# Talk:Battle of Suoi Bong Trang

I added the Vietnamese "(Vietnamese: suối Bông Trang, "Bông Trang stream")" to the lead: 

The Battle of Suoi Bong Trang (Vietnamese: suối Bông Trang, "Bông Trang stream") on  (23–24 February 1966) was a major action during the Vietnam War fought between Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army and US and Australian troops.
In ictu oculi (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? Anotherclown (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Because this is normal en.wp practice across the entire article corpus. However no point in having 3 duplicate conversations, see here  In ictu oculi (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
It isn't normal practice on en wiki practice at all, normal practice is to use WP:COMMONNAME, although I agree about centralizing the discussion. Anotherclown (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
It's worth noting that we're dealing with the names of battles rather than places here. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Why does the lead describe the event as a VC-NVA attack, when the US and Australians were the invaders?Keith-264 (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day, interesting question. I'm not an expert on this battle by any means, but my interpretation is that the battle occured when the VC-NVA undertook an offensive action (i.e. an attack) against a US-Australian security operation (defensive posture). My understanding is that an attack/assault is an offensive operation/phase of war that is undertaken for the purposes of either delaying, disrupting, dispersing, or destroying an "enemy" force or seizing an objective. Within a manoeuvre warfare construct, any side to an armed conflict, regardless of whether they are fighting within their own territory or not, whether invader or not (those terms are arguably subjective in this context, and probably open to varied interpretation), can conduct an "attack". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I was curious because if Vietnamese soldiers were building military roads in Australia or the US they would be invaders wouldn't they? Being in someone else's country is a definition of aggression, if the locals don't want to be occupied; tactically I would have thought the VC-NVA operation was a counter-attack or a resistance operation?Keith-264 (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day again, I don't actually think the term "invader" has been used in the article, and IMO it shouldn't because it is subjective in the case of the Vietnam War (and no doubt in many other wars). The battle took place in South Vietnam, so one perspective would argue that the VC-NVA were technically the "invaders", but then other interpretations would probably say something different (and depending on one's perspective, either position could arguably be correct). Thus, I think we should avoid such characterisations. It seems to me that the words "attack" and "assault" are simply being used to show what sought of military action it was: one side using offensive action to initiate an engagement on a defensively postured other. I don't think that any other meaning is being implied here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
South Vietnam was a fraud ;O) What do Vietnamese people call it?Keith-264 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Its far more complicated than that by far - indeed the vast majority of the soldiers on both sides were Vietnamese. Indeed, I've met a more than a few former South Vietnamese soldiers and officers (and their children) now living in Australia after being forced out of their country as a result of the North Vietnamese invasion in 1975 and that seemed to be how they viewed it. Of course there would also be many others who saw it the other way around. Regardless, I don't see how opinions about the politics of the war are relevant to this article or the MILHIST project and I have no intention of discussing them any further. To respond to the question though, terms such as "attack", "assault" and "defence" are purely used in this article to describe the phase of war / type of operation that occurred and I honestly can't think of how else it could be described. (Not only do they have specific definitions in military theory but they seem to be common terms used throughout the encyclopedia regardless of politics). The term "invader" has not been used. Anotherclown (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Just curious, that's all.Keith-264 (talk)

Are there English sources that use "creek" rather than capitalizing suối as if it is part of the name? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The English language sources that I have use "Suoi Bong Trang" capitalising the S in Suoi (so I'm not quite sure I understand the "rather than" part of your question). This is similar to the presentation of other instances of creeks and water courses. Examples appear extensively in McNeill (cited in this article) such as "Suoi Ba", "Suoi Da Bang", "Suoi Ran" and "Suoi Rao". See also Coulthard-Clark - "Suoi Bong Trang" and "Suoi Cha Pha". Horner also "Suoi Chau Pha", "Suoi Quit", "Suoi Ran", "Suoi Soc" and "Suoi Tre". There are others. Coulthard-Clark p. 281 specifically uses both "Suoi" and "creek": "The next day Preece moved to set up a defensive position beside the Suoi (Creek) Bong Trang..." Anotherclown (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

{{GAR request}}
This article seems highly lop-sided, it it missing links to some geo names, and is not interlinked to a corresponding article on vi.wp, is it really a Good Article in present form? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that you feel are missing? As far as I know the information you believe isn't here isn't available. Of course if it is pls feel free to add it. Anotherclown (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)