Talk:Battle of Long Tan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Terry Burstall, Pt 1

I am quite concerned about the edits by 202.78.167.30. The reliance Terry Burstall is quite disturbing considering he reputation he has amongest many of the members of D-Company, and it's not appropriate that an undistinguished private soldier who didn't even take part in the battle is refered to so often. This new version looks places far too much emphasis on claiming things are in dispute and is definitely POV. This article had developed very well and now it's a hodgepodge and does not read well. I'd suggest reverting all of the 202.78.167.30 edits and reapplying what is considered useful. Brettr 08:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brett, I don't really see great problems with the new material. What is Burstall's reputation among the D Coy vets? He may not have been in the battle, but does anyone dispute that he was on the battlefield immediately afterwards, as he is quoted in this article? Grant65 | Talk 11:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping the 202.78.167.30 poster would reply, but obviously he's not interested. Burstall has been pushing his ambush theory for a long time and has some people in the media convinced. He has done a lot of work on this but it's not held in high regard. He is not a historian nor was he a professional soldier.

The simple fact is this was a meeting engagement and should considered from that point of view. Whatever the Vietnamese had planned regard attacking 1ATF is of minor interest compared to what actually happened. Brettr 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of those who took part, on both sides, weren't professional soldiers! While I would't say that I agree with Burstall, we wouldn't be doing our job as an encyclopedia if we just accepted the official/accepted versions of events and ignored other opinions. History is often a matter of controversy. Grant65 | Talk 01:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Citation

Hi, I couldn't work out how to edit the references so instead I am submitting this for discussion.

The reference cited in the article, reference 4: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20023504-31477,00.html

Is no longer a page on The Australian, it brings up a 404 error. I searched for the quote on The Australian website

(http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.news.com.au%2F+%22tactically+and+militarily%2C+you+won%22&btnG=Search&meta=)

and came up with this article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20023504-2702,00.html

This contains the quote cited in the document, I believe this needs to be correctly referenced as such.

Burstall is an unreliable source

I am quite surprised at the use of Terry Burstall as a source for material on the Battle of Long Tan. I am the producer of the documentary, The Battle of Long Tan which was shown on The History Channel in August 2006. I also did all the research for the documentary. We conducted more than 35 interviews for the documentary including interviewing in Vietnam the enemy VC and NVA commanders who are still alive. We used Ashley Ekins as our official historian for the project and Ashley and Ian McNeill researched and wrote the official history of the Australia Army in South East Asian conflicts. We also had unprecedented access to the official Army History Unit as well as captured Vietnamese documents and secret intelligence reports both Australian and US. The official body count was 245 so saying that only 50 enemy were killed or making statements that the VC said only 150 were killed is ridiculous. The US captured the diary of one of the Vietnamese commanders from the battle and this commander stated that their casualties numbered around 500-800 killed and 1,000 wounded. The official Australian body count would have been higher as more bodies were found in the 2 weeks after the battle but due to pressure from the Australian Government and the Australia Army command for an official count by August 21 they submitted the count as at that time of 245 and that number has stuck to this day. The most reliable accounts of the battle are by Ian McNeill, Lex McAulay and the Australian and NZ commanders in their respective books. In addition, Dr Bruce Horsfields documentary and Red Dune Films documentaries. The only problem with Wikipedia is it allows people with extreme views to claim a version os history which cannot be corroborated or substantiated in any way. I met with and interviewed the former enemy Vietnamese commanders in Vietnam and setup the 60 Minutes story where the Vietnamese finally admitted that Australia won the battle. We prepared the most detailed fact sheet ever prepared as a backgrounder for the documentary and it can be accessed at - http://www.battleoflongtan.com/LongTanFactSheet.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reddunefilms (talk • contribs) 13:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree and said the same thing above, we can only speculate that incorporated these points. I thought we had a good article before it was changed. Of course you are welcome to edit the article. Brettr 09:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Reddunefilms, sorry but I am going to revert your changes for several reasons. (1) No offence, but the quality of writing in your edits looks hurried and not good enough for a "mature" Wikipedia article. (2) You have deleted material without explanation, including some referenced direct quotes. If you think that something needs a reference then the correct procedure is to put a {{fact}} template at the end of the sentence in question. (3) You have not obeyed the neutral point of view rules, in that you have made an attack on Burstall in the text. Whatever we may think about him, and I have my misgivings about Burstall, the article is not a place for barbs, snipes and debates about his veracity. Similarlk, you have alse referred to "captured enemy diary", as though we are telling the whole thing from an Australian or an anti-communist perspective, instead of a neutral perpsective. (4) I would be interested to know where this "diary of one of the Vietnamese commanders" is these days. I find it hard to believe that a senior Vietnamese officer would not be able to come up with a more accurate figure than "500-800" dead among his own men. It is easy for us to sit here and scorn the Vietnamese sources but grave doubt has also been cast on U.S. sources during the war in question. Cynics might question whether this diary ever existed. Grant65 | Talk 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have now reinstated some of that material and reworded/explained some of it better. I have also added {{Fact}} tags to some of your material. Grant65 | Talk 04:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Grant65 but I strongly disagree with your rational for the inclusion of any reference to Burstall and some of the revisions. There are now four authorative accounts of the Battle of Long Tan putting aside the actual "After Action Reports" all of which I have read. There is no supporting evidence whatsoever for any of the "controversial" things that Burstall says. Not one single Long Tan veteran I have spoken to (more than 48 out of the surviving 90) plus the Vietnamese commanders, by the way who were there and are authorative sources, back up anything Burstall says. In addition, I have seen and read the materials I referenced as part of the research for the documentary as well as radio logs, letters and personal diaries of the Australian and Vietnamese commanders inlcuding Brigadier Jackson. You also mention that Wikipedia has "neutral" points of view rules. If that is true then there would be no reference to any of the highly disputed (by every source that was there as well as official historians) from Burstall. The information needs to be based upon the facts as recorded, first and foremost. The Australians have never been in habit of altering the facts and no one has EVER suggested that the Australian records or accounts of the battle are wrong or exaggerated. Much information was made available to Ian McNeill who wrote the exhaustive and exceptional Official History of the Australian Army in South Eastern Asian Conflicts inlcuding top secret diplomatic cables, military intelligence reports (some of which I have seen). I suggest you read that book, Lex McAuly's book, the book written by the six Australian and one New Zealand commanders, Bob Buick's book, All Guts and No Glory as well as the After Action Reports, personal letters and diaries, captured Vietnamese material which is available through the Australian War Memorial and the Australian Army history unit. That is realiable, unbiased information and this type of material is usually the source of historical information used by reputable encyclopedias. Not inuendo and unsubstantiated and widely disputed commentary. References to Burstall's commentary is not of the standard of reputable historical information and should not be on Wikipedia. He played no part in the battle (being in a reserve section), his platoon and section commander strongly dispute his assertions and yet the other main sources have not been used or referenced anywhere in this Wikipedia entry, eg. To Long Tan - Ian McNeill, The Battle of Long Tan as told by the commanders to Bob Grandin - Seven Commander, Long Tan - Lex McAuly, All Guts and No Glory - Bob Buick - I could go on and on. So, as an authorative researcher of Long Tan I now question the relevancy, accuracy and overall tone of the Wikipedia Long Tan reference as it is not up to the standard of a published encyclopedia or historical source in it's current form. There are many inaccuracies such as the count of wounded which should be 21 amongst others. There are also references which are not supported but are explained in the main book sources including our documentary and anyone you speak to who was in the Fire Control Support Centre or Col Colin Townsend who we interviewed one week before he died. eg - Australian commanders have been accused of being foolhardy in sending lightly armed and small units into an area where an entire Vietnamese regiment was known to be operating. Smith maintains he was never told about this large force. It seems army intelligence knew that VC forces were moving south towards Nui Dat but there was no indication that it was a full regiment. Why the 1 APC Squadron reinforcements took so long to get moving has never been fully explained. 1ATF HQ thought that they were moving but it was by accident that a staff officer noticed they had not moved. They were then ordered to move immediately. Most likely the order was vague or misunderstood. This is commentary by someone who has not read the sources or interviewed the participants of the battle. Cheers, RedDuneFilms.

You need to log in or the edits will appear as anonymous and not as Reddunefilms. It is considered very bad practice at Wikipedia to delete referenced material from articles, especially when it is direct quotations and statements of opinion. You say: "The Australians have never been in habit of altering the facts and no one has EVER suggested that the Australian records or accounts of the battle are wrong or exaggerated." Clearly Burstall, other Australian veterans (e.g. Paul Weaver[1]) and the Vietnamese are suggesting exactly that and we have to acknowledge it.

If you have material to add, or can fix simple factual errors, then please do that. But direct quotations and statements of opinion are never factual errors, because they are clearly an individual's point of view, in quote marks. We don't have to agree with Burstall's POV, but unlike you and me, he was in the area at the time. We are not here to simply reflect the majority view of Australian Long Tan veterans, the Australian Army's mythology, or the AWM or any other organisation. We have to represent the Vietnamese side of the story (which is underdone at present) and dissenters in the ranks of Vietnam veterans.

Regards, Grant65 | Talk 18:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Grant but you obviously have an agenda here. I have not once said I don't support neutrality. My point is that you aren't and your arguments for including Burstall's discredited commentary (note the word commentary) is bad for the reputation of Wikipedia. Your logic for discounting my statement about historical FACT is disturbing. That is the source of historical fact and accounts AS WELL AS individual opinions. However, widely supported historical facts are the basis for the world's history first and foremost with opinion and commentary second where it can be supported by evidence. Once again, why are there no references in the article using the four main written accounts of the battle? To Long Tan the official Australia Army history book is based upon many interviews with the Vietnamese and is widely considered to have taken an objective, hard and neutral view of the accounts? Again, my questions is why is a discredited source being used and not the four main accounts by the people who commanded the battle and people who researched it with access to most of the written facts both Australian, US and Vietnamese? If you want to dispute the realibility of sources, ie. Australia then do so with legitimate evidence not commentary and innuendo. There is no reference in the evidence about the fact that accounts by the Vietnamese need to be considered as unrelaible as there propoganda was prone to wide exaggerations. ie. They officially claimed that they killed 600 hundred Australians, destroyed two tanks and shot down a jet fighter. There is no EVIDENCE to support there official stance. The Australians mehotdically recorded all enemy bodies they found, captured enemy weapons and documents. Anyway, like I said the article should be this is what the Vietnamese account of the battle is and this is what the Australian, New Zealand and US account of the battle is based upon the widely know facts and from the main sources not fringe sources. And the point of editors on Wikipedia is to make sure the articles are based on FACTS so my edits are just that and you have no more right than me to change my edits which are based upon the facts and main sources. Cheers, RedDuneFilms

Please assume good faith on my part. I could make all kinds of assumptions about your position. My "agenda" is simply to see that all points of view are represented, including the view that Burstall is wrong. I find your enthusiasm for censorship disturbing, and you don't seem to understand the concept of historical controversy. We need to at least mention the views out there, not matter how "out there" they are. (By way of comparison, the article battle between HMAS Sydney and HSK Kormoran mentions the controversial theories that criminal acts by the Germans and/or a Japanese submarine were involved.) Neither do you seem to grasp the difference between a non-quotational statement of fact (e.g. The battle is often used in Australian officer training...) and a direct quotation ("I don't really think that I would have seen more than 50 bodies and I spent three days in the area"). They are both "FACTS", but for different reasons: the first is uncontroversial, the second is stating what an individual said. The second is also an example of oral history. You say the official accounts are based on "the widely know facts and from the main sources not fringe sources". Neutrality in historical narrative isn't about the majority imposing their views on everyone else and censoring everything which is at odds with their views; it's about reflecting and critiquing all of the differing points of view, regardless of whether one thinks said views are right or wrong. Clearly Burstall's views are a matter of much controversy among veterans. It is for that very reason that his views needs to be mentioned in an article on Long Tan if only to rebut him and/or demonstrate that he is incorrect (not just assert it). I would like to see someone do those things.

"Once again, why are there no references in the article using the four main written accounts of the battle?" Yes, mate we need a lot more references!!! I didn't write most of the article, nor is it my sole responsibility to fix it. I say to you once more, if you can make simple fixes (basic factual errors, places where references are needed/can be added, etc) then please fix them. Just don't delete stuff which has a valid reference, I really hate that. Similarly, as I have said to you before, this is not the "Australian Wikipedia", it is an international project and the Vietnamese perspective is underrepresented in the main part of this article, i.e. in regard to decisions by Vietnamese commanders, the way they deployed their forces, individual experience, during the battle etc. Grant65 | Talk 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am doing in this in good faith and trying to ensure that the facts are used for the basis of this article and not inuendo and poor commentary. Let me ask you a blunt question, have you read - To Long Tan by Ian McNeill, The Battle of Long Tan by Lex McAulay, Battle of Long Tan by the commanders, All Guts and No Glory by Bob Buick and watched the two documentaries and interviewed the Australian Long Tan veterans and Vietnamese commanders? If you haven't then you have no right to question my additions or revisions to the article. Nothing I have written or edited can be categorised as "vandalism" particualry when I am trying to contribute to making the article reflect an accurate representation of the story and the facts, from both sides. The revisions that you have made or are universally disallowing (by what authority I don't know) are considered vandalism by the Long Tan veterans I have shown it to as you are stopping people such as myself from correcting the article. The reason I asked if you had an agenda is that you seem more interested in making the article controversial rather than getting the key facts right? As the article currently stands it is not even 50% right. The enemy at Long Tan numbered just over 2,500 not 1,000. There were 21 wounded Australians and not 24. B Coy did not dismount anything as they were not on the APC's, they were on foot. In addition, the only controversies are around the Australian medals citations being downgraded from the official citations and an ambiguous command structure between the APC troop commander and the commander of A Coy, 6RAR. As I stated previously, the article is simply meant to state both sides of the story as backed up by evidence and the main sources of research and if you are going to use quotes or eyewitness accounts of the battle I suggest you focus on those who were on the front lines, or commanding the battle, or manning the radios etc. As one private digger honestly said, we had no idea what was going on 20 metres away let along the entire battle. I thought the ammunition resupply must of come from god himself, we never knew a chopper dropped it to us. We prayed and it appeared! Jim Richmond, Pte 11 Platoon, D Coy. The reason I state this is that the only people who knew what were going on was the company commander, platoon commanders and the FSCC back at Nui Dat. It wasn't until Lex McAulays book written in 1986 that anybody had the entire picture of what happened and even then his book did not have access to the intelligence aspects of the battle. The point is as I have stated previously, there are four main written sources of material relating the story based upon facts, interviews and records and those sources had access to the whole picture of which Burstall did not have and yet these are not used once in the article. But again you harp on about Burstall's material as if it is a valuable and important contribution and a true representation of the battle and the facts. The other sources are more important and more accurate and there is plenty of material in those to do anybodies heads in. To put it bluntly Burstall's material is totally wrong and this has been proven time and time again and no one takes it seriously. So, when there is only one page of text able to be used to tell the story, the priority should be on the main sources, the most widely held and credible eyewitness accounts and the facts. The article is poorly written as it stands and as previous contributors have said the revisions which have been made since around August through to October have almost made it a laughing stock. The article is meant to focus on informing somebody reading it about the "true story" as close as can be told and as there is not hundreds of pages available to do it I suggest that somebody reading it wants to read the right story and a story which is supported by facts - both sides! All book references can be made in the reference section and if somebody wants to read more about the story they can do so starting with the main sources and then working out to the personal versions as told by Bob Buick and Terry Burstall in their books. Cheers, Martin Walsh - Red Dune Films (Producer and researcher for the Battle Of Long Tan documentary)

Martin, I still see no real sign that you assume good faith on my part, which is what the "assume good faith" rule is actually about.

You cast aspersions on the style of the article and say "there is not hundreds of pages available to do it." I'm sorry, but you are wrong. I refer you to Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I have edited more than 2,000 Wikipedia articles, including many on Australian military history. I have corrected many errors and made a few myself in the process. I have not done the majority of the writing on this article, but I do know the style of writing that is appropriate to it: a mix of factual statements and opinions supported by references (if they are controversial), and direct quotations, in basic English. The article definitely does need work. Once again, I suggest that you contribute to it in a positive way by correcting the basic factual errors you claim to have identified, using properly-referenced material.

There are only three places in the article in which Burstall is quoted. Since you obviously disagree with him, I suggest you balance Burstall's material with referenced material contradicting him. The same goes for the disgruntled veterans you speak of. Some properly-referenced direct quotations would be good. Once again, do it properly and please do not delete referenced material, as you did in your first attempt. For instance, you even deleted a direct quotation from an article in The West Australian by Steve Pennells, who is an award winning and highly respected journalist. We are not here to simply represent the views of the Australian veterans, which is what your seem to think the article should be about, as shown by your use of phrases like "the enemy". Grant65 | Talk 17:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Mate you still haven't answered my questions, which books have you read and who have you interviewed. I ask this as it goes to your credibility on the topic of Long Tan. And second of all I can delete any reference in the article if I feel it does not give an accurate picture of the historical facts of the story or is just plain wrong. How can you comment on what to include and what not to include when you don't know the subject matter? Just because something is referenced does not make it a true representation of the facts or the nature of the story. I can point out at least 20% of the total PR and media we generated for the documentary and the 40th Anniversary as being factually incorrect due to laziness on the part of the journalists. So are you saying that all those incorrect articles are now fact because it appeared in a newspaper article? C'mon mate. In addition, anyone can deleted or ammend a Wikipedia article, that is the point of Wikipedia so stop spouting on about what I can and can't do when you do not know what you are talking about in relation to this subject matter. You can't even read what I said in my previous post - I said Wikipedia is NOT a 100's of pages book or paper encyclopedia and it is therefore even more important to cut to the chase and write about the most important points of the story which is backed up by facts and creditable sources. If people want more then they can read any of the books, but you don't tell the story with unsubstantiated and discredited claims. According to your logic I could write a book on the topic and therefore because it's in a book or I was quoted in a newspaper article it's now fact and therefore all someone has to do is reference it to back up there story! Mate, that's spin doctoring not history. The only disgruntled vet is Burstall so I am not sure where you are getting "...same goes for the disgruntled vets you speak."? My point is that not one single Long Tan veteran, military historian or researcher on Long Tan supports Burstall's claims fullstop and they ALL say he played no meaningful part in the battle, not even firing a shot. So, once again why include it when it adds NO VALUE to a person trying to read what the Battle of Long Tan is all about especially when there is so much interesting, deep and credible material avialable? You keep harping on about we are not here to simply represent the views of the Australian Veterans. Where did you get the idea I am only trying to represent an Australian viewpoint from? I have said repeatedly that I am representing all sides - Australian, New Zealand, US and Vietnamese so please get that right. We did so in the documentary by interviewing the Vietnamese commander for the first time and we did not "spin" any of the facts. We interviewed the Vietnamese commanders, Burstall didn't. The so called "Vietnamese veterans" he interviewed weren't even there, fact. His material is based soley upon the Vietnamse version of the event written by the communist party which even now has been proven wrong by even their own Vietnamese Long Tan commanders. Where is the explanation in the article about the relability of communist accounts of history and their "facts" to balance the article - eg. They claimed they killed 600 Australian, destroyed 2 tanks and shot down a jet fighter and claimed to win the battle? Their own commanders admitted in August last year (my team was there with 60 Minutes) that they lost the battle (but won the war). So, once again I suggest you read the proper sources, contribute to making the article accurate by doing your homework and allow people who are experts on the subject matter do what Wikipedia is intended for. If you aren't across all or even a decent amount of the material and the story then don't make claims that the experts who do are "vandalising" the article. Wikipedia was not designed for spinning the truth. By all means reference the availability of various sources including a controversial one on the topic of Long Tan at the bottom or even within the article but don't spin the facts and the real story by using one highly controversial and discredited source in complete defiance of the main sources. There is plenty of very interesting material available on the Vietnamese side of the story as well in the main book sources I have previously referenced which are considered accurate by all sides. I suggest you read "What Wikipedia is (and is not)" a little more. The point I have been trying to make to you is quoted there - "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." Martin, Red Dune Films.

We are going round in circles. Martin, anyone can come on here and claim to be an expert on any subject. If we all had to wait until we were experts before we wrote anything, there would be no articles in Wikipedia. By contrast, I have already said that I am not an expert on Long Tan and that I have not written most of this article. I have simply tidied it up a bit. If you have relevant material to add, you are welcome to do that. Full references would be great. You are acting as though it is my responsibility to fix up everything that is wrong with the page and all I'm asking is that you do not delete valid, referenced material from the article. It is quite clear what is wrong with that. Debate over. Grant65 | Talk 01:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

On Perspectives

I've read through the discussion and I already see a certain individual doing their best to dismiss the Vietnamese point of view. No doubt, the Vietnamese Communist always exaggerate their successes during the course of the war, and continue to do so when writing their history books. But why are some people so quick to dismiss those claims?? Arrogant people like Dave Sabben and Bob Buick always brag about their victory, and often scorn the Vietnamese opinion concerning the battle, but what about the Vietnamese veterans of the war?? For more then 30 years American propaganda go as far as claiming that they've "won every battle of the Vietnam War", without much recognition of the battle losses they suffered , while former soldiers of the South Vietnamese Army is labelled as cowards and gutless by American history books. Anyone doing enough research would know that America didn't win every battle, and that South Vietnamese soldiers were not all cowards. It sickens me that while individuals like Dave Sabben and Bob Buick bitch and moan about Communist propaganda dismissing their Long Tan victory, Vietnamese veterans from both sides of the war recieve no better treatment from U.S (and Australian) history books. So before anyone bother dismissing the Vietnamese point of view, make sure you check both sides of the story. Canpark 09:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What does "America" have to do with this?

The problem is we have not had access to Vietnamese veterns and Vietnamese documents. Those that have made efforts to track them down are generally not historians or trained in anyway but simply people who have an interest. Brettr 05:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question, "What does "America" have to do with this?"

Apparently a document "captured" by American troops put VC casualties at 800-1,000. Had anyone historian ever seen this "captured document"??It seems to me some people believe those "captured" documents so easily, and dismiss Vietnamese sources so readily.Canpark 10:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. When you have facts rather than opinions and accusations of bias then please contribute. Brettr 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Canpark, I can only assume you meant that I have been trying to dismiss the Vietnamese version. I don't know how you can draw that conclusion? Other than Ian McNeill who wrote the official Australian Army Military History, "To Long Tan" I have interviewed the most Long Tan veterans of both Australian, New Zealand, USA and Vietnamese. I have also had access to materials both in the public domain and those that are still private, reviewed Intelligence Summary reports held at the Australian War Memorial, reviewed commanders diaries, captured Vietnamese documents held at the Australian War Memorial and much more. I tracked down the former Vietnamse commanders in Vietnam and secured permission from the Vietnamese government for them to be interviewed by 60 Minutes and The Australian with Dave Sabben and Bob Buick in attendance. 3 weeks prior to this historic event where the Vietnamese Long Tan veterans admitted for the first time (without any prompting) that Australia won the battle but lost the war, I met with and interviewed many other Long Tan Vietnamse veterans in Vung Tau as research for our documentary "The Battle of Long Tan". We presented the facts as they are known from both sides and let the viewer decide on what actually happened. I don't know how you can draw any conclusion that the Australian version of the battle is unreliable and that the Vietnamese version is reliable. The Vietnamese claimed for 40 years that they wiped out an Australian battalion killing 600 Australians, destroyed a number of tanks and shot down a jet fighter. Now regardless of what your personal views of Australia and the US are, it is highly unlikely that for 40 years Australia and the US have been able to cover up the deaths of 600 Australians and the destruction of a number of tanks (there were none at the battle, only APC's and none of those received any damage) and a jet fighter. Reddunefilms 1:44am, 11 February 2007 (GMT +10)

Where did I say that the Australian version is unreliable, and that Vietnamese version is??? If you can actually read than you would know I'm raising concerns about 'BIAS' and not about 'RELIABILITY'. I always know for the fact that the Communists in Hanoi always glorify their defeats, and no sane person would believe that VC forces actually wiped out 600 Australians. But read what I said in the original comment, both sides in the war created their owns myths, like America claiming that they've won every minor/major battle during the war but that is a myth. I hope you understand what I'm trying to sayCanpark 14:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Canpark

remember reading The Battle of Long Tan by Lex McAulay and it claimed that the D Company was outnumbered 8/9 to 1 and not 24/25 to 1 as this Wikipedia page would have you thinkig. I wouldnt be surprised to read in a decade Long Tan revisionists claiming that 100 Australians fought against 3000 to 3500 Vietnamese adn that two battalions of 274 Rgt took part in the battle also.

The figures just don't add up

I remember reading about Long Tan in the US Newsweek and Time Magazine back in 1966 and both articles claimed clearly that the number of Vietnamese involved were just the equivalent of a reinforced battalion. I also recall reading in the US newspapers that the death toll among the Vietnamese was significantly lower than the oficial Australian body count of 245. If you were not around in the 1960s you will be suprised to know that also President Lyndon Johnson asserted in the US Presidential citation awarded to the D Company that the Australian soldiers at Long Tan fought against at the most 700/800 Vietnamese and not crazy exagerated figure of 2500 and 2650 that we read now in this page because an extra battalion of NVA has been added. How can a tired Vietnamese soldier carry the body of a wounded for so far on himself??? The Australians say the Vietnamese suffered 1000 wounded that means 4000 healthy survivors of the battle needed to carry the 1000 wounded so the Australians cannot find them. If the crazy figure of another 555 dead was true that were not found after the battle or Operation TOLEDO, that would mean another 2220 healthy survivors to carry the bodies so that the Australian cannot found. The crazy figures you find in most of the Australian books just do not make sense at all. Funny thing it is. I remember Lex McAulays book and he said that the D Company found after the battle just 33 AK47s and half that number in rifles, submachines and machineguns and so you are telling me the Vietnamese survivors go to all the trouble of carrying 555 dead and 1000 wounded for endless miles (requiring 6220 healthy survivors) to leave no evidence adn they didnt bother about picking up the weapons that are much lighter to carry??? If they have so much strenth why cannot they carry also at least the precious AK47s and machineguns??? The truth of course is that the number of assault rifles and normal rifles, and machineguns, about fifty found, by the Australian soldiers of A and B Companies when clearing the battle during Operation SMITHFIELD that Lex McAulay writes about in his book, would match the real number of Vietnamese dead. But I suppose the number of Vietnamese weapons the Australians found during Operation SMITHFIELD has been inflated and multiplied since the original claims made in the book written by Lex McAulay. I can also talk about the moonsonal rain reducing the visibility and effectiveness of the Australian riflemen down to 50 or 100 metres and how their nerves mustve affected their aim when they fired, and that some Australian soldiers mustve had their nerves shattered rendering combat noneffective, or where they superior to the French soldiers at Dien Bien Phu??? The French claims of damage inflicted on the Vietnamese attackers is not as crazy as the figures you read in Australian book. But I suppose the Australian soldiers have nerves of steel in in monsoonal rain they can still shoot between the whites of the eyes of their attackers. have we forgotten how swampy ground reduces the effects of an artillery explosion or have Australian historians forgotten their history of World War I? I wonder what we will read in ten more years???

Australian military writers, historians, veterans and documentary makers perpetuating the myth of Long Tan now claim on the Wikipedia article about the battle that 2650 Vietnamese attacked the D Company and that among the attackers were 600 + members of 45 NVA Btn a unit that I have never heard of before even trying to google it!!! The last time that I checked the chronology of the Austalian involvement in Vietnam at http://www.vvaa.org.au/calender.htm the oficial Australian Vietnam Veterans Association it says that the number of attackers involved was 1500 and at the exagerated most 2500.

The reluctance of the Australian contributors to this Wikipedia page about the battle to accept the truth of OPERATION TOLEDO when an Australian battalion and several South Vietnamese and US Parachute battalions searched the area of the confrontation and coudnt locate any bodies is what seems to be preventing the Wikipedia readers from finding the truth about the body count at Long Tan. I have read that 5 Btn RAR searched the area later from 25 August to 7 September, the period after the oficial body count of 245 stopped, and they found no bodies!!!, 'the battalion had been keyed up to the possibiity of a major encounter with the Vietcong a battle which would hav had a decisive effect on the Vietcong in Phuoc Tuy Province. Instead all we found was dense jungle with NO TRACE of any large Vietcong force ever having been in the area.' ***Major Robert O'Neill, Vietnam Task, page 93***

Contrary to remarks by angry people who havent bothered to even read hs book made on this page, Prof. Terry Burstall is a veteran of D Company and had to carry out removl of Vietnamese families and burn their homes that their only posessions. The Vietnamese commanders and their experience and many of his Australian soldier friends at Long Tan he interviewed and agree with him, is accurately described in his book, which has recieved mostly good reviews and although the Vietnamese fighting strength and casualties are so different from the Australian oficial reports we have read, one cannot ignore his findings. The Vietnamese viewpoint of Long Tan in his book supplies much needed balance to this Wikipedia page and the accounts of the battle written by Bob Buick and Ian McNeill.

Vince Nguyen. P.S. I hope there is someone out there that can write and contribute the Vietnamese viewpoint to the wikipedia page about Long Tan so that the truth can become available to all no matter how embarasing it may be to the oficial Australian historians who have steadily kept inflating the figures of Vietnamese involved and killed over the years. Thank you.

Vince, thanks for the detailed feedback. It is probably true that most of the contributors, myself included, have been Australian. That in itself tends to create a tendency to bias. Anyway, there is nothing to stop you including the material you have mentioned, preferably with references giving the the exact sources. Grant | Talk 12:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vince. Firstly Burstall is Doctor not Professor. He has a Ph D in literature, not in history or anything related to investigating historical or military matters. If I recall correctly he was a section commander (corporal) and was not directly involved in the battle. I know people from 6 Battalion who disagree strongly with his comments and I served with veterans from 1ATF. His platoon commander is highly critical of him. He does not have any evidence to back up his claims. This wiki page represents the documented views. If the Vietnamese military or a similar authority would like to document this battle then we would all welcome it. Your comments seem very similar to canpark above. You both seem angry about the assumed lack of respect for the Vietnamese but have nothing else to offer. Brettr 13:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

To this first poster 'Vince' - what absolute crap. I am sorry but I am sick of people who have agendas and therefore choose to revise history and ignore corroborated facts. Before you go posting silly and unsubstantiated comments why don't you actually pick up one of those books you are referencing while you are typing. First of all Lex McAulay's book, "The Battle of Long Tan' clearly states that D Coy, 6RAR held off a force of some 2,500 Vietnamese - Page 1 "..100 inexperienced young soldiers fighting at least ten and probably fifteen or twenty times there number." - back cover of book "..holding of a force of some 2,500 Vietnamese etc etc. Secondly the actual numbers and specific units that fought against D Coy that day have been verified by many sources after the battle including detailed US and Australian intelligence assesments based upon prisoner interrogations, captured enemy diaires & documents and the usual sources of intel. I actually met a number of the former VC D445 and NVA enemy who actually fought at the Battle of Long Tan in the prescence of official Vietnamese Government interpreters in Vung Tau in July 2006. I asked them about all the facts and figures as part of the research for our documentary and they confirmed the facts. 1,600 soldiers from VC, 275 Main Force Regiment + support elements + 500 soldiers from North Vietnamese Army, 45 Regiment + support elements + 550 soldiers from VC, D445 Battalion + support elements = Total 2,650+ men. Facts!

We made the documentary to get the story and facts right and dispel all the myths and incorrect figures and numbers all over the place. And I would hardly rely on "googling" as a source to verify whether 45 Regt existed or not.

It is widely known and widely documented that the VC and NVA carried away the MAJORITY of their dead in ALL the battles against US and Australian forces. If you want me to point out every single reference I can happily do that. It also happened at Coral. Why don't you read the Official Australian Army History written by Ian McNeill?? He had access to ALL secret and top secret materials and even interviewed many of the VC and NVA survivors in Vietnam as part of that history research it is a very neutral and unbiased, warts and all account. He also had access to records which I have not even been able to see. You obviously have not done your homework either or you would know a lot more about how the Viet Cong and NVA operated and what their level of training was. If you read more widely you would know that many of the NVA units which fought against Australians at Long Tan, Coral, Manly, etc were undertrained, very young and had not even fired their weapons! Read about the Battle of Coral and see how many Australians and US were surprised at how high the NVA were firing at night time. That is a standard problem for any inexperienced soldier who has not been properly trained. Many weapons were found with grease all over them as they are when they are packed.

In relation to Burstall as I have said many times, he is an unreliable source. The overwhelming majority of people, inlcuding the Australian War Memorial, every single military historian, the majority of members of his own unit - D Coy (in fact to this day not one single D Coy veteran who was there supports what he says), and now even the former VC and NVA I interviewed last year discredit what he says (what benefit or reason would the former VC and NVA in the prescence of government minders have to lie to us after 40 years and contradict everything they have said for the past 40 years?). Burstall's book has not got good reviews - please show me more than one from a credible source or critic. If you read the 1ATF Commanders Diary, After Action Reports of those who were there and interviewed any of the Long Tan veterans, you will see that many bodies were found after the battle for up to two weeks after it. The only reason that the official figure is 245 dead is that Canberra set a deadline for the bodycount so they could report it to the Australian and US media - so they stopped counting!

You say you have never heard about the NVA 45 Regiment. Well you must not have read either Lex McAulays book properly or To Long Tan by Ian McNeill. Two of the three captured Vietnamese on the battlefield were from 275 Regiment (who actually thought they were from 45 Regiment) and the other was VC from D445. D445 Battalion alone had 550 soldiers + support elemnets and 275 Regiment has 1,600 soliders plus support elements. So even if you don't believe that 45 NVA Regiment was there, that still adds up to a minimum of 2,150 VC soldiers!!!

Let me be clear because I have (so far) interviewed the most people from D Coy, 6RAR. Terry Burstall was in 9 Section, 12 Platoon, D Coy, 6RAR. His section was left defending the rear of the D Coy HQ Section and he did not go out from that position with 12 Platoon when 12 Platoon tried to rescue the cutoff 11 Platoon. The area his section was defending hardly fired any rounds in anger and was defending the rear of the D Coy position where the enemy were not attacking. He was a private digger. Until Lex McAulay wrote his book which by the way is not a definitive source as he did not have access to certain materials at the time of writing his book, no one ever really knew the full picture of Long Tan. He did not have access to After Action Reports or any other materials others than what was said amongst D Coy soldiers after the battle and what was in the newspapers. I spoke with many D Coy Long Tan veterans and they did not know until Lex's book what had happened at Long Tan as generally speaking unless you were a platoon commander or company commander or CSM or in intelligence your only perspective of the battle is the "10 metres to your left and right and 100 metres to your front". Some of the D Coy veterans we interviewed said they never knew how the ammunition arrived until Lex's book came out. They said all they did was pray and the next thing you knew CSM Jack Kirby was bringing ammunition around. They thought 'God had dropped it down" to them.

Lex McAuly, To Long Tan, The Battle of Long Tan as told by the Commanders, All GUts and No Glory etc etc and all other official sources count the enemy dead at 245 so I don't know how you can say it was only about 50 or so "...matching the number of normal rifles, machineguns found...". Go away and read about VC and NVA tactics and how good and efficient they were at removing their dead and wounded including their weapons. That was one of their main tactics so the enemy alwasy underestimated the damage which was inflicted on them. Any newspaper articles at the time mean nothing. They reported what was know AT THAT TIME without the benefit of detailed interviews, intelligence, captured enemy documents and interviews with the enemy.

By the way we have always treated the former VC and NVA soldiers with great respect whether that is in any books written by Australian veterans, our documentary and Dr. Bruce Horsefields documentary from 1986 and in every other way. They were heros as much as the Australians were and for anyone to say that they are not has obviously never met any of them or really studied them. We alwasy used multiple verifiable sources for everything in our documentary even including the VC and NVA we interviewed. Our team organised the meeting between Bob Buick and Dave Sabben and the former D445 soldiers and they told us many things which only now totally contradict almost everything which the Vietnamese had previously said about the battle including the fact that they now acknowledge that Australian won the battle of Long Tan and inflicted significant casualties against them, however (obviously) they won the war. Reddunefilms 01:30, 18 February 2007 (GMT +10)

Really??? Because I never see any respect from Bob Buick. Canpark 14:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

VC/NVA casualty figures in infobox

Martin, Wikipedia has rules against original research. While I believe that you have a genuine desire to improve the article, we have no means of checking what you have seen in official archives, or checking the veracity of the official records, which can be incorrect. Until there is a better body of literature which confirms what you say, we need to cover all bases.

I mean you have even said that the figure of 245 is incorrect because they stopped counting, so an upper limit of "800 casualties" seems reasonable. Grant | Talk 07:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your most recent RV of the casualty figures and reference to Burstall Brettr 13:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? Grant | Talk 18:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean Martin/Reddunefilms has already identified the problem with that figure of "245"; it's too low according to most of the eyewitneses. As I've said before, I don't necessarily agree with Burstall, but we know that he was on the scene the day after the battle, and that gives him a right to comment. Grant | Talk 18:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a Google search of Australian government websites turns up 90 hits for "Terry Burstall" Not bad for a guy who supposedly has no credibility. Grant | Talk 10:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats just silly, googling John Howard gives you 110 million reference, are you trying to tell me HE has credibility? 58.6.67.108 17:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If a book by John Howard was in an Australian War Museum bibliography, he would have credibility as a military historian and there would be no reason why we shouldn't cite him. Burstall's A Soldier's Story is cited by Australian War Memorial and Department of Veterans Affairs publications. He was serving with 6RAR at the time of the battle and he was on the battlefield at Long Tan the day afterwards. Q.E.D. I think. Grant | Talk 10:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Acceptance of SVN awards

I don't propose to suggest any corrections to the text of the article over this, merely clarify the position for anyone interested enough to look at the discussion.

In 1966 policy on acceptance and wearing of foreign awards by Australians was governed by British honours policy. This policy required the Queen's express agreement to the acceptance of awards. This did not mean that soldiers couldn't accept an award offered to them, but it could not be worn on uniforms without official acceptance. Australia switched to its own honours system in 1975, and although it took another 10-15 years to move completely away from imperial awards (some Australian states were still awarding imperial long service and good conduct medals to fire and police personnel as late as 1992), it wasn't until 1997 that a uniquely Australian policy on acceptance and wearing of foreign awards was introduced. This policy requires a government-to-government offer to be made in each case, and military awards are subject to advice from the Minister for Defence. In all cases acceptance is approved by the Governor-General.

In the case of the South Vietnamese individual gallantry awards from Long Tan, there has always been contradictory evidence about whether they were offered or not. It is known that awards were intended to be made, but upon enquiry through government channels, the South Vietnamese government was told that they could not be accepted. The awards were not made in 1966.

By the time the foreign awards policy was introduced in 1997 no South Vietnamese government existed to verify the authority of any offer. Under these extraordinary circumstances the Prime Minister recommended to the Governor-General that the awards could be accepted outside the guidelines. This is how the individual awards were approved for acceptance and wear. In the end it did not depend on the approval of new guidelines (as they were ignored) and it did not depend on any new evidence (the bureaucrats have never been convinced that an entitlement to the awards exists). It happened because there was a political will to do it.

Guran70 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

re: [quote](the bureaucrats have never been convinced that an entitlement to the awards exists). It happened because there was a political will to do it.[/quote]

Too right there! The bureaucrats keep forgetting that they are there to serve the Australian people. Yes, they upheld the regulations as they were written. That is their job, follow the rules. The power to change the rules when necessary lies with the politicians, and finally they listened to what (some) of the people were asking. The rules, in this case, were wrong, and needed to be changed. It is not too often (thankfully not so much these days anyway), that a group of Australians is placed in such an awful situation. They need to be looked after, in mind, body and soul. Allowing these men to accept awards such as these is a significant act for the Australian people to do.

Allegations of war crimes section

Vietnam veterans have also reported that Australian soldiers shot or bayoneted wounded Viet Cong no longer trying to defend themselves. Bob Buick faced criticism in 2000, after admitting that he killed a mortally-wounded Vietnamese soldier on the battlefield, the day after the battle. Such an act would have been technically in breach of the Geneva Convention and therefore a war crime. Buick was criticised by both Burstall and the president of the Australian Long Tan Association, John Heslewood. Burstall commented: "Bob says it was a mercy killing ... would he have done the same to an Australian?"

I have a problem with most of this section. The first sentence is not supported by a citation. The only source cited shows that one man has written that he killed one wounded VC. It also reports on someone else saying that what the one man did was a war crime. The first sentence, and even the section header title, violates WP:V and WP:NPOV. The sentence after the citation sounds like original research. It should be attributed to the person making the accusation, not in Wikipedia's voice. The quote at the end violates WP:UNDUE. I'm not against including mention of Buick in the article, but this is a little out there. The whole section should be removed, and something new crafted and reinserted, preferably citing more reliable sources.- Crockspot 04:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Further - From my reading of the source, we have one man who claims he killed one wounded VC, and we have one allegation of one war crime from one individual. That's not how the section above reads to me. If there are more sources for this, please provide them. As a courtesy to the living people who are mentioned in this section, it is appropriate for this to be moved out of the article and worked on here. - Crockspot 04:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• I got 26 hits from the last month about Long Tan in Google News, not one mentions anything about war crimes. A Google news archive search returns about the same amount, but none seem relevant to the above section. - Crockspot 05:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that the gist of the section is non-neutral-point-of-view or original research. The concept that it is illegal to kill disabled/abject enemy personnel is not new or controversial. The source, being the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a highly reliable government agnecy which has clearly had the story on its website for seven years. However, I take the point that this about one soldier, not "soldiers"; and the first sentence and last sentences should be removed. I also agree that the allegation should be attributed to the person making it. I suggest the following wording:

Buick's killing of a wounded man

Bob Buick faced criticism in 2000, after he published his memoirs. In the book, Buick admitted killing a mortally-wounded Vietnamese soldier on the Long Tan battlefield, the day after the firefight. Terry Burstall pointed out that any such an act constituted a prima facie breach of the Geneva Convention. Buick's decision to publish his memoirs was also criticised by the president of the Australian Long Tan Association, John Heslewood.

I would also like to hear from "Bobbuick", to hear if he really is Bob Buick and details of his claim that this matter has been "investigated and dismissed". If the real Bob Buick has been editing this article in the way that he has, it is a conflict of interest. Grant | Talk 05:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• That is certainly much more in line with the source cited. I could support that for inclusion, but I also would like to hear from Bobbuick. I think that WP:BLP#Dealing with edits by the subject of the article applies here. So go easy. - Crockspot 06:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
• I formatted and combined the ABC reference, and added a ref for the book itself. Also refined where they are cited. - Crockspot 06:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Grant | Talk 06:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Bobbuick has had his chance. I have now inserted the above text, at the bottom of the "Aftermath" section. Grant | Talk 14:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Reference to ' 2 Troop, A company, 6RAR'

Reference is made to '2 Troop, A Coy etc". This is incorrect. This should be corrected to '2 Platoon, A Coy etc'. Peterdinham 05:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Comd 2 Pl A Coy in 1966.

6 RAR Commander's War Diary

I have made available the battle diary of the 6RAR and it is quite an eye-opener. I was very surprised to see that the initial estimate of casualties inflicted on the enemy was 188 KIAs and WIAs in a radio report by the CO, a couple of hours after the body count and the recovery of two Australian MIAs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steyr2007 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN HIJACKED BY AUSSIE MYTHMAKERS

Why doesn't this page state in the infobox that the Vietnamese communist commanders claim that 700 of their fighters actually took part in the battle and that 50 were killed and 100 were wounded? Australian Vietnam veteran Bob Breen has written that "just over 100 diggers withstood the best efforts of over 1500 Viet Cong soldiers to kill them." And the US Presidential Unit Citation (PUC) awarded to D Company 6RAR, reports that only a reinforced enemy battalion were involved in the action. However the infobox makes the ridiculous claim that 2,500-3,500 Vietnamese enemy were involved.

There is the following ridiculous paragraph that now appears in this page:

There have been accusations that the Australians exaggerated VC and NVA casualties, but in 2006 the former enemy reavealed their casulties were some 1500killed or died from wounds and another 1000 wounded

However Mark Baker of the Sydney Morning Herald wrote in 1996, after meeting ex-VC and NVA commanders at Long Tan: "[The] senior [North] Vietnamese officers made the startling claim that only 700 of their men had taken part in the battle — half the most conservative Australian estimate — and that only 50 had been killed."

Moroever, seven days after the battle, the US 173rd Airborne Brigade, a US Marine battalion, several ARVN battalions and 5 RAR launched Operation Toledo, a large-scale sweep of the area. Australian Vietnam veteran Robert O'Neill wrote: "...the battalion had been keyed up to the possibility of a major encounter with the Viet Cong-a battle which would have had a decisive effect on the Viet Cong in Phuoc Tuy Province. Instead all we found was dense jungle with no trace of any large Viet Cong force ever having been in the area."

When the Australian soldiers swept the area for enemy dead and weapons their military records show that they only found 33 AK-47s, 5 SKS rifles, 7 RPD light machine guns, 1 Soviet wheeled machine gun, 1 57mm Type 30 anti-tank gun, 1 M1 Garand rifle, 1 M1 carbine, 1 M1941 sub machine gun and 4 RPG rocket launchers. And there are no pictures to support the subsequent claims that hundreds were killed. "There was not a great quantity of enemy weapons recovered after the battle," Buick said in a rare admission in his website. The number of NVA/VC reported killed and wounded in the immediate aftermath of the battle stood at 188 and this initial body count was transmitted to the commanders by Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Townsend, but we now read in this page that 1,500 enemy were killed and another 1,000 were wounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.158.36 (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the relevant section. Given the Australian Army's record of exaggerating enemy casualties to ridiculous levels (see their reports from the Pacific War) I'd say it's reasonable to take their body count with a grain of salt. In any event I've removed unreferenced information, including the ridiculous passage claiming the Vietnamese took more casualties than the upper limit of their forces in the area. I'm sure the Marines destroyed 162 and 1/2 Japanese tanks on Saipan, too. 69.207.66.238 (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, now, don't get hysterical. The anti-exaggeration camp is probably correct, at least to a degree. Arguing that the Communist commanders say 'X is true' is evidence but not proof. They are also prone to exaggeration and making excuses for failure. A victory at 20:1 odds is highly unlikely in the best of circumstances, but such victories do happen from time to time. One thing that leads me to think the Australian figures might be true (or only partially exaggerated) is the reports of human-wave attacks by the NVA (& VC?).113.22.19.30 (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

PS: This is actually not relevant to this argument at hand, but I agree as a matter of general principle that the measure of success generally should have been weapon count, not body count. The whole war may have ended differently if that had been the policy. I definitely think that should be the measure in all similar wars in the future, even though it's easier to pick up a weapon and run away than to pick up a body.113.22.19.30 (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The thing that strikes me when I consider this debate is this:

The first voice to protest against the official figures was someone who was actually there. He claimed a figure of 50 bodies maximum. What no one seems to have capiched is that this is against an enemy famous for taking its wounded and dead with them. So, unless they routed, which I doubt, then the question must be: what is the average ratio of NVA/VC dead left behind versus those carried off? 10%? At 10%, that means 500 killed or perhaps killed and wounded to the point of being unable to walk. So the 'exaggerators' might be right after all.

Vietnamese Pronunciation

I'm sorry to be snooty, but for those students of the Vietnam War who actually have some Vietnamese it is really frustrating when writers do not bother with diacritics crucial to knowing the pronunciation of the Vietnamese words as well as the meaning. I realise that probably they are aiming at a mass audience, but a note in the preface instructing the non-Vietnamese-literate to simply ignore the diacritics and do their best - which is precisely what they would do anyway if there were no diacritics - should solve that problem. As for Wikipedia, I think we should have a policy of including the diacritics.113.22.19.30 (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of 'Long Tan'

I once tried to find out the correct spelling (& pronunciation!) of 'Long Tan', and I found it to be Long Tần. Today I saw 'Long Tần' on the English-language 'Battle of Long Tan' page, but 'Long Tân' on the Vietnamese-language page. Does anyone know the correct spelling?113.22.19.30 (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)