Talk:Battle of Ap Bac

	Battle of Ap Bac has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 21, 2011 Good article nominee Listed September 12, 2011 WikiProject A-class review Not approved
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 2, 2013, January 2, 2014, January 2, 2016, January 2, 2017, January 2, 2022, and January 2, 2023.
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / North America / Southeast Asia / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force North American military history task force Southeast Asian military history task force United States military history task force Additional information: /  This article has failed an A-Class review. Vietnam High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Although the battle is rightly referred to as "Ap Bac", as the name is US in origin, the name of the town/village/hamlet itself is simply "Bac". "Ap" got added in US reports in error due to language confusion.

More controversial is my suggestion that "Viet Cong" be replaced by "Viet Mihn" or NLF. "Viet Cong" was another US invention that no one else used. At this particular point in time, 1962, not even the government used this term.

Maury 22:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Ap Bac" is also used by Vietnamese sources too, using "Bac" only doesn't sound right. So I believe the article should stay that way. As for "Viet Cong", it was the military wing of the National Liberation Front known as the "People's Liberation Armed Forces" or PLAF. If you want accuracy then using PLAF is the way to go, Viet Minh is actually the regular

Vietnam People's Army.Canpark 10:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you saying that Vietnamese sources like maps say this? Or Vietnamese sources on the battle itself. I agree that the Battle should contain the word "Ap", just as another famous battle contains "Il". However, neither of these words would be used in context. It would be like saying "Philadelphia city" all the time, instead of just "Philadelphia". As to the Viet Minh issue, at the time, in 1962, the NLF did not exist. In fact it started largely as a side effect of Ap Bac. Prior to that point in time the North had essentially washed their hands of the south in order to avoid inciting the US. When it became clear the US was going to get involved anyway, the success of Ap Bac convinced them the formation and support of a new revolutionary front would not be a bad thing. In fact the article does not mention this and should. Long story short, this force was referred to by everyone involved as "Viet Mihn", and the article should reflect that. Maury 14:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese and English language are different,we call it Ap Bac all the time although Ap actually means hamlet (as in the case of Dawson Creek, you would not call it Dawson alone, if you refer to a local "the hamlet named Bac", he or she wouldn't know where is it, seriously it's just your assumption so i renamed it Ap Bac. Saigon punkid 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about Vietnamese sources on the battle;)I parttially agree with what you've said, that should and must be mentioned. By the way, the Communist group group is spelled "Viet Minh" not Viet Mihn".Canpark 08:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ap Bac is right ( ap is hamlet ,Bac is the name of the hamlet ) Tan Nguyen.69.237.185.1 03:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)tannguyen[reply]

The question isn't just 'which is correct'. It's also the question of what people will use in order to look it up in Wikipedia. I reckon that the current title is the one that would be most often used. --Aim Here 08:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why I object to changing Viet Cong to NLF. Most people know who "Viet Cong" refers to (not to mention that all other Vietnam War-related articles use that term). We shouldn't change things for the sake of political correctness, if it means increasing the difficulty of finding articles through the search function. - Crockspot 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regarding to the word "Ap Bac", it had become a common term used in all media. However, if you want to be picky about it then you can use "ap Bac" because like others said, "ap" is hamlet, which is a common term and don't need to capitalize. Either way, using "ap Bac" or "Ap Bac" make more sense than say "hamlet Bac". --Trần chí Hồng-Tiên (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Viet Minh", the term "Viet Minh" was originally used to refer to all Vietnamese "nationalist" who join forces to fight for Vietnam's independent (initially fighting the French, and then the Japanese in WWII). That combined forces included Vietnamese Communist Party and various Vietnamese Nationalist Parties . The term "Viet Minh" was originated/abbreviated from "Việt Nam Độc Lập Đồng Minh Hội", which was created in 1936 by Hồ Học Lãm with a pen-name "Hồ Chí Minh" in Canton, China, with the help of Kuomintang (KMT), led by Chiang Kai-shek. ***At that time, Hồ Chí Minh (the leader of the Vietnamese Communist Party was using the pen-name Nguyễn Tất Thành and Nguyễn Ái Quốc.*** After Hồ Học Lãm died in 1942, Nguyễn Tất Thành started using the name "Hồ Chí Minh" (he was also a member of the Viet Minh coalition - he slowly "infiltrated" and gained power from within.). In 1941, Nguyễn Tất Thành created an organization called "Việt Nam Độc lập Đồng minh" (without the word "Hội" at the end) and then also used the term "Viet Minh" - in this process, his action eclipsed the original organization created by Hồ Học Lãm; in an essence, Nguyễn Tất Thành took over and eliminated the original organization created by Hồ Học Lãm - all of this lead to a lot of confusion and mis-information which mislead a lot of people into following his movement, many of whom are well educated and came from rich family (people still think it's a "nationalist movement for independent"; however, it's an organization that's part of a bigger Communist Party/Movement) - Personally, I have 5-7 great-uncles (my father's uncles) who had "Đi Tập Kết" (ie: jointing the movement that was called by the Viet Minh to fight the "imperialists", which lasted until 1954).

Some of you reading this will think that I am "pro-nationalist" or else; however, I have family members fought on both side of the war since 1930s - I also went through schooling in Viet Nam after 1975. I am just presenting information on both side of the same subject with the objective is to give credit to the right people (that's my definition of history). Best Regard! --Trần chí Hồng-Tiên (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section: "The Vietcong suffered 18 killed and 39 wounded. Though most later withdrew from the hamlet during the night, they had turned back a larger force equipped with armour, helicopters and airbone troops." To my knowledge, the Viet Cong DID NOT have helicopters and airbone troops (even to the end of the Viet Nam War, I never heard of). I am questioning the accuracy and credibility of this article and the writer. Please justify your information! Regard! --Trần chí Hồng-Tiên (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to the US-backed forces, who had all 3.Bachcell (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M1 rifle or M1 carbine? —The preceding

Good question! Every source I've seen (two) states "M-1", which suggests the "full" one. This would make sense given the fact that these weapons would be much more widely available. On the other hand, the Carbine would be more appropriate to the combat in question. All in all my guess is the M-1. Maury 13:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, referring to "M-1" means the Garand, "M-1 carbine" being the carbine. But both weapons were used early in the Vietnam conflict, as well as the Garand variant the M-14. So I guess I don't have a solid answer. - Crockspot 12:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My dad was trained with the M-1 (ie: Garand cabin) in the Vietnam War; therefore, I believed "cabin" is more acurate. --Trần chí Hồng-Tiên (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CARBINE not 'cabin'

I don't know about you all, but I think this is one heck of an article. Would anyone else be willing to pitch in to respond to upgrades needed to bring it to GA? Maury 20:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph has a link that looks like it goes to an article about the eponymous hamlet. But that link takes us right back to this article. Is there an article about the hamlet? If so, what is the article called, so we can link to it? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A picture for you, if you'd like to use it: the gate at the entrance of the roadway leading to the battle site. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 23:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that A Bright Shining Lie is not included among the reference books, given the key role that John Paul Vann played in this battle. Unfortunately I gave away my copy of the book some years ago. Mztourist (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is incomplete without the inclusion of Neil Sheehan's account of the Battle from his work "A Bright Shining Lie". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.96.146 (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]