This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status:
This article is part ofWikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
Image:NuCuoiChienThangbyDoanCongTinh.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used underfair use but there is noexplanation or rationale as to why its use inthis Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to theboilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent withfair use.
Please go tothe image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale. Using one of the templates atWikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page. Thank you.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial page:http://thewall-usa.com/summary.asp shows total US casualty figures for 1972 as 640, by doing a count for the period of the battle and deaths by location, there were approximately 20 US KIA in and around Quang Tri Province during the time of the battle, so this is the correct figure to use.Mztourist (talk)08:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
Recommended Modification of the 11July 1972 insertion of Vietnamese Marines as follows. Replace "was deployed by HMM-164 and HMM-165 helicopters" with "was deployed by US Marine HMM-164 and HMM-165 helicopters escorted by US Army AH-1G helicopter gunships"
I was on the July 11 mission as an Army gunship pilot. So I know my suggested edit is correct. But I also know an edit can't be based on personal knowledge or original research. I am not an editor and would prefer an experienced editor make the change based on a research of military records. I also have no clue how to do that research. So the edit is just a suggestion. Won't hurt my feelings if nobody picks it up. I know it would take some work.
Vietnamese IP UsersUser:2001:EE0:426F:87B0:307A:90E7:AD0A:3F86 andUser:113.189.175.20 who are presumably the same User as they have made the same changes to this and other pages are edit warring the casualty figures here and there. We have a reliable source, Willbanks who states South Vietnamese killed, we therefore do not need to get into the detail of how many Marine casualties (killed and wounded) there were in various phases of the battle. As with their edits toOperation Junction City they seek to make South Vietnamese/US casualties appear larger while making North Vietnamese casualties appear smaller.Mztourist (talk)04:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article relies way too much on a single public domain source. 80 per cent of it has no other citations at all, and is a direct cut and paste.Bateros (talk)03:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your tag was that the page was overdetailed, what policy supports that? You also seem to object to a direct cut and paste from a PD source, what policy supports that complaint?Mztourist (talk)03:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the relevant passage on PD sources.
Please don't data dump! The resources below are valuable, but many are also old (with antiquated style and sometimes factual errors), dependent on context, sometimes written from biased points of view, and otherwise are not in themselves good encyclopedia articles. If you copy material from these sources, please do not simply dump it verbatim – instead, take the time to verify the accuracy of the information (by checking more recent scholarly work); properly attribute the material; format and wikify the material (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout).
The fact that 3200 of 3900 words rely solely on one source and indeed ARE that source is the very definition of over detail for a specialised audienceBateros (talk)03:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is your specific objection to the wording other than claiming that it is a data dump? Are you saying that it is inaccurate or contains factual errors? If so, you need to specifically identify your concerns rather than just tagbombing. There is nothing overdetailed about it, it was a long battle and that requires detail of what occurred, however these is no potential to spin off any part of it. Just because a substantial part of a page is copied from a single source doesn't mean its overdetailed. If you have a problem with overdetailed pages go take a look atBattle of Long Tan.Mztourist (talk)03:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHER is not an argument and regardless, The Long Tan article has many of the same problems but at least it's properly sourced with multiple RS.
The level of detail here, and there, is excessive and unnecessary and of interest only to a specialised group of military historians. It's too much for a Wikipedia article, especially when it is a verbatim copyBateros (talk)03:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you're not saying that the page is inaccurate in any way just that it is too long and based largely on one PD RS (there are other RS, such as Osprey's Vietnam 1972: Quang Tri, but as they all say the same thing I don't see the need to find and add them). This page and most every other military history page is highly detailed and "of interest only to a specialised group of military historians." Your opinion that the page is "too much for a Wikipedia article" is just that, your opinion, unless you can build a consensus that supports trimming it. Meanwhile as I noted on your Talk page, but you immediately deleted:[1] for a new User with a 1 day old account you seem incredibly familiar with WP policies.Mztourist (talk)07:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it's in an Osprey it must be true! They're always super reliable!
Don't strawman this into something about accuracy either. Most military history pages have nowhere like this level of detail. The Vietnam War ones seem to be magnets for this level of over-coverage, but they are at least generally better sourced.
My point isn't that a page shouldn't be detailed, but that there needs to be more support for the noteworthiness of the information in an encyclopaedia. There should be more sources. What's not useful is have 80% of an article be a direct cut and paste of a PD source. There are POV and fact checking issues with doing this as outlined by the guideline.Bateros (talk)07:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to raise an RSN (I assume you already know what that is) claim regarding Osprey. I'm not strawmanning anything (good knowledge of the term though). Most military history pages are this detailed as an experienced User like yourself knows already. You don't get to decide what is and isn't useful. The article is not a "direct cut and paste" as I checked everything and wikilinked as necessary. There are no POV or fact-checking issues with this page, but if you disagree you are welcome to raisespecific issues for discussion.Mztourist (talk)07:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to RSN Osprey , because you haven't bothered to add any other sources to the article. If as you claim you've fact checked it all then that should be easy enough to do...
Most military history pages have nothing like this level of detail. Wikilinking stuff when you cut and paste does not avoid POV or fact checking issues. It is wrong to have this much text in wikivoice without better sourcing. We should not have this much copied verbatim without any other corroboration.Bateros (talk)08:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Written from diverse views and sources, the common thread in this narrative is the continued resistance of the South Vietnamese Armed Forces, in particular the Vietnamese Marine Corps, to Communist aggression. This book is written from the perspective of the American Marines who assisted them in their efforts. Someday the former South Vietnamese Marines will be able to tell their own story"
Pretty obvious POV issues stated outright here! This book is from Marine Corps History Centre. It's not a neutral source - certainly not to the point of being the only source, copied verbatim for 80% of the article.Bateros (talk)08:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox military conflict/doc says "The term used is for the 'immediate' outcome of the 'subject' conflictand should reflect what the sources say ... Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard termsbut should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result." In this case, the sources say it's "Pyrrhic", so it doesn't contradict to the guidelines.79.56.198.47 (talk)17:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:183.91.2.242 I posted this on your user page but, clearly need to post it here as well. Please readWP:RS before making any further edits to the page. All edits on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources. Blog posts like this:[2] arenot RS. This source:[3] doesn't even refer to the battle and so isnot RS for the forces involved.Mztourist (talk)07:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching and only found one Vietnamese source to prove that South Vietnam used their ground forces, it is not blog and hope it is valid.183.91.2.242 (talk)08:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No that source is the Vietnamese government, which is notWP:RS about South Vietnamese forces. There are numerous books that cover this battle, so unless they say that other South Vietnamese forces were involved then it is not supported. Please stop making changes to the page and discuss your proposed changes here first.Mztourist (talk)08:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You added this as a reference for RVNAF involvement: Khúc Tráng Ca Thành Cổ Quảng Trị. Author: Trần Lê An. Chapter 1. You need to properly cite references, so if that's a book provide the publisher, year, ISBN and page number. If its an article provide the publication, date, page number and preferably url.Mztourist (talk)08:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you to discuss changes here first, but you ignored me. The video you added is dated 5 April 1972 (see under Data), sobefore the battle! Please revert your changes and discuss any further changes here first.Mztourist (talk)08:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which I asked you to stop doing.Stop changing the page until we agree that RS support what you want to add. So you changed ARVN to Artillery forces citing "Pyrrhic Victory: Strategic Triumphs, Tactical Toll, Unveiling the Costs of Conquest" but you haven't provided publisher, year, ISBN and page number so its not a valid reference and frankly I think you're just trying to find anything and claim its a valid source. Then for RVNAF you added Nalty, without any page number, I looked at Nalty and there's a slight reference to the RVNAF in action at Quang Tri on page 355, so that can stand as a ref.Mztourist (talk)03:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Inthis part, there is a missing period after the sentence "During the battle, the South Vietnamese sources claimed that they lost 977 killed out of 3,658 casualties (Marine division only)". Please add a period to fix this minor typo.
Additionally, in the introduction of the article, please change "...while the U.S. only provided fire support for their ally." to "...while the U.S. only provided fire support for its ally."183.91.3.34 (talk)10:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
MACV (Military Assistance Command, Vietnam) was an American organization so here we need to clarify. Inthis part, first paragraph, please change "On 14 June, I Corps commander, South Vietnamese Lieutenant General Ngô Quang Trưởng briefed his President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu and MACV on his planned counterattack to retake Quảng Trị Province from the PAVN." to "On 14 June, I Corps commander, South Vietnamese Lieutenant General Ngô Quang Trưởng briefed South Vietnamese President Nguyễn Văn Thiệu and American MACV on his planned counterattack to retake Quảng Trị Province from the PAVN."14.232.208.165 (talk)17:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done Firstly, I'd like to thank you for your detailed edit request, even including a link to the section. (saves me some work)
Now for the first part of the edit ("south vietnamese president" instead of "his"), I will not do that at this time. It is not necessary, because the beginning of the sentence already implies that "his" president is the South Vietnamese one.
I will implement what I believe to be the spirit of the second part of the edit, but differently from your suggestion, so it also solves anyMOS:ACRO issues at the same time. If you don't feel this answers your request, you may reopen the request by setting it to unanswered again.
Partly done Firstly, I'd like to thank you for your detailed edit request, even including a link to the section. (saves me some work)
.svg)
