Talk:Battle of Ap Bau Bang

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. victory?[edit]

The source doesn't say anything about a U.S. victory. According to the template:Infobox Military Conflict, "The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used". So according to the spirit of the RfC on talk:Operation Léa, "see 'Aftermath'" would be a more appropriate choice. Dino nam (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was a battle, not an operation and so victory is appropriate, I will locate more refs but the victory is WP:BLUE. Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist: I can't see what is relevant about whether this was an op or battle. You must follow the template:Infobox Military Conflict; find an RS to prove it's either side victory. Victory or defeat is a complicated issue to be analyzed, so there's nothing WP:BLUE here; you're contradicting to your own viewpont in talk:Operation Léa. Dino nam (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dino nam to quote Cinderella's useful dictionary definition on Operation Lea Victory': "1. the ultimate and decisive superiority in a battle or any contest. 2. a success or triumph won over the enemy in battle or war, or an engagement ending in such a triumph: naval victories. 3.any success or successful performance achieved over an adversary or opponent, opposition, difficulties, etc.' The statistics clearly show that the US achieved victory by any objective measure, so its WP:BLUE, but as I know that you never accept that the Viet Cong/PAVN were defeated I will locate more WP:RS to support this. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist: The method you use (Carland's source + dictionary) to reach the conclusion can be considered a WP:SYNTH, so it's no way WP:BLUE. Personally, I'd like a more flexible approach on WP:BLUE and template:Infobox Military Conflict, but it's you and some other editors who have reached the consensus with the RfC on talk:Operation Léa before I have time to have any further counter-argument, so I have no other choice but to follow the principle. Dino nam (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Language of sources[edit]

Boldly WP:SNOW closing this thread. This is not a matter to decide at an RfC about an individual article; it is a straightforward matter of policy. As others have pointed out, per WP:NOENG, English sources are preferred, but non-English sources are permitted in cases where English sources of equal quality are not available. Best practice is to provide an English translation of the relevant passage as part of an inline citation or footnote. If translation services are needed, help should be sought at Wikipedia:Translators available, Wikipedia:Local Embassy or, as has already been done, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam. TimothyJosephWood 13:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please comment on whether inserting on an English Wikipedia article a citation of a different language is legitimate. Dino nam (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes - As far as I know no regulations prohibit this. In fact, I believe they create the link language template (for instance (in Vietnamese)) for reasons. Dino nam (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, sources must be in English or accompanied by an English translation, firstly so it can be checked that the source is WP:RS and secondly so that any interested reader/editor can check that the source actually states what is claimed. Vietnamese sources regarding the Vietnam War frequently veer into Wikipedia:Propaganda and must be treated with caution Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like the American sources? I would love to see some WP:RS backing up your claim. I would bet I could find WP:RS saying that American media sources--especially the Anglo-centric ones and those from the time period--were filled with propaganda too. I will also bet there are Vietnamese historians who are just as reliable at reporting history as American historians. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are incorrect. There is no obligation whatsoever for sources to be in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes See WP:NONENG: Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. Mztourist is correct; If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hawkeye7 thanks for that, Dino nam please provide a translation of the entire article so that we can check if it is WP:RS and not WP:Propaganda and that it says what you claim. Mztourist (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist:
  • According to WP:Propaganda, even propaganda documents "may be used to report what does this press say, but used with care, and without repeating defamations against the Brotherhood". The sentence I used in the article does not have anything that has the nature of propaganda against the U.S., and has already been attributed to "the Vietnamese source", so whether it's propaganda is not a problem.
  • WP:NONENG only requires the translation of the quote, not of the whole article. But I will add the full-text translation of that sentence on the article soon. Dino nam (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NONENG states that "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia", I am questioning whether the Vietnamese source you have quoted from even meets the criteria of a "non-English reliable source" Mztourist (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist: Well then, if the source in question wasn't even an RS, and WP:NONENG didn't say anything about types of sources other than RS, then the translation requirement would not even be relevant here. If the usage fits WP:Propaganda instruction then it's fine. Dino nam (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong WP:NONENG clearly states that it has to be a non-English RS, you haven't shown that this is a reliable source. Báo Bình Dương states that it is "The organ of Binh Duong Province's Vietnam Communist Party the voice of the Party, Government and People of Binh Duong Province" which I would argue is clearly not RS and is actually propaganda. Also the story you cite appears in November 2015, 50 years after the battle and so I question the reliability of anything it states. How many Americans did they claim they had killed? Mztourist (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have just run this phrase: Trên 2.000 lính Mỹ bị loại khỏi vòng chiến đấu, 39 xe tăng và 8 khẩu pháo hạng nặng bị bắn cháy hoặc phá hủy. Bên ta có 109 cán bộ chiến sĩ hy sinh và trên 200 đồng chí bị thương from the source through Google Translate and it translates as: More than 2,000 US troops were out of combat, 39 tanks and eight heavy artillery pieces were fired or destroyed. We have 109 officers killed and more than 200 wounded the US casualty figures are clearly preposterous as only a reinforced US Battalion was involved and so wouldn't have numbered more than 1000 men. So rather than having Dino nam cherry-pick "facts" from this source, I will include these figures also Mztourist (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
American sources regarding the Vietnam War frequently veer into Wikipedia:Propaganda and must be treated with caution. Please provide a translation of the entire article so that we can check if it is WP:RS and not WP:Propaganda and that it says what you claim. Clearly this is as OR as your comments Mz; worth a thought. I suggest that asking for a translation of all the article is disingenuous, unless you are willing to reciprocate. Keith-264 (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keith-264 the source I gave is in English and you or anyone else is most welcome to read it all yourself here: [1]. With regard to Vietnamese sources as Propaganda, I suggest that you take a look at my page here: [[2]] which sets out a number of Vietnam War articles that have been deleted as propaganda. Mztourist (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was pointing out your POV-pushing by making a one-sided condemnation of the integrity of Vietnamese sources. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? My approach is neither POV-pushing nor one-sided, Vietnamese sources as propaganda has been agreed by many other editors on the pages referred to on my talk page. I suggest that you read some of the underlying Vietnamese sources with an open mind and see for yourself Mztourist (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your list of "propaganda": a bunch of articles that were closed at WP:AfD for lack of notability and/or WP:RS. That doesn't mean the articles or the sources were propaganda, and none of the closes I saw said the articles were "propaganda". In an WP:AfD articles are routinely deleted because they either have no reliable sources or even when they do, the reliable sources are insufficient to meet WP:GNG notability requirements, such as a movie star who in only one notable film. So if someone's article is deleted because their only source was the Daily Mail or the article did not meet notability requirements (e.g. a single reliable source talking about a completely inconsequential skirmish), that doesn't mean the article or the sources were propaganda. Big stretch. Let's just use the standards of WP:RS to judge whether a source is RS, not the language or country of origin. There are no such rules at WP:RS to my knowledge. Please correct me if I am wrong. 10:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Are they RS? It doesn't seem like it if they are editors. I suggest that Vietnamese sources are as fallible as American ones, for the same reasons. have you read American sources with an open mind? What do you make of Chomsky's view of the Vietnam war/crime? (Surely from a history man's point of view [which isn't wiki] all sources are dubious and the historian bears that in mind when referring to them?)Keith-264 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes a citation of a different language is legitimate. And this goes across all articles on en.wp. This is well embedded not just in guidelines but in 1,000s if not 100,000s of articles. A no to create a local consensus on Vietnam would be even more damaging given the necessity of balanced content. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes foreign sources and sources in other languages are acceptable per WP:NONENG. Seen it used a number of times at WP:AfD to save articles. I was not familiar with the requirement for an English translation and no one at WP:AfD mentioned such requirement; however, WP:NONENG specifies when that requirement is applicable. I often just used Google translate, which does a surprisingly good job. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Not for discussion here anyway. WP:NONENG is a pan-Wikipedia policy, which isn't up for discussion or variation within one WP project, let alone in context of one single article. If you want to discuss it, WT:Verifiability is the place. — Stanning (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Absolutely. We have always accepted foreign-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ap_Bau_Bang&oldid=1205821233"