Talk:Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966)

Victory?
I see no source saying that was US victory but user:Mztourist keep saying that. TDN92 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Clear US/ARVN victory as VC did not achieve their objectives and were wiped out. VC claims of the damage inflicted are obviously ridiculous propaganda. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 20 aircraft damaged was propaganda? What if I think 28 VC killed are American propaganda as well? That's what you say not what the source say. Find out source to prove it. TDN92 (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The VC propaganda I was referring to claimed 600+ US and ARVN killed, 260 airplanes, 1 depot with 300 tons of bombs and 13 military vehicles destroyed, all obviously untrue. The facts are that 3 US and 3 ARVN were killed, 20 aircraft damaged (not destroyed) and 3 vehicles destroyed, the entire VC force was killed or captured without achieving their objective of destroying large numbers of aircraft, disrupting base operations or disrupting the buildup for Operation Cedar Falls. I don't care if you "think 28 VC killed are American propaganda as well". There were hundreds of journalists in Saigon at this point of the war so the figures are reliable. You need to find any WP:RS that says they are not.Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's you who have to find the RS to prove it American victory, Mztourist. Ironically, I found out that you are contradicting your own opinion on this page. You blamed another guy for his inconsistence, but now you're doing exactly the same. TDN92 (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You should read the RfC on that Talk page which discusses the issue at length. The Rfc concluded that French operational failure was not the same as a Viet Minh victory. An attack/battle usually has a clear victory/defeat outcome and that is the case here. I'm tired of your edit-warring as you push your propaganda/POV and will add a WP:RS that clearly states this was a US/ARVN victory. Mztourist (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Dino nam has failed to provide a single WP:RS that says this was a Viet Minh strategic victory." → This is exactly what you said on that page and exactly what you fail to follow on this page. Until you can add a source, just keep it "See 'Aftermath'". TDN92 (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * p/s: You want to see RS saying that American body count was unreliable? See Guenter Levy's America in Vietnam, p. 450 for more details. TDN92 (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the RfC. Watch the video links at the bottom of the VC attack on Tan Son Nhuit Page of the dead VC and captured weapons at Tan Son Nhut. Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I have reported you for edit-warring here and elsewhere. Mztourist (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. I've read the RfC and that's why I can see your double standard.
 * 2. Interestingly, what I can count from the clip are 17 bodies instead of 28. TDN92 (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added the victory ref from Nolan. You clearly didn't read the RfC. Your count of the bodies in the video is irrelevant.Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * user:Keith-264 said this in the RfC: "Do the RS use the words "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive"? if not '"See the 'Aftermath' section"' is the only tenable alternative. Limited French tactical victory Viet Minh strategic victory is clearly not supported. Interpreting discursive comments by the RS is OR." Still I see nothing like "American victory" or "VC defeat" yet. Surely all of a suicide team would probably die in a suicide attack, so "wiped out" means nothing here but a propaganda term citing from American reports. TDN92 (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * the attacking force was wiped out and none of its objectives were acheived so they were defeated and the US/ARVN victorious. You can pick parts of the RFC to try to back you but I can point to numerous arguments there that support me. As usual with these arguments, you Vietnamese propaganda-pushers always try to change the objective to suit the outcome so that you can claim a victory as you are doing here by saying it was a suicide squad so of course they were wiped out.Mztourist (talk) 12:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely none of the opinion in that RfC dared to say that you may derive your own ideas from the source to write into the result section, because that is totally OR and that is exactly what you're doing now. I don't have much time for you, so no RS, no "U.S. victory", no matter however you analyze your own conclusion. TDN92 (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It took me a while to realise, you're Dino nam aren't you? Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It took me a while to realise you're thinking I'm the guy in that RfC. Sorry but you got the wrong person. TDN92 (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll see, SPI here: Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam Mztourist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll see, SPI here: Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam Mztourist (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

And of course TDN92 was a sockpuppet: Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)