Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Assessment of the Battle of Long Tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The assessment is already covered in far-too-excessive detail in Battle of Long Tan. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that this was spun out of the Battle of Long Tan article, and is justified as a stand-alone article. There's a large and somewhat complex literature on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a few reasons. 1. It's already covered in more then enough detail in the article it's spun off of. 2. It's an opinion piece. Which isn't the point in Wikipedia. 3. Both massively violate the whole "Wikipedia isn't narration" thing. Which makes them way to detailed for being considered encyclopedic. It would take to much work to correct though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the "conclusion" section? How are things like "whether they also intended attacking Nui Dat remains uncertain", Despite this, "it seems likely the 5th Division had planned an ambush", "they appear to have been unready when D Company entered the plantation and were likely somewhere on its eastern edge instead." How are sentences like that not opinions? Saying something "likely" happened isn't a statement of fact. You say yourself it's a analysis. An analysis of a historical event is, by it's nature, opinion. That's what makes it an analysis in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. It IS quite appropriate to suggest merge as an alternative to deletion. 11:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoziwe (talk • contribs) 11:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoziwe: - sorry, that wasn't directed at you (as a contributor you are perfectly entitled to suggest a merge), but a comment directed at the nominator whose sole reason for deletion is duplicated content at the main page (which hints at a merge or redirect or keeping the content only on the main page). Bookscale (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookscale: Cheers. 11:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a separate assessment article seems a viable topic to me based on the amount of sources that exist per WP:SIGCOV. By way of some background, coverage of this battle on Wikipedia has been complicated by the fact that this is the most publicised battle of Australia's involvement in Vietnam. Indeed, short of Gallipoli, I'd contend that it is probably the battle that receives the most coverage every Anzac Day. It is also complicated by the fact that many sources disagree on seemingly minor tactical aspects (in heavy detail), and the interest of several veterans of the battle/producers of movies who have also published their own versions or their own opinions (and who also seem to edit Wikipedia - see Talk:Battle of Long Tan and its archives). Regarding comparisons with larger battles, agreed to an extent, but...in military history, it is sometimes about economies of scale. As a small middle power, for a variety of reasons Australians have been prolific authors within the military history sphere, but often with a focus on the tactical, rather than the strategic. This is the "muddy boots" approach to military history; the weight of sources do indeed go to these depths. While I agree that the main article needs paring back (and indeed, I believe AC thought that too before he retired), it will be very difficult to do this without privileging one account over others. In this regard, this seems (to me, at least) an argument in favour of Wikipedia:Splitting so long as WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE are not breached. The content of this article (the assessment article) is supported by reliable sources, although it might need reworking to attribute the source of the assessments in text (e.g. "according to X..." etc). That said, I caveat all of this by clarifying that the complicating factors that I raise above were a key part in driving a very prolific contributor from the project, and I, too, have no desire to get further involved in the topic. Make of that what you will. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am sure that there must be a policy or essay somewhere that discusses excessive coverage of events and topics. The Battle of Long Tan was a minor skirmish that lasted less than 4 hours and yet the main page is longer than probably every other battle and campaign of the Vietnam War, including those far more important by any objective criteria, other than the subjective criteria of its coverage in Australia. In addition to that overlong main page there are the 2 forks of Assessment and Order of Battle, which to my knowledge no other Vietnam War battles or campaigns have. I appreciate that the battle is significant in Australia, has produced multiple WP:RS in Australia and attracted the interest of multiple Users in Australia, but there must be some balance and perspective to the amount of coverage it warrants on WP. I believe that the sheer volume makes it WP:UNDUE relative to the rest of the war. As you may recall back in March/April 2018 I attempted to reduce the size of the main page, reducing it by 20KB to 138KB, but since then another 10KB has been added, so I'm not sure that any paring back will be effective. We can however try and remove unnecessary duplicative forks, such as this one, which is really a blog argument with references. regards Mztourist (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is sourced properly. While the battle was small compared to many events in Vietnam in that period, that would only be an issue if it was given disproportionate coverage related to other events in the Vietnam War article and the like. Editors are free to write about their interests as long as the relevant sources are present and NPOV, UNDUE etc are obeyed. If this gives rise to a cluster of dense coverage on a specific topic, such as stacks of articles, there is no issue unless it is used for spamming, political/nationalist/sectarian propaganda and the like, which is not the case here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject of this particular article is of much interest in Australia, and to a lesser extent, New Zealand, and is a reflection of the amount of scholarship in this space. Comparisons to lack of equivalent articles for other engagements seem unreasonable since editors work in spaces that are of interest to them. I have no objections to a Battle of Stalingrad assessment-type article if scholarship and sources warrant it, but I'm not personally motivated create such an article. Zawed (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, probabably offtopic but anyway ... Mztourist, "The Battle of Long Tan was a minor skirmish ..", here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order of battle for the Battle of Long Tan ("such a minor action"), according to you it may have been (happy to see your cites for these comments), but from from oz army website: "The Battle of Long Tan is the most recognised Australian battle of the Vietnam War. .. American General William Westmoreland congratulated the Australians, declaring they had won one of the most spectacular victories in Vietnam to date.", and from UNSW: ".. depicting one of the most significant battles of the Vietnam war: The Battle of Long Tan." to quote just a couple. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coolabahapple If you have read widely about battles of the Vietnam War it is very obvious that Long Tan was a minor skirmish, a 4 hour long engagement with debatable results. Admittedly it was the Australians first engagement and it has been hyped up in Australia ever since and vastly overwritten, creating the impression that it was a massive and decisive battle. Westmoreland was always looking for some positive news and keen to encourage Allied involvement in the war. Mztourist (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Long Tan wasn't the first battle involving Australian forces in South Vietnam. The Australian Army had been fighting in the country for about a year before it. I don't think that anyone in Australia considers this to have been "massive and decisive battle" (much of the literature the article discusses is actually focused on the debate over the size, significance and results of the engagement), but it is a topic of intense interest for various reasons. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I meant ATF's (i.e. Australians fighting as their own formation (excluding the NZ artillery and US air support)), but yes its a good point it wasn't even the Australian Army's first battle of the war. IMO the volume written about Long Tan in Australia does create the impression that it was a massive and decisive battle, I certainly had that impression before I read the page thoroughly, and I would assume (with no RS) that the same is true for many in Australia, just like they think that Australians fought at Khe Sanh because of a Cold Chisel song. Mztourist (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Assessment_of_the_Battle_of_Long_Tan&oldid=941743665"