Talk:Battle of Cửa Việt

Outcome

Melson (, Charles (1991). U.S. Marines In Vietnam: The War That Would Not End, 1971-1973. History and Museums Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps. p. 36. ISBN 978-1482384055) states that the ARVN captured Cua Viet Port in January 1973 before the ceasefire took effect. People's Army Newspaper is not WP:RS Mztourist (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the source

The accounts in Kelley's book are inaccurate. According to former RVN Marines' accounts in History of the South Vietnamese Marine Corps by Tran Xuan Dung, their troops did temporarily capture Cua Viet at 07 58, January 28, but was forced to retreat after a counterattack of the NVA on January 31:

http://txdung39.blogspot.com/2014/08/before-cease-fire-lt-colonel-tran-thien.html
http://txdung39.blogspot.com/2014/08/cua-viet-captain-tran-van-loan-o-n-23.html
http://txdung39.blogspot.com/2014/08/operation-cua-viet-1973-major-pham-van.html

It should be kept in mind that documents of this type, regardless of its reliability, have a probability to contain boasting or propaganda details, yet these ARVN veterans admitted the fact that they had to retreat, so there is nothing to suspect it. Melson is right, but Kelley is not.Dino nam (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Look at WP:RS, self-published histories are not RS. I have reverted back to the previous version, if you can find an RS that says the PAVN captured the base on 31 March, then it can be changed.Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not it is RS or not, but the problem is accuracy. Even documents published by the US Department of State can sometimes give inaccurate or disputable information (see talk:Macclesfield Bank). Because the accounts in Kelley's book is contrary to too many other sources, their reliability is questionable, and therefore cannot be kept, or at least, a disputed template should be inserted, unless you can provide another RS to support your view. I don't care if the 3 links I provided are RS or not, because I don't use them as references, but to prove the inaccuracy of the information you provided.Dino nam (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wrong. You say Kelley's account is "contrary to too many other sources" what other sources? Are they RS? If so then cite them and I will happily accept the correction. Then you say that "I don't care if the 3 links I provided are RS or not, because I don't use them as references, but to prove the inaccuracy of the information you provided", RS means reliable source, which they are not, you are using them as references and while they may disagree with what Kelley says that doesn't mean that the article should be amended because they're not RS and Kelley is. Mztourist (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The WP:RS says that even rumors have value if they are noteworthy, regardless of their accuracy. In this case, the significance of information provided by the 3 links I have given is not their reliability or accuracy, but it has value to prove that there are logical problems in the RS source you have given, as it is contrary to the perspective of veterans from both sides, even when they are published in some non-RS. But if you want an RS, you can see Quang Thi Lâm, The Twenty-five Year Century: A South Vietnamese General Remembers the Indochina War to the Fall of Saigon, University of North Texas Press, 2001, p. 293. ARVN general Lam Quang Thi admits that the RVN Marines was forced to retreat after being surrounded and attacked by the PAVN after January 28.Dino nam (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• • Where in WP:RS does it say that "rumors have value if they are noteworthy, regardless of accuracy"? and how does that relate to your edits? I do not have access to the Quang Thi Lâm book, please copy the exact text here so everyone can read what it says as it is in conflict with the 2 RS I have provided.Mztourist (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Mztourist is correct. The standard is verifiable, not truth. Self-published histories are not reliable sources and should not be included. As to the Quang Thi Lam book, please provide more details so we can give each view its proper weight. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have just reread the relevant section of Melson see [1] p. 136 and found a reference to the fact that the Vietnamese Marines were indeed forced to pull back on 30 January, however the account does not match that cited by Lam - no reference to any B-52 strikes, so am willing to accept that Kelley is wrong on this point, however the page as written is full of errors and needs to be rewritten. Mztourist (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A third opinion

As with the disputed article on the battle of Thường Ðức, I saw the message on the admin noticeboard and came to offer a third opinion. As with the other article, I'm not an expert and not familiar with the operation, but I can try to be impartial.

A web search informed me that the US 1st Amphibian Tractor Battalion was involved in fighting at Cua Viet in 1968. Is that perhaps covered by another article on Wikipedia? If so, this article should refer to it; if not, it would be good content to add since it would be supported by unit histories and other reliable sources. (That said, I'm sure there's a lot of good information about Vietnam that's not on here yet.)

Is it possible that the personal accounts actually refer to a different location? One mentions a naval base at a Hieu Giang river mouth, which is evidently not the same as the Cua Viet river mouth. In any case, the source can't be used. If the accounts are factual, there will be a reliable source that discusses the claim about the morning of the ceasefire in a clear and well-supported way. Roches (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your input, but this battle took place in early 1973 by which time the Americans had departed the area and so accounts by the 1st Amtrac Battalion are unlikely to contain any useful/relevant information. Incidentally the page you refer to is extracted from the official USMC history of the Vietnam War, the same series that I have provided as the RS for the fact that the Vietnamese Marines recaptured the base by 27 January 1973Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

About the earlier fighting in 1968, I didn't make it clear that I meant a link to another article, if one exists, or a suggestion for a future article. Something like Battle of Cua Viet (1968). This article clearly refers only to the battle in 1973. Roches (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency across multiple sources

The Cao Van Vien's book claims PAVN used tanks during the battle. Same also contains in several Vietnamese sources like this https://m.soha.vn/quan-su/tran-dau-xe-tang-thiet-giap-lon-nhat-trong-chien-tranh-viet-nam-20160122210434005.htm claims participation of 1 T-54, 2 Type-63, 1 PT-76 that suffered losses. So it's doubtful, that losses ARVN suffered came only from 9M14. Since I cannot correctly edit page, you I think must notice this. Bekbakbek (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Aircraft shot down were American

The 2 aircraft shot down were a US NAVY fighter jet & USAF Forward Observation plane. The jet was piloted by CDR HARLEY HALL ( see book Left Alone to Die). I witnesed these events on the afternoon. of 27 January 1973 from the bridge of the USS TURNER JOY DD951, as we provided NGFS at the mouth of the Cua Viet River 104.138.145.81 (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

We have a RS, Melson, that says the planes were RVNAF. Mztourist (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC) I have added Hall in as being shot down on 27 January. Mztourist (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)