# Talk:Battle of Xuân Lộc

This article would be strengthened by unbiased writing and/or more references (e.g. no reference is given for this statement: "It was an engagement describable only as 'heroic and gallant' on the part of the South Vietnamese defenders, being one of the few places where the ARVN, though outnumbered, stood and fought with a tenacity which stunned their opponents."). 
The piece is written from one perspective only. Material from "the other side" should be included.Hu Gadarn 15:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I watched. I waited. Now I've given up. Over the last two months I'd hoped that someone with specific knowledge about this topic would have improved the writing. It is currently hopelessly biased and jingoistic (e.g. phrases such as "impossible odds", "heroic and gallant", "fought with a tenacity which stunned their opponents", "[s]o epic was the stand...", "...repelled in assault after assault with heavy losses."), and "the steel defensive line at Xuan Loc (Long Khanh) still held firm." It almost reads like this was lifted from a comic book or movie written for teenage boys. And this is really too bad because I think that this battle is worthy of attention. Anyway, that's my bit. So long. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 19:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a nice article, if somebody from the communist side would like to add to it, they're free to, but that's no reason to delete this piece. It's quite a contrast to the normal story of ARVN cut and run, and it's also referenced from the VNAF article. --matador300 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to personally thank the author who finished this article, I planned to finish it off but that person beat me to it. --Canpark 17:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I still see a little POV ... the North Vietnamese (a combatant) statement on casualties is stated as a claim while the United States (not a major combatant) statement is supposedly an estimate. These are weasel words and I think unjustified.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The battle section was removed a while back.  I strongly suspect it was just naked vandalism by some communist sypthathizer, or wrose some kid who didn't really think about the issue at all.  So I restored that section and added ref tag links to the only english language online reference I could find.  I am going to check out the booklist at the end.  It would be nice if somoene who knew vietnamese could read the other "external link" and take away what it says about Xuan Loc.  The "battle of Saigon" is a misnomer.  Xuan Loc was where the Vietnam war really ended. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 130mm, use 130 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 130&nbsp;mm.[?]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Hfarmer (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This video has general Le Minh Dao speaking.  I can't tell if Xuan Loc is the subject if anyone knows vietnameese and can translate that would be appreciated.  Video link

There seems to be some disagreement about the strength numbers on the South Vietnam side. It looks like this has been going on since about 2006. I don't have refs before me right now but would anyone like to discuss the reasons for their edits? - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My wife's father is Lt. Col. Tran Minh Cong, commander of the 48th Regiment of the 18th ARVN Infantry Division at the battle of Xuan Loc. The enemy did not capture the town. The enemy changed objectives to bypass Xuan Loc due to their massive casualties and inability to displace the 18th Division. The 18th was then ordered to withdraw south, intact. In fact, it was the 48th's task to clear the roadway south to effect the withdraw. This first hand information is in agreement with John Veith's article on the battle titled "Fighting is an Art" (A partial copy can be found here: http://vnafmamn.com/xuanloc_battle.html). I have spoken with Veith and his co-author/translator Pribbenow. They interviewed Cong for the article and both they and Col. Tran are in agreement that Xuan Loc was not taken by the enemy during this battle.

Added: August 24th, 2012 8:30PM PST.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by M1super90 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 

Maddame, I am certain that the battle went as you said. However it seems that there are those in Vietnam who care to remove all honor from the Southern Army.  If we change it to reflect those facts given in sources both US and Vietnamese that the ARVN fought well at any battle someone turns up to change it.  Perhaps in another 50 years, your people will feel about Xuan Loc the way we in the US feel about first Manassas, second Bull Run, or Petersburgh.  --2601:D:B400:21:4570:7295:1C4C:14A3 (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The following sentence was recently added to the intro paragraph by Nguyen1310: "Over a period of twelve days both sides (but primarily the South Vietnamese) displayed feats of courage, leadership, and determination to battle the communist forces from North Vietnam." I removed this sentence both because it represents a biased POV ("but primarily the South Vietnamese") and because it doesn't make sense. It claims that "both sides" displayed virtue "to battle the communist forces of North Vietnam". Both sides were not battling the communist forces of North Vietnam; only the South Vietnamese were fighting the North Vietnamese because clearly the North wasn't fighting itself. Furthermore, any claims about "courage, leadership, and determination" by any side are fundamentally about personal opinion, and therefore if they are going to be included they should be accompanied by a citation to a reliable source (e.g. John Doe believes the combatants displayed courage, leadership, and determination[citation]). My removal was recently reverted by the author. I believe my removal of the edit was justified, but I don't want to start an edit war so I am bringing this to the talk page. I would like to hear other editors' opinions on this. Neil Clancy 16:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Xuân Lộc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050220230214/http://dirckhalstead.org:80/issue0005/ch1.htm to http://dirckhalstead.org/issue0005/ch1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Xuân Lộc/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 17:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"File:18thARVNsoldiersatxuanloc by Dirck Halstead.jpg" The source is dead.
(Comment) Added archive link. Kges1901 (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Kges1901, it's still dead. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Turns out that the photo is still available online, so I've added the migrated webpage address. Kges1901 (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Kges1901, cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Image captions which are not sentences should not end in a full stop. (Period.)
Fixed. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Cite 5 has something wrong with the formatting - the publisher should not be in italics.
(Comment) Made that small correction. Kges1901 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Which variety of English is this written in? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through and standardized to American English. Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I will do some copy editing as  go through. As usual shout if I mess anything up.
I may be a little slower than usual in working through this one.

"This was the ARVN III Corps' last defensive line of South Vietnam's capital" I suspect a missing word, possibly 'east'.
The lead seems to jump a bit chronologically. See here for a suggested rewording. Feel free to edit.
The name(s) of the North Vietnamese commander(s) should be in the lead.
The "Viet Cong" are named as participants in the infobox, but on a skim I can't see them in the lead nor the main article.
Gog All done, thanks! Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"all the provinces in South Vietnam's I and II Corps" This doesn't make sense.
"all over the battlefield" Optional: → 'across the country'.
"equipped with forty-two artillery guns" Each, or in total?
"the 9th Infantry Division commenced their attack" "their" → 'its'.
Got to the end of Prelude. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Trần Văn Hương was appointed President, and he was ordered to seek a negotiated peace with North Vietnam at any cost" Ordered by whom?
Mztourist, five last comments or queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog all done. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Some of your best work. Promoting. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog! best regards Mztourist (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Xuanloc 18th.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)