Talk:Battle of Đồng Xoài

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Đồng Xoài/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ironholds (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lede

• Don't bold "American War"; it isn't part of the title.
• "between 9–13 June 1965" is grammatically incorrect; "from 9–13 June 1965" or "between the 9th and 13th of June 1965"
• The lead section contains no mention of the background
• "On June 10 the ARVN 1st Battalion arrived on the battlefield, but they were quickly destroyed by the Viet Cong 271st Regiment near Thuan Loi" - "They arrived on the battlefield on June 10, but were quickly destroyed by the Viet Cong 271st Regiment near Thuan Loi."
• "But by that stage the Viet Cong had already withdrawn from the battlefield, so the U.S. paratroopers were ordered to return to base without a fight." - "By that stage, however, the Viet Cong had already withdrawn from the battlefield."

• • DoneCanpark (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Background

• "General Tran Thiem Khiem had a fall out with Nguyen Khanh " - "General Tran Thiem Khiem fell out with Nguyen Khanh "
• After the first mention of someone's name, use their last name only when referring to them.
• "North Vietnamese leaders in Hanoi made the decision to launch a summer offensive, to destroy the regular units of the South Vietnamese " - "North Vietnamese leaders in Hanoi made the decision to launch a summer offensive to destroy the regular units of the South Vietnamese "
• "liberated " is hardly a neutral term.

• • DoneCanpark (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Prelude

• "two companies from the ARVN 36th Ranger Battalion was destroyed " - "two companies from the Battalion were destroyed "
• "As the ARVN 34th Ranger Battalion marched upward towards Phuoc Binh, the Viet Cong 272nd and 273rd Regiment was ordered to destroy the South Vietnamese Rangers" - "As the Battalion marched upward towards Phuoc Binh, the Viet Cong 272nd and 273rd Regiments were ordered to destroy it"
• "However, by the time the 272nd Regiment arrived at the ARVN 34th Ranger Battalion’s staging area, the South Vietnamese had already pulled out and successfully recaptured Phuoc Binh" - "However, by the time the 272nd Regiment arrived at the Battalion’s staging area, the South Vietnamese had already pulled out and successfully recaptured Phuoc Binh"

• • DoneCanpark (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Battle

• Section headings should not start with "The"
• "Precisely at 11:30 pm" - "At 11:30 pm"
• "than an infantry assault lead by the 272nd Regiment soon followed" - "soon followed by an infantry assault led by the 272nd Regiment"
• "While fighting were raging inside the district" - "While fighting raged inside the district"
• "At around 8 am, as the UH-1 formations of the 118th Aviation Company descend on the landing zone near the Thuan Loi rubber plantation, about 4 kilometres north of Dong Xoai, they began to receive fire from bunkers and foxholes surrounding the area" - "At around 8 am the UH-1 formations of the 118th Aviation Company descend on the landing zone near the Thuan Loi rubber plantation, about 4 kilometres north of Dong Xoai; they immediately began to receive fire from bunkers and foxholes surrounding the area"
• "So after U.S. helicopters had departed from the landing zone, soldiers of the Viet Cong 271st Regiment immediately turned their attention on the South Vietnamese. Within 15 minutes the main body of the ARVN 1st Battalion was completely destroyed" - "As a result, after U.S. helicopters had departed from the landing zone, soldiers of the Viet Cong 271st Regiment immediately turned their attention on the South Vietnamese. Within 15 minutes the main body of the ARVN 1st Battalion was completely destroyed"
• ". As the soldiers of the 52nd Ranger Battalion marched towards the town centre, their lead company was decimated in an ambush mounted by elements of the Viet Cong 271st Regiment.[20] Undeterred by the strength of the Viet Cong, the ARVN 52nd Ranger Battalion continued their march towards the town centre" - ". As the soldiers of the Battalion marched towards the town centre, their lead company was decimated in an ambush mounted by elements of the Viet Cong 271st Regiment.[20] Undeterred by the strength of the Viet Cong, the Battalion continued their march towards the town centre"
• "the soldiers of the ARVN 52nd Ranger Battalion" - "the Rangers"
• "encountered only few hostilities" - "encountered few hostilities"
• "once again unleased their trap on the South Vietnamese paratroopers" - that's about as neutral as the live wire.
• "South Vietnamese forces within the vicinity of Dong Xoai was " - "South Vietnamese forces within the vicinity of Dong Xoai were"

• • I have reworded some sentences in the battle for the sake of neutrality.Canpark (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing and images

• The images are rather crude. Are there no useable photographs or maps?
  • I have images of better quality, but I could not obtain permission from the photographer to use it here on Wikipedia. So I had to settle with the ones I found on the website, which I have cited on the article page. The same goes for the maps, but I intend to improve on those when the opportunity arises. Canpark (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• The sourcing worries me somewhat. All accounts of casualties and victories that you have used come from Vietnamese publications, ones published by "Liberation Publishing House" and written by anonymous authors, or ones published by the PALF directly. I will not pass the article as a GA until I have some assurances that the information being put into it is neutral in nature. Ironholds (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I can understand your concern regarding the sources. The source published by the 'Liberation Publishing House' did mentioneded the Communist's setbacks in the Dong Xoai campaign, such as the loss of Phuoc Binh, which was significant because the Viet Cong don't usually admit to losing ground. So one must consider it as neutral. As for the other source written by the anonymous author, I believe it is legitimate because several major U.S. publications have cited that particular source, as it was one of the 'official' Vietnamese accounts published after the war. The Vietnamese sources which I have found can be fairly one-sided, but it can also depends on how an individual interpret the contents. My intention in using those sources were to provide two different perspectives, both Viet Cong and South Vietnamese, which is often lacking on Wikipdia. Most articles relating to the Vietnam War are written entirely from either the American or Australia perspectives, with the Vietnamese side almost completely disregarded. So I would consider it unfair if you fail my article based on the perception that Vietnamese sources are not neutral, because it would not do the Vietnamese side any justice.Canpark (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
    • So writing an article entirely with American sources is POV, but entirely with Vietnamese sources is not? Ironholds (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
      • It depends on the context. This battle was fought by two Vietnamese armies, and the Americans played a support role, so their perspective is quite limited in that manner. As I've said before, its about perspectives.Canpark (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Certainly, but it's rather a stretch to suggest that Vietnamese sources published post-Communist takeover of the entire nation will be entirely neutral; I'd also have a problem with an article based entirely on American sources, since that's not neutral either. I appreciate that non-Vietnamese published material on the subject may be limited, but could you humour me and take a look on google books and the like? It's things like casualty totals, for example - it's good to have as many perspectives on them as possible. Ironholds (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I have tried google books, and again there is very little from there. I have made the most of what is available out there, as far as details are concerned. The casualties list for the South Vietnamese were taken from an American source, which was significantly lower than the ones reported by the pro-Communist sources, which claimed that over 4,400 South Vietnamese and Americans were killed.Canpark (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Ooh, gotcha; sorry, when reading I apparently missed out the phrase "The Viet Cong claimed...". Headdesk :P. I'll give the article another read-through tonight and bring up any niggles, but (assuming there are no other available sources, and I trust you on the matter) there's no reason why this doesn't qualify. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
              • I have gone through the article again to look for little mistakes; I did all I could since I can't see the mistakes objectively. Its all up to you now.Canpark (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Cool beans; I'll take a look tomorrow morning (long night, sorry) get back to you, and we should have this wrapped up within the next 24 hours. Ironholds (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Final issue; I like the background addition in the lead, but you need to make clear the link between the political instability and the North's decision to attack. Fix that and I'll pass it. My apologies for the delay; essay-writing and RfA-fixing has occupied me. Ironholds (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. Canpark (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Ironholds

Thank you very much for reviewing my article. I will continue to improve the article's quality in the future with additional sources, maps and images.Canpark (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In the command section the page errantly made Lt. Williams as in command, it was actually Captain William Stokes, my Uncle (SSgt Donald Clay Dedmon) was killed while missing in the CIDGN area where Captain Stokes was wounded and rescued by the lead medic Jim Taylor.James Dedmon (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Viet Cong losses -- information in the fact box is incomplete and plays down actual VC losses

The article mentions "several hundred more [Viet Cong bodies] were strewn all over the battlefield" but this information is not included in the info box and so creates the initial impression that the VC lost 126 dead and the ARVN forces lost almost four times that many. This suggests a bias on someone's part since the text of the article -- for those who read that far -- indicates the number of dead was much closer to equal. Someone with the approved editing credentials should correct the information on VC casualties and losses to read "126 bodies recovered inside recaptured compounds, plus several hundred more found elsewhere on the battlefield." 66.162.249.170 (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like this edit has caused some duplication: in the "Aftermath" section, successive paragraphs repeat very similar information about the 126 dead and other details. I am not sure which version was intended to be retained and which to be deleted. Jmchutchinson (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Belligerents

The article states that the battle began when the VC overran a CIDG/SF camp but does not include the SF team/group in the belligerents or leaders. 141.156.187.235 (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Involvement of ARVN 51st Infantry Regiment

There is only one sentence in this article mentioned ARVN 51st Regt, but in another battle in I Corps (South Vietnam) - Battle of Ba Gia that happened 10 days prior to this battle. Then suddenly, ARVN 51st Regt was listed in Infobox's Belligerents. I think it was purely a reading mistake of user SyriaWarLato in September 2015, and should be removed from Infobox. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed per above explanation. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Use a better map from U.S. Army Center of Military History

@Mztourist I want to replace the current simple map of Canpark with Map 2 at page 26 of John M. Carland - STEMMING THE TIDE book https://www.history.army.mil/html/books/091/91-5/index.html, but face the License problem. I see you uploaded a map from CMH at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Operation_Attleboro_3-4_November_1966.jpg, so I ask for your help for how to get CMH Licensing like you did at that map file. Leemyongpak (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think that's a better map, its too large scale. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, it is quite hard to choose between too simple and too large. Let's keep the map simple as it is. By the way, to upload captured maps from CHM Online, we just need to cite the source and use PD-USGov template, right? Leemyongpak (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes the Carland map just shows where Đồng Xoài is with a lot of other extraneous detail, so not really much use, especially as we have a linked location. Yes I just scan the map and upload with the PD-USGov template. Mztourist (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Involvement of U.S. Army 173rd Airborne Brigade

The 173rd was clearly described as not engaged in this battle

1. In Lede sectio:

On June 13, U.S. Army General William Westmoreland, fearing that the VC might secure enough area to establish a large base in Phước Long Province, decided to insert elements of the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade into a major battle for the first time. By then, however, the VC had already withdrawn from the battlefield, and the U.S. paratroopers were ordered to return to base without having engaged with the North Vietnamese.

2. In Battle section:

Westmoreland was unwilling to leave the VC with a position from which they could dominate Phước Long Province. So, on June 13, he made the decision to insert U.S. combat forces from 173rd Airborne Brigade. Subsequently, 738 men of the 1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, were flown out to the staging area in Phước Vinh. Elements of the 3rd Battalion, 319th Field Artillery Regiment also followed later in the day. Upon arrival at Phước Vinh, the U.S. Army task force waited for five days, but it soon became apparent that the VC had withdrawn from the area and had no intention of holding territory. On June 18, the 1/503rd Infantry was ordered to return to base.

So I doubt the appearance of the 173rd in Infobox was part of a reading mistake of SyriaWarLato since 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_%C4%90%E1%BB%93ng_Xo%C3%A0i&diff=prev&oldid=681048868 and need to be removed out of the box. Leemyongpak (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Solved by user Mztourist per above explanation. Leemyongpak (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)