Talk:First Battle of Loc Ninh

Vietnam Low‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / North America / Southeast Asia / United States C‑class

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force
	United States military history task force

Pritzker Military Library Mid‑importance

	This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Hidden away

Why is this hidden away with First Battle of Loc Ninh a redlink? And why in the world do we have this article and another article about a different battle, Battle of Loc Ninh, with no disambiguation hatline at either of them to lead readers to the other if they don't seem to have what they were looking for? Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article misnamed? Second Battle, not the First Battle?

Will editors please be aware that concern was recently raised at the Teahouse by an elderly veteran of this battle (Blacklion66) that this article is misnamed? He has also emailed me directly to state that this page describes not the First battle, but the Second Battle; the 1st battle being on 11 June 66. I have been informed that this story is told in the May 2016 issue of the Veterans of Foreign wars (VFW) Magazine, page 36, (not available in online version), and is also told in their book "Brutal Battles of Vietnam" page 71. Looking online, I can find no Reliable Sources, though have found a number of informal accounts (here) and here, for example). Plus Trận Lộc Ninh – Battle of Lộc Ninh 1966 and possibly page 314 of this book.

Mindful that there is also a page here called 'Battle of Loc Ninh', fought in April 1972, I realise resolving battle nomenclature requires more expert involvement than I can offer. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, perhaps it might be a better option to just rename this article "Battle of Loc Ninh (1968)", and the other article "Battle of Loc Ninh (1972)" rather than using a label that might not be used in RS? That would then in theory allow for a "Battle of Loc Ninh (1966)" if reliable sources could be found. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that they are probably referring to an engagement during Operation El Paso, but I'm not aware of it being called the Battle of Loc Ninh. I support AustralianRupert's suggestion of adding the year rather than debating first, second, third etc. regards Mztourist (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The date-dab idea sounds good, except, isn't it contrary to standard practise in military historiography? That is, battles at a given place in a given war are "First", "Second", so forth, as for First Alamein & Second Alamein, or First Manassas & Second Manassas. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but unlike those examples I don't think that First and Second battles of the Vietnam War are well-established/standardized across a wide range of WP:RS. I would note we also have Battle of Quang Tri (1968), First Battle of Quảng Trị and Second Battle of Quảng Trị. regards Mztourist (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]