Talk:Second Battle of Quảng Trị

Please go to

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 04:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenced figure of 4098 US KIA is clearly incorrect, the Easter Offensive page gives a figure of US combat losses of 300 for all of 1972. Mztourist (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the ARVN Airborne Division.svg
• Flag of the Republic of Vietnam Marine Division.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

it would require

WP:RS but frankly isn't important enough to justify inclusion. Mztourist (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Vietnamese IP Users User:2001:EE0:426F:87B0:307A:90E7:AD0A:3F86 and User: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 to Operation 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).

From here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain_resources#Caveats_and_notes

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 audience Bateros (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 at Battle 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 copy Bateros (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 raise specific 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]

As I said, if you have any specific comments on POV or fact-checking then make them here. Mztourist (talk) 08:11, 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]

Read this page and identify every individual instance of POV. Mztourist (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bateros was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Orchomen on 9 July 2023. Mztourist (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]