Talk:Operation Castor

fr version

is available in the french article. Shame On You 22:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

details in english

it contains every details about how the dien bien phu fortress was set. from the veterans site. index Shame On You 23:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Belligerents

Legion is part of the French army, no need to separate it from France. I deleted Legion icon.109.190.97.85 (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

French victory?

Saying it's a French victory is like saying one centimeter is too heavy/light. The direct objective of the operation is establishing positions, not defeating sb/sth, so victory/defeat is simply not the correct unit to measure its success. Dino nam (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That is an untenable argument. The Viet Minh controlled DBP, it was an important source of opium and rice for them and it was a strategic position for access to northern Laos. The direct objective of the French was to seize control of the area from the Viet Minh, while the Viet Minh direct objective was to repel the French assault and retain possession of DBP. The French succeeded in securing the area and the Viet Minh were driven out, hence it was a French victory/Viet Minh defeat. When editing under your IP sock 113.190.238.202 you said "not suitable to define as either a victory or a defeat" which is clearly incorrect as the French won possession of the field of battle and inflicted greater losses on the Viet Minh than they suffered themselves, both clear indicators of French victory/Viet Minh defeat. You then said "If someone's defeated, he must fail to achieve his objective. What's Viet Minh's objective then, don't you know?)" yes I do know, the Viet Minh objective was to retain possession of DBP and resist the French and in both of these they failed. Finally in relation to your last argument above that "The direct objective of the operation is establishing positions, not defeating sb/sth, so victory/defeat is simply not the correct unit to measure its success" is similarly untenable, the French knew that the Viet Minh occupied DBP and so driving them out was an essential part of the operation. In war you either seek to destroy the enemy's forces or occupy his land, both of which the French achieved here, so it was an undeniable French victory. So stop edit-warring this to push your POV. Mztourist (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Driving out Viet Minh from the valley was not the strategic objective of the French. What the French really wanted was the establishment of either a "hedgehog" or a "mooring point" to contain Viet Minh's advance in the Laotian theater. Driving Viet Minh from the valley was just a very marginal, minor tactical objective, if it deserved to be regarded as one. If the Viet Minh hadn't been there, the French would still have orchestrated the operation and sent more troops to build up the outpost anyway.
• "yes I do know, the Viet Minh objective was to retain possession of DBP" → Yes so provide any RS to demonstrate that you "know" it please.
• "In war you either seek to destroy the enemy's forces or occupy his land" → Sounds quite humorous. I start to wonder why you hasn't just edited Battle of Khe Sanh as a North Vietnamese victory so far. Dino nam (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The strategic objective was to capture DBP, defeating the Viet Minh who were holding DBP was an integral part of the operation, if there had been no Viet Minh there, it wouldn't be a Viet Minh defeat/French victory and the "Successful French establishment of the Dien Bien Phu outpost" would be an entirely accurate description. It is completely self-evident that the Viet Minh wanted to hold DBP, or are you suggesting this was all part of a genius plan by Giap to lure the French there? In relation to your comments on In war you either seek to destroy the enemy's forces or occupy his land, at Khe Sanh the US forces were not destroyed (or even materially damaged) and the Marines continued operations on the Khe Sanh plateau into 1971, so no PAVN victory there. You continue with the Vietnamese Communist habit of revising the objectives of military operations to suit the outcome. Following your logic the Battle of Muong Khoua was a French Union victory because their orders were only to hold out for 2 weeks until 27 April, but they actually held out until 18 May, far exceeding their objective, but to claim this was anything other than a Viet Minh victory would be ridiculous. Mztourist (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• "Part of the operation" isn't something used to describe it in whole. Yes, the explunging of Viet Minh was a very minor part of it, and so it was part of the "successful French establishment". But you can't describe something using only a part of it; in your sense, the Pyrrhic War should have been a total victory of Pyrrhus, because he had won the most integral parts (a.k.a. battles) of it.
• "It is completely self-evident that the Viet Minh wanted to hold DBP" → The funniest thing I've ever seen on WP. There can be a variety of Viet Minh's intention there: they might have retained the valley at any cost as you've claimed; they might have played an attrition game by mauling or harassing the French as much as they could before falling back; or they might have just been surprised by the French operation, therefore trying their best to regroup and withdraw. So find any RS to support your point, otherwise it will be nothing more than OR.
• The continue of American operation in Khe Sanh area had little to do with their own withdrawal in 1968. The fact is they did withdraw from the base, and the North Vietnamese did occupied the base on July 9; only by the beginning of Operation Lam Son 719 did the Allied factually recapture it (give any RS if you find otherwise). According to your logic, a lost of territory was everything regardless of the strategic intentions, so Khe Sanh would have been a North Vietnamese victory. A more comprehensible example: according to your logic, Operation Junction City would have been a blatant victory of US forces, as they did push the VC into Cambodia ("occupy his land") and did killed a lot of enemy personnel, at least in their casualty reports ("destroy the enemy's force").
• I don't have much info about the Battle of Muong Khuoua, so I don't care if you edit whatsoever of the article. But according to what you've provided, it's probable that the result should have been limited French tactical success plus Viet Minh victory.
• "You continue with the Vietnamese Communist habit..." → nothing more than another violation of WP:NPA... Dino nam (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I am bored with your edit warring and tendentious arguments claiming that the Viet Minh/Vietcong/PAVN were never defeated. Do you have any WP:RS as to what the Viet Minh's objectives were when Operation Castor was launched? Because unless they were "lose 119 men and the field of battle" it doesn't seem like they were successful, whereas all French objectives were achieved. Saying that expelling the Viet Minh was just a minor part of the operation is weasel words, you admit they were forced out, therefore they were defeated, so WP:DTS. I am not going to discuss the outcome of Battle of Thuong Duc any further with you because that was reviewed by an independent party who agreed with my reasoning. In relation to the Battle of Khe Sanh, what WP:RS do you have that proves the PAVN occuppied it on 9 July 1968? What did this "occupation" amount to? The Americans had already abandoned the base, its not like the PAVN conquered anything. When the Americans chose to reoccupy the base in 1971 in Operation Dewey Canyon II they did so essentially unopposed, so does that mean that this was a US victory? Of course it doesn't, any more than the PAVN "occupation" was a PAVN victory. In relation to your accusation of personal attacks, I have already made clear my views you are a relentless POV pusher, adopting the official Vietnamese Communist version of recent Vietnamese history. Mztourist (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's quite humorous that WP:DTS usually should be applied to those who talk about it the most:

• "Do you have any WP:RS as to what the Viet Minh's objectives were when Operation Castor was launched?" Of course not, that's why I've never try to claim it a "victory" for either side just because of something "self-evident" or "doesn't seem like". Give up with WP:OR if you fail to find RS to prove it.
• "You admit they were forced out" is itself a weasel word. There's no evidence that they either have actively retreated or been forced out; so I've never "admit" such baseless thing. Give up with WP:WEASEL.
• "When the Americans chose to reoccupy the base in 1971 in Operation Dewey Canyon II they did so essentially unopposed, so does that mean that this was a US victory? Of course it doesn't, any more than the PAVN "occupation" was a PAVN victory." → Bravo, that's all I want you to realize. So give up with the ridiculous point that "in war you either seek to destroy the enemy's forces or occupy his land" please.
• "I have already made clear my views you are a relentless POV pusher, adopting the official Vietnamese Communist version of recent Vietnamese history." → That's exactly WP:NPA's about. So give up with personal accusation.

Once again, DTS please. Dino nam (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your desire to weasel away a clear French victory is all that's been proven here.Mztourist (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Result

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please comment on whether it's necessary to retain the phrase "Viet Minh defeat" or "French victory" beside the phrase "Successful French establishment of the Dien Bien Phu outpost" in the result section of the infobox. Dino nam (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Retain for reasons set out above. Mztourist (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - Saying it's a French victory is like saying one centimeter is too heavy/light. The direct objective of the operation is establishing positions, not defeating sb/sth, so victory/defeat is simply not the correct unit to measure its success. Dino nam (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete - first, precedent that other operations in WP, (e.g. Operation Rhino in Category:Operations involving American special forces or Operation Barbarossa) are not necessarily saying 'victory'. Second, WP:V that the language of pages I found by google did not say "victory", so I think just follow the cites and do not use it here. examples here or here Markbassett (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Operation Rhino does say US victory. Operation Barbarossa effectively covers the entire start of the German-Soviet war and while it was tactically successful for the Germans they failed to acheive their strategic objective of defeating the Soviets with one knockout blow but it would be oversimplifying to say it was a German defeat or Soviet victory. In relation to [1] it states that all French objectives were achieved, which means a French victory, I can't access [2] Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a clear and important distinction between tactical operations, such as Operation Castor, and operations of grand strategy, such as the 1941 German attack against Russia, the latter's outcome being necessarily equivalent to the outcome of the war itself. -The Gnome (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't follow you. You say below that the operation was a "success", but in an opposed military operation (which Castor) was, success=victory, so what is the objection to saying that? We say it on most other battle/operation pages Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Because that success has nothing to do with a victory. It's of the establishing of a military base, not of defeating enemy troops. Dino nam (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mztourist There is a huge difference between the concept of victory in a battle (or in the whole war) and the concept of success in a tactical military operation. In a conflict, one side can have more successful operations than the other and still lose overall. Moreover, military operations do not necessarily result, in and of themselves, in one side's victory and the other side's defeat. For instance, an operation can be about transferring elsewhere a significantly big group of weaponry and men. It is narrow minded to think in terms of "victory" and "defeat" only. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Delete The infobox is supposed to impart information, in a few words, about the direct and immediate outcome of the operation. And this Wikipedia article is about a military operation. It is not about the effect the operation might have had on the outcome of the war, nor anything else besides the result itself of the operation. The operation was, according to the sources used, a "success" and, accordingly, that is the information that should be in the infobox. -The Gnome (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete The infox summarizes the result per the objective of the operation. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

And defeating the Viet Minh forces who occupied Dien Bien Phu was an essential precursor to that, so what is the objection to saying so? Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• I only object the statements in the infobox do not match the result description. If you wish to write an Aftermath section, with the defeat and victory statements in the section and put "See the 'Aftermath' section" in the infobox, I think that is alright.

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict; result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. CuriousMind01 (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It's not entirely clear to me what's being proposed to be "deleted" above - this terminology seems unhelpful. I'd suggest limiting the infobox result to "Establishment of the Dien Bien Phu outpost", or similar. The various histories I've read note that while in a very narrow sense this engagement was a tactical victory for the French, it was actually the first step towards a major defeat given that the underlying strategy was unworkable, so "victory"/"defeat" formulations seem misleading to readers. Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This page only relates to Operation Castor not the wider Battle of Dien Bien Phu and so it should only address the outcome of the specific operation, which as you note, was a tactical victory for the French. Mztourist (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That seems rather misleading for readers. It seems more useful to tell them what the result of the engagement was. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

What is misleading? Mztourist (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment if the article is about the operation then French victory is the only one that conforms to the result criteria shown above by curious mind and it should stand alone. Explanation and/or qualification should be deleted or See Aftermath section should be used. Something could be added under the Territory criterion if ground changed hands.Keith-264 (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment We should keep the infobox result parameter short concise and do not give overlong explanations. That is left for the article. Personally I have no problem to disregard the guideline in the infobox description which dictates that only "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive" should be used. A lot of battles need a different description for the outcome and at the same time I am not a big fan of "See aftermath". If we go by the infobox guideline it would be probably "French victory", but that sounds imo weird for an operation like this. I therefore think it would be fine to use something which has been proposed for above in the RFC ("Successful French establishment of the Dien Bien Phu outpost"). However, since this is a little bit clunky, I would propose to shorten it into "French Success" or "Successful Operation" or maybe "Establishment of the Dien Bien Phu outpost". Dead Mary (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, but what is weird about saying it was a French victory? They forced out the Viet Minh, killing 115 for the loss of 16. What happened 5 months later is another story on another page. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite agree, hair-splitting and logic-chopping aren't brief.Keith-264 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mztourist It is mostly a semantics thing. An operation can be successful or unsuccessful. A victory in an (almost) commando operation sounds weird (for me). Obviously "French victory" works too, but personally I prefer the aforementioned phrases because it sounds better. Even if this is against the template-guidelines. ;) Dead Mary (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then what should be the outcome of Battle of Hanoi (1946), where the Viet Minh launched attacks on the French in Hanoi, but were defeated and ejected from the city? A clear operational failure (or as I would say it, Viet Minh defeat), but the infobox states "Viet Minh withdrawal". Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I dont know, without further studying the subject, "Viet Minh withdrawal" sounds pretty good, if this is what happened? Ofc course in the end what matters is what the sources say. Also this article is only a stub and the result can obv easily changed if there is a problem. Dead Mary (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, the Viet Minh launched an attack of French forces, failed and were ejected from Hanoi. "Viet Minh defeat" or "French victory" is entirely appropriate, defeated forces usually leave the field of battle or are destroyed/captured. Mztourist (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I dont think there is much use to discuss an entire different article here which is also even just a stub. The result there can easily changed with sources. Dead Mary (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Every tactical operation has specific and finite objectives. According to how much the specifc objectives are met, the operation is judged as a success, a failure, or having an undetermined result. That is when we want to be brief, i.e. in the infobox. The main text can elaborate as much as is necessary. Tactical operations do not necessarily result in military victories (or defeats) and this should be quite evident to anyone familiar with military operations, even as a student of Military History. Operation Castor was successful for the side executing the operation. That is all there is to it. -The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• "Successful French establishment of the Dien Bien Phu outpost" is crystal clear, concise, and exactly what the reader needs to know. It does not force the reader to look through the wiki article to find out what the result of the operation was. There's no need to elaborate further, especially with a tactical operation. It was not a pitched battle, it was an operation, exactly as the title Operation Castor says. The pitched battle was the resulting Battle of Dien Bien Phu, which, since it was an actual battle, had a victor, and the opposing side actually surrendered. Battles have victories/defeats; operations have tactical results. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree, there was a pitched battle for several hours, 115 Viet Minh and 16 French were killed, the Viet Minh were defeated and ejected from DBP. With regard to the distinction you draw between battle and operations, see my comments above on the Battle of Hanoi (1946) and also look at Operation Varsity where the infobox says "Allied victory", not "Successful establishment of Allied foothold on the eastern bank of the Rhine". An opposed operation starts a battle which results in victory or defeat, an unopposed operation (usually) results in the relevant objective being achieved. Mztourist (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Operation Varsity was something totally different from Castor. During Operation Varsity, the defeat of Germans was inevitable to accomplish the mission, as it was part of the German defense, and the objective of the Allies was to defeat that defense outright. On the other hand, Operation Castor could have been well accomplished either with or without the presence of Viet Minh troops in the valley. In fact, fighting would never had occured if French paratroopers hadn't landed exactly onto Viet Minh's positions, or the Viet Minh had chose to withdraw quietly instead of fighting back. But the Viet Minh did resist and withdraw for an unclear purpose, so the pitched battle itself was indecisive. Dino nam (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Dino nam your logic is impossible to follow. In each case an airborne operation was mounted against a defended position, a battle resulted and the defeated forces quit the field of battle. As I said above, an opposed operation starts a battle which results in victory or defeat, an unopposed operation (usually) results in the relevant objective being achieved. If the French had landed and taken DBP unopposed, then "Successful French establishment of the Dien Bien Phu outpost" or "French operational success" would be a perfectly accurate summary of the outcome, but they were opposed, the Viet Minh were defeated and so it was also a "Viet Minh defeat" or "French Union victory" as much as you don't like to admit it. Mztourist (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mztourist:

• Not only the "battle" you've mentioned was just a minor part of the operation, but also its role within the operation is questionable, as I've explained, the operation could have been accomplished with or without it taking place. The outcome of such a battle, which shouldn't have even occurred at all, wasn't representative enough to be considered as the outcome of the operation itself.
• The words "victory", "defeat", or "ejected" are all weasel words in the case of this clash, as no RS have ever analyzed or explained what were the intentions of the Viet Minh when they resisted instead of quietly withdrawing. The result of the clash should rather be described as indecisive. Dino nam (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Why do you say the battle "shouldn't have even occurred at all"? As I have said repeatedly before, the Viet Minh always changed their objectives to match the outcome, so there will never be a RS to explain Viet Minh intentions. The facts are the Viet Minh were at DBP, it was an important place for them strategically and a source of rice and opium and they did resist rather than withdraw. The Viet Minh were defeated by the French and withdrew, there is nothing at all weaselly about saying this was a French victory/Viet Minh defeat. The weaselling is in saying the battle was just a "minor part of the operation", "wasn't representative" and "indecisive". Mztourist (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The battle shouldn't have occured at all, as I've previously explained, was because the objective of the op could have been achieved with or without that battle, and if the Viet Minh had chose to (or been able to) withdraw quietly it would have never happened. If the Viet Minh had regarded the strategic importance of the valley that much, why would there had been only one battalion to "defend" it? In contrast, they deployed a whole division (the 316th) to capture Lai Chau - a town that was being abandoned by the French. Making OR like that (the same as you do about "victory", "rice", "opium", "changed their objectives to match the outcome" etc. stuff) is quite easy, but what you need are RS. As no RS is found by you to support your points, all of them are simply OR and weasel words. Dino nam (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

How could "the objective of the op ... been achieved with or without that battle"? The Viet Minh occupied DBP, the French sought to reoccupy it and a battle followed which the French won. RS say that DBP was garrisoned by more than one Viet Minh battalion, but that they were either on operations or manoeveurs when Castor occurred. It can just as easily be argued that the Viet Minh never expected the French to launch such an operation, so DBP was thinly garrisoned and the French achieved tactical surprise. DBP as an important source of rice and opium for the Viet Minh is clearly stated in various RS. As for the Vietnamese changing their objectives to match the outcome, yes that is my opinion based on years of reading about the First and Second Indochina Wars, the Viet Minh/Vietcong/PAVN never admitted defeat, always claiming victory and that things had gone according to their plans and they even made up battles so they could claim victories, such as: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pat To, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Ban Dong, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chà Là, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Đồng Dương, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hà Vy. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've clearly said that if the Viet Minh hadn't been there or had quietly withdrawn, it would not have made any effect to the French overall objective. You've never known about Viet Minh's objective there, but just make the some OR as a guess. Any RS proves that the operation surprised the Viet Minh? Presuming that it had surprised them, but would the Viet Minh have ever intended to defend the valley (in fact you do realize that the Viet Minh had been "on operations or manoeveurs" according to RS, so the presumption of a prepared defense is even more questionable)? That RS says the valley was "source of rice and opium for the Viet Minh", but is that the author's personal opinion or his scientific derivation about Viet Minh's intention? If the Viet Minh really had thought the same, when would they have obtained such thought, after or before the French occupation? Your citing about "rice and opium" to conclude that the Viet Minh did want to hold the valley is simply a WP:SYNTH, which is nothing more than a variety of OR. Dino nam (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender has nailed it. -The Gnome (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

How so? With the exception of a few large invasions, such as Barbarossa, Torch, Overlord and the US and UK calling entire campaigns/wars Operations, most military operations are tactical. Military operations are generally launched to control position, resources or people and/or to engage/destroy the enemy. One side launches an operation and when the enemy is encountered a battle results, this is the way most battles come about (except where you already have 2 sides in direct contact with each other). I'm not sure what the criteria are of a "pitched battle" and would challenge anyone to give an acceptable definition, but in any battle irrespective of "pitchiness" there's usually a victor and a vanquished. In relation to the comments regarding operations having only tactical results, if we take the Vietnam War as an example, the US launched countless operations most of which didn't acheive anything much at all and aren't worth writing about, while those that acheived their objectives, but didn't engage the enemy aren't of much interest either and so of course you wouldn't claim a "US victory" in those. But when the US launched an operation and engaged the VC or PAVN a battle followed and there was a victor and a vanquished, whether that had any impact on the wider outcome of the war is irrelevant. As you can tell from my continued discussions on this RFC, I really can't see any consistent logic on display, I have cited comparable operations (Operation Varsity) and inconsistent battle results (Battle of Hanoi (1946) and seem to get different reasoning in each case. I should also point out that on Wikipedia there are numerous pages of Operations big and small (e.g. Operation Kryptonite, Operation Steel Curtain, Operation Minden, Operation Pickaxe-Handle among many many others) that record victory or defeat and so either all those should be changed also or everyone should just accept that opposed operations result in battles which result in one side being defeated. Mztourist (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Military operations are not only launched to control position, resources or people and/or to engage/destroy the enemy. An example is Operation Gothic Serpent, in which what the US and UN forces wanted was to kill or capture a single Somali warlord. Dino nam (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That would fall within engaging/destroying the enemy, capturing/killing Aidid would, of necessity, involve engaging his militia army. Mztourist (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact, a bulk of militia was killed during the operation, and most of Aidid's deputies were captured, but the operation was still a strategic defeat due to the failure of capturing Aidid himself. "Destroyed the enemy" didn't make any sense there. Dino nam (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What RS says that the "bulk of militia were killed during the operation"? The US presumably thought that by capturing or killing Aidid they could create stability, instead they found themselves mission creeping into the Somali war and they had no stomach for that. Mztourist (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mztourist: Estimation by most of the RS about the Battle of Mogadishu (1993) ranges 300–1,000 killed Somali militia plus several thousands wounded.[3][4] Even the least number of killed militia given by the SNA is 133, which is at the ratio of about 7 to 1 in comparison to US casualties. Whether the Americans "had no stomach for that", your whole recent OR has just proven nothing but that the US strategically lost it despite killing and wounding a bulk of enemy. Dino nam (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No OR on my part, I said "presumably". What RS is there that 300-1000 militia was the "bulk" as you assert? That is just your opinion/OR. If you look at the Battle of Mogadishu (1993) infox the result says: "Pyrrhic tactical U.S/U.N. victory; Strategic SNA victory" which is an accurate summary Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That depends on your definition of the word "bulk". What I can see is that thousands of casualties represent an enormous quantity and do fit the definition of the word of the Oxford dict.[5] What is your definition of your concept of "engaging/destroying the enemy" then? Any RS to support it? You set up a concept but haven't been even sure to define it yet.

Yes, it was a US strategic defeat. And they suffered such defeat even after inflicting numerous casualties on their enemy. That made your OR theory stumble and fall. Dino nam (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Once again, Softlavender has nailed it - and, now, Dino nam has nailed it also. The issue has become trivially evident. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The Gnome you offer no logical explanation, just your assertion that this user or that has "nailed it" when they have done no such thing.Mztourist (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have provided an extensive presentations of my arguments (in a separate thread in this RfC), and those arguments are amplified and supported by what Softlavender posted up. I find it unnecessary to quote back to you my presentation or repeat Softlavender's quite conclusive arguments. You have made your position clear - you want, no matter what, to have the label "French victory" affixed to Operation Castor in the article's infobox. We get it. Enough already! Let's see how the RfC plays out and what the admins decide. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• V.M.Withdrawal or French tactical success. 3 of the 4 battalions of the 194th Regt were absent that day. It would seem an odd omission for such a hugely vital position. Indeed there was some minor fighting but the V.M did not sustain the attack. The motivations of the V.M. high command do not seem to be reflected in the material we have examined so far, so effectively we do not know them at this point. Indeed the entire article needs expanding i.m.o. The "victory or defeat" options are becoming rather a fetish. Indeed the Allied airborne forces secured the landing grounds in the opening stages of Operation Market Garden#Early successes. Does that point make it an Allied Victory? Of course not. Castor cannot be treated in isolation from the crushing strategic failure of D.B.P which was directly enabled by Castor. I strongly agree with the points made by Nick-D that he made on the 23 November. Irondome (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Defeated forces generally withdraw. As noted previously, VM intentions are unclear and seem to be flexible depending on the outcome of the engagement. No of course Market Garden wasn't an allied victory as the ultimate objectives weren't achieved. As Operation Castor is a separate page and occurred 5 months before the French defeat in the Battle of DBP, it must be treated separately otherwise we should merge the whole thing into the Battle of DBP page.Mztourist (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually that is a good idea and I would certainly support such a merge. Irondome (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a different proposal, though, and should, of course, be tabled separately. I would not support a merger but this is not the time to discuss it. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• The operation's objectives being met, it's clear that French Success is the key descriptor for a short summary (which is what the infobox is all about). GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 11:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

* Conclusion - The consensus seems to be obvious, so I've edited (deleting the phrase) without requesting the closure of the RfC. If anyone finds it's necessary to close the RfC please request it on WP:ANRFC. If you haven't satisfied with such conclusion, please continue to comment. Dino nam (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Retain If there's actually consensus, you should properly request that the RFC be closed. I agree with Mztourist's reasoning regarding leaving the status as it was and don't find the other arguments especially convincing. Intothatdarkness 17:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Intothatdarkness: I say it's obvious because most of the comments are supporting the deletion, and moreover user:Mztourist himself has given up with contesting the idea. WP:RfC says that RfC's closure is sometimes unnecessary if the consensus is obvious. If you find this unsatisfactory you may call for an official closure at WP:ANRFC; I don't protest that. Dino nam (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No I haven't stopped "contesting the idea". An RFC requires formal closure in accordance with the established process.Mztourist (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable." – WP:RfC Dino nam (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that your quoted text says 'participants,' and not the singular. If Wikipedia can make up campaigns (see Comanche Campaign, which only exists for Army lineage award purposes and was never a coherent campaign in the sense the weak article implies), I see no reason why this operation shouldn't have its own status noted. I find Mztourist's points more convincing than Nick-D's. As as far as The Gnome's point, if s/he's not supporting a merger with DPB that seems to indicate that Castor should be considered separately. Intothatdarkness 18:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The question of merging articles is outside the scope of this RfC. Just to be clear, in any case, if and when the question for merging the articles is tabled and opened for comments, I would vote against the merger, on the basis of what we know so far. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with closing down this RfC and fast-tracking to a decision to leave intact the status quo, when there is no consensus for such a decision. On the contrary, the majority of those who have participated support changing the infobox wording! It is disingenuous to demand that the RfC be closed down at this stage. -The Gnome (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Currently there's a 9 to 3 or 10 to 3 consensus to omit the words "victory" or "defeat", so there's no prospect of retaining that wording. Softlavender (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.