See also this, cited in the Victor H. Krulak article. That "great suspicion" quote (from here) didn't refer to Krulak, but characterized the view of Mendenhall (who was with the State Dept) by the Military establishment.  Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could an expert on this topic clarify this passage?