Talk:Battle of Xuan Loc
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
|
Related task forces...
|
|
[edit] Bias?
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)
