Fair use rationale for Image:Soldier on M-41.jpg

edit
 

Image:Soldier on M-41.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fair use rationale for Image:An Loc wounded.jpg

edit
 

Image:An Loc wounded.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

order of battle of ARVN needs added to

edit

got some other ongoing improvements i'm putting into this page at the minute as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZubenelgenubiA2L (talkcontribs) 18:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I added to the ARVN order of battle. DanielCar67 (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Strength" category in sidebar

edit

Could somebody more knowledgeable than myself take a look at the strength section in the sidebar giving the battle overview? Specifically, it states the the ARVN and US strength was only 7,500, but one of the sub-categories lists 52,500 combatants. Also, the casualties are listed as 8,000, which is 500 more than the strength column total even lists participated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.147.119 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The box clearly mentions that of the 8,000 casualties, 2,300 were in An Loc. The number of combatants includes those in the relief forces. DanielCar67 (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Casualties and De-Escalation

edit

Maybe somebody can enter some published information with regard to the political support or lack of support from Congress, and the Nixon Administration's position, with regard to An Loc. If Im understanding the stats in the article correctly, 10,000 casualties were American casualties, is that not correct? So its shocking that in 1972, so late in the war, that the U.S. would suffer 20% of its total casualty figure of the entire war, considering that Nixon's campaign in 1968 was based largely on a platform of reducing troop levels, and retreating from Vietnam. From 1968 campaign promises of troops coming home, to a position in 1975 whereby Nixon became power-hungry, and he was infuriated by Kissinger's peace deal. An Loc was a slap in the face to anybody who hoped in 1972 of a de-escalation. When Vietcong and the NVC fought to capture An Loc, that should have been the catalyst for a peace-agreement and pullout. So maybe somebody can add to the article some information of the offical positions of both Elected offcials and Military leaders on the An Loc situation. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

At An Loc: 7,500 5th ARVN Division:[1] 7th Regiment, 850 8th Regiment, 2,100 9th Regiment, 200 3rd Ranger Group, 1,300 Task Force 52, 500 Binh Long Provincial Forces, 2,000 Miscellaneous units, 300 Reinforcements: 1st Airborne Brigade 81st Airborne Commando Group

where the US troops are here???????????????????Firepower by US Air Force and US Navy, is a support for the ground troops ARVN
subscribed MiZi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.20.45.17 (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Belligerents

edit

Instead of calling the U.S. and South Vietnamese Belligerents, can we have a separate box, and label them "responders?" Its an unfair, inaccurate label to call both sides Belligerents, when the whole war was the cause of North Vietnamese aggressions. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Generally, what I've seen in sources is that regardless of which side is the aggressor, once it is general conflict (certainly after the years that the Viet Nam War had been going on up to this point), both sides are referred to as belligerants. 192.88.94.1 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Why are you replying to a 9 year old comment? Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of An Lộc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nguyễn Thanh Tiên is one of battle of An Loc leader

edit

Base on what He told he is the one that the Vietnamese BBC News want him to talk about the battle. He is Lieutenant Colonel in that time. And please remember what happen in 1972, America recall all the military back. In that time who staying for the last is Him and His teammate. May I ask why his name not the leader broad? 173.0.25.91 (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Because we require WP:RS to support all claims. If you can provide properly referenced RS then you can add him.

Mztourist (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC) I'm telling the truth. Vietnamese BBC should have His record voice after the battle and Vietnamese war jail should has His document why He in the jail so long. Do you doubt that you should be the one to prove the untrue?Reply

WP:BURDEN. Mztourist (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply