Talk:Battle of Binh Gia

Fair use rationale for Image:Binh Gia Propaganda.jpg

Image:Binh Gia Propaganda.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate 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 with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: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 on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The article linked to "Baria" in "Baria-Long Khahn" describes an area in the nation of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.245.254.124 (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanud-up

Also provided some new info, from Triumph Forsaken (the battle is told in quite a detail). --212.91.5.20 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Cisterna, stuff

The analogy is clear, as the Vietnamese Rangers were modeled after the US Army Angers and it was a very similar ambush (hundreds of Rangers sent to capture a village from entrenched enemy without proper intelligence gathering pror to the attack). The whole thing is very little-known despite being probably the single worst defeat suffered by the US special forces ever, I think it would be nice to give it some spotlight.

Also, "Estimated at 1,800" - 2 regiments + 4 battalions + smaller units can't be just less than 2,000 unles they were SEVERELY understrenght.

I added info on the 3 captured US servicemen to the article (one of them was later executed, another died, and another survived), but there was also apparently another American KIA besides the downed helicopter's crew - who was he? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The final ARVN reinforcements were also ambushed

It's not even mentioned here. They were in armored vehicles and got attacked with recoiless rifles and machineguns. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Two found, but I cannot resolve; Chau Thanh could be any one of nine possible districts with articles, Bình Mỹ could be either of two. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have fixed that and added links for Chau Thanh (Kien Giang) and Binh My (Ca Mau).Canpark (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I made a number of minor copy-edits.[1] Otherwise well organized and written.

   ''...to protect the important sea transportation routes which stretched from North Vietnam to the Mekong Delta region Do you mean "river" or "water" as I find it unlikely that the Viet Cong used long transits via the South China sea to reach the Mekong delta?

• • I clarified that sentence: I replaced the word 'delta' with 'river', I also clarify who used the sea routes to supply the Viet Cong.Canpark (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

1. OK, I think that will do.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I assume good faith for off-line sources. It would be good to provide ISBNs, where available, but not a GA requirement.

   * I have fixed the references with a reference template, and added ISBN's wherever I could.Canpark (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Focussed and thorough

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Suitable FUR and captions and licenses.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On Hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for answering my concerns. i am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, mate.Canpark (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong coordinates

Could someone please check the coordinates? Teh ones given in the article are definitely wrong as they point to a place northeast of Hanoi. --88.73.40.118 (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think I found the right Binh Gia; coordinates have been corrected. --88.73.51.8 (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Binh Gia link

The link "Binh Gia" goes to a description of a city or town in the northern part of Vietnam. The battle took place in the southern part of what was then South Vietnam. Thus, the link is inappropriate and should be removed.

Thanks, now corrected. Mztourist (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

18 January 2021

User:Leemyongpak What do 1st, Q761 and 2nd, Q762 mean? Are those battalions of regiments? If so please write them out properly if you wish to make these changes. Mztourist (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Mztourist

In the 1st source of cuuchienbinhtphcm.vn about Colonel Tạ Minh Khâm, we have "Tiểu đoàn 4 của Trung đoàn 2 và cố Trung đoàn trưởng Tạ Minh Khâm vừa được Chủ tịch nước Trương Tấn Sang ký phong tặng và truy tặng danh hiệu Anh hùng LLVT." , and "Trung đoàn trưởng Tạ Minh Khâm, (thứ 2 bên trái) cùng BCH Trung đoàn trong chiến dịch Bình Giã (tháng 12/1964)". Comparing with the article's photo description about Colonel Ta Minh Kham, we know that the 272nd regiment in U.S. document is the 2nd regiment in PAVN document.

In the 2nd source of baobariavungtau.com.vn, you can see "Rạng sáng 2/12/1964, C445, bộ đội địa phương của tỉnh, phối hợp với Tiểu đoàn 1, Trung đoàn 761, bộ đội chủ lực Miền Đông nổ súng tiến công Ấp chiến lược Bình Giã, mở màn chiến dịch." Comparing with the article's battle first sentence, we know that the 271st regiment in U.S. document is the 761st regiment in PAVN document

In the 3rd source of baoquankhu7.vn, you can see "Lực lượng tham gia chiến dịch gồm 2 trung đoàn bộ binh (1 và 2), Đoàn 30 pháo binh Miền, 2 tiểu đoàn chủ lực Quân khu 7, 3 tiểu đoàn chủ lực Quân khu 6 và các đơn vị bộ đội địa phương tỉnh, huyện, du kích các xã trên địa bàn chiến dịch.", and "Trận tiêu diệt địch ứng cứu, giải tỏa bằng đường bộ của Trung đoàn 762, tiêu diệt gọn Chi đoàn 3 thiết giáp của địch.". Combining this information with the two above information we know that the 271st regiment in U.S. document is the 1st regiment or 761st regiment in PAVN document and the 272nd regiment in U.S. document is the 2nd regiment or 762nd regiment in PAVN document

Extra information about PAVN the 9th division at https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C6%B0_%C4%91o%C3%A0n_9,_Qu%C3%A2n_%C4%91%E1%BB%99i_nh%C3%A2n_d%C3%A2n_Vi%E1%BB%87t_Nam show that Q761, and Q762 are the code name of its first and second regiments also.

To keep the article consistent, we can use 271st and 272nd regiments as official name in Infobox, and put 1st/761st, and 2nd/762nd in parentheses beside. Leemyongpak (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

When you make changes to a page you are responsible for ensuring consistency, so if you believe those unit names are correct then you don't just change them in the Infobox you need to change them throughout the page. Your changes within the Infobox aren't even consistent as it currently reads "671st Regiment (1st, Q761" and "672nd Regiment (2nd, Q762" Are they 671 and 672 or 761 and 762? Mztourist (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. I have just reverted PAVN regiments' name back to 27 November 2021 revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Binh_Gia&diff=1066368444&oldid=1057448663. Because this GA article was based mainly on U.S. documents, so just add some notes about name mismatch is easier. Leemyongpak (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hoài Đức district in Aftermath section

Current Hoài Đức district belongs to Hà Nội in Northern Vietnam.

Hoài Đức district in Battle of Bình Giã belonged to Bình Tuy province in Southern Vietnam,

it is current Đức Linh district of Bình Thuận province.

Details in Vietnamese version of old Bình Tuy province https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%ACnh_Tuy#L%E1%BB%8Bch_s%E1%BB%AD Leemyongpak (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The start day and end day of the battle

Due to the cited source http://baotanglichsu.vn/vi/Articles/3097/19638/chien-dich-binh-gia-buoc-truong-thanh-cua-quan-chu-luc-mien-nam.html , The Battle of Bình Giã lasted from December 27, 1964, to January 3, 1965. The battle was phase 2 of a larger campaign with phase 1 lasted from December 2, 1964 to December 17, 1964.

Current Battle section mentioned During the early hours of December 28, 1964 following the cited source Price, Donald L. (2007). I got 3 thanks from User:Kevin9217 for my recent edits on this battle including the duration change. Although, as usual it is difficult to got idea sharing from User:Mztourist. In fact, Viet Cong prepared for this battle (phase 2) in 10 days from December 18 to December 27. They just opened fire in the early hours of December 28 to start phase 2.

Mztourist's revert destroyed my contribution to correct the battle details.

Another result for keeping end day of the battle to January 1, 1965 lead to contradictory when listing ARVN 35th Ranger Battalion in the battle, because in fact this battalion has been ambushed by VC Q762 (271st in U.S. source) on January 3, 1965. Above baotanglichsu.vn source mentioned (in Vietnamese): Phối hợp với hướng chủ yếu, ngày 1 tháng 1 năm 1965, Tiểu đoàn 4 Trung đoàn 762 phục kích diệt gọn một đoàn xe 10 chiếc trên đoạn Cóc Tiên, Đường 15. Ngày 3-1, Trung đoàn 762 phục kích trên Đường số 2 diệt đoàn xe 16 chiếc, đánh thiệt hại nặng Tiểu đoàn 35 biệt động quân. On January 1, 1965, ARVN 35th Ranger Battalion was still on the way to join the battle. Leemyongpak (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Just in case, someone think PAVN source is not reliable enough. We have another source from ARVN Airbone, that mentioned the participation of ARVN 35th Ranger battallion in the end day of the battle on January 3, 1965. Leemyongpak (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Preparations don't amount to the battle, it starts when the attack started, so 28 December. In relation to the end date of the battle it ended when the fighting at Binh Gia ended. A later ambush of ARVN forces nearby doesn't mean that the battle continued until that date. Your edits and non-RS sources directly contradict Price and Moyar. Mztourist (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

VC opened fire in the late hours of December 27 , 1964 suddenly, ARVN got in chaos, so they thought it was the early hours of December 28. The current article's content even wrote the wrong VC regiment started the battle, it must be Q761 (1st) regiment under the command of Lieu. Col. Nguyễn Thế Truyện instead Q762 (2nd) of Lieu. Col. Tạ Minh Khâm. And I understand why when looking back to the GA review, the reviewer said I assume good faith for off-line sources. For now, I just show the truth with online sources in this talk page, so other editors can consider later.

I have reliable and verifiable sources from both PAVN and ARVN. As usual, it is difficult to get idea sharing from you (as I see till now, it is just for me, but for many other editors), so I will wait sharing from others. Leemyongpak (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

PAVN sources are not reliable, while the ARVN source is also of dubious reliability. There are two RS books which give the dates of the battle. In addition the battle chronology from UPI published in the New York Times on 3 January 1965 states that the battle started on 28 December 1965 and ended on 1 January 1965. A later AP story states that the VC launched a new attack on 4 January and another AP report on 5 January said that the VC had left the area.Mztourist (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

You can keep your favorite information in the article. I have my favorite information on its talk page. I'm a peace-lover, and I always have some comrades - who share my idea, just sooner or later. See you in the next consensus. Leemyongpak (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Its not about "favorite information", its about reliable sources and you should familiarize yourself with WP:RS. You obviously regard Vietnamese sources as reliable, when they clearly are not as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions.Mztourist (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)