User:Kevin9217 what WP:RS support the existence of this battle? I have Googled it and can't find any. Given the claimed ARVN losses this would have been widely reported, but its not. Mztourist (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not mentioned in Victory in Vietnam: The official history of the People's Army of Vietnam 1954-1973, nor in Willbanks' Vietnam War Almanac. No US military were killed on those dates in that location. Given that the Attack on Camp Holloway and 1965 Qui Nhơn hotel bombing also took place around those dates, its possible that the press didn't pay much attention to other actions. Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet this thing claims advisors were involved and either "destroyed" or "captured." Not the kind of thing the media would ignore I would think. Given the purported losses of both aircraft (what type is unclear) and M113s I'd expect coverage somewhere. Intothatdarkness 11:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, this battle was widely reported for years in Vietnam, especially in Bình Định province, under title Chiến thắng Đèo Nhông - Dương Liễu. No U.S. casualty or engagement maybe the reason why the allied press did not pay attention to the battle. You can see a short text about the battle along with Battle of An Lão in the PAVN 3rd division own's history book at https://kilopad.com/Tieu-su-Hoi-ky-c12/lich-su-su-doan-sao-vang-b3580/trang-3- (in Vietnamese, and likely self-published). I'm not surprised if later journalists extend the original short text to a full legend with some fictional details. Leemyongpak (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does claim US losses (either killed or POW). And ARVN use of M113s was discussed in journals like Armor at the very least. Intothatdarkness 00:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, the remaining American advisors who ran outside, were captured and destroyed by guerrillas may be a fictional detail .:) I don't think using M113s is considered as (direct) U.S. engagement Leemyongpak (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but ARVN use of M113s was studied by the US Army prior to the introduction of larger armored forces; both formally and informally in publications like Armor. For my own research I've gone through both, and don't recall seeing mention of this battle. Intothatdarkness 11:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Leemyongpak thanks for providing that ref, the relevant part translated is: "Next was the Spring 1965 operation. Main and local units fought a number of excellent battles, annihilating almost two infantry battalions, an M113 armored vehicle squadron of the 22nd puppet division at Deo Nhong (Binh Dinh)." I am highly skeptical of Vietnamese claims of victorious battles that are only recorded years later and only in Vietnamese sources: [1]. The only non-Vietnamese source for this battle is the Library of Congress document which is a May 1967 intelligence report documenting claims by a Vietnamese villager that a VC cadre told him that the ARVN prisoners were captured in the battle of Nhong Pass, so even that claim is highly questionable. Probably something happened there around those dates, but I don't think we should have a page based entirely on unsubstantiated Vietnamese claims. Mztourist (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bình Định province was the main battlefield of the PAVN 3rd Division in the Vietnam was, so baobinhdinh.vn's articles were the main source for this battle, other sites just cited them. I don't doubt the existence of this battle, but I'm pretty sure that the current content of the article contains many fictional details. Source from the Library of Congress document is Not Clearly related to this battle, so I recommend remove it and its accompanying sentence. The detail about captured and destroyed American advisors can be removed too. By the way, I absolutely that many guys/gals will be upset if you nominate to delete the whole article, it was translated from their decade-long collected works. Amazingly, User:Kevin9217 - the main contributor has not paid enough attention to the article either :) Leemyongpak (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi,
- Yes, I translated this article years ago.
- I am going to let you guys decide and do whenever you guys want with this article. This article hasn't been on my watchlist in forever. If you want to delete it, go ahead.
- Sincerely, Kevin9217 (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if we start deleting all the fictional details there won't be enough left to justify a page. I don't see any point in revising it to be all "Vietnamese sources claim..." so I'm inclined to delete it, particularly as Kevin9217 is ok with deletion. Mztourist (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the lack of non-Vietnamese sources, I have no intention of improving the article nor do I object to the request for deletion. Leemyongpak (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
