This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Coburg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Operation Coburg has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is secular new year. Also the background can be easily plundered from Tet Offensive if desired or needed YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
A lot of them exist now, so I linked to them. All teh divisions and corps exist. YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The location appears to be Trang Bom, which is in the same province where Bien Hoa is. The name was inconsistent in the text. I have also described the location of Long Binh and Bien Hoa. Is this article heading towards FAC? YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Amazon's key phrases lists Bien Hoa for Victory in Vietnam: The Official History of the People's Army of Vietnam, (Hardcover) Trans. Merle L. Pribbenow. If you want to keep the Tet context in at such a high level (ie: Northern party commanders) I suggest you use Scholar to search on General Offensive / General Uprising. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and look at that: Abstract Journal of Vietnamese Studies Summer 2008, Vol. 3, No. 2, Pages 1–33 , DOI 10.1525/vs.2008.3.2.1 Posted online on May 21, 2008. (doi:10.1525/vs.2008.3.2.1)
General Võ Nguyên Giáp and the Mysterious Evolution of the Plan for the 1968 Tết Offensive Merle L. Pribbenow II
<quote>The 1968 Tết Offensive was the brainchild of Communist Party Secretary Lê Duẩn and General Văn Tiến Dũng. The Hà Nội government wanted to exploit the 1968 US presidential elections by opening negotiations with the United States. When General Võ Nguyên Giáp failed to devise a workable plan to win a military victory to give the communists leverage in the planned negotiations, Lê Duẩn and Văn Tiến Dũng pushed the risky plan for a nationwide "general offensive" through a reluctant Politburo in spite of opposition from General Võ Nguyên Giáp and Hồ Chí Minh.</quote>
First search too. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Having written the article and chosen the name Battle of Bien Hoa, I'm now a bit concerned that this isn't really reflective of the subject. In many ways this article focusses on the Australian component of the battle, namely Operation Coburg. 1ATF operated in conjunction with an American brigade to defend the Long Binh-Bien Hoa complex and occupied the western AO (AO Columbus), while the Americans occupied AO Uniontown around Long Binh and the airbase itself. By my own admission this article largely ignores the activities of the US 199th Infantry Brigade and all casualty figures etc are for Operation Coburg only.
As such I propose to move the article to Operation Coburg. A larger article, perhaps named Battle of Long Binh-Bien Hoa or something similar is really needed to cover the overall battle and can be written at a latter date. Any objections? Anotherclown ( talk) 04:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Under units involved there is:
Australia 1st Aust Task Force 2 RAR/NZ 7 RAR A Sqn, 3 Cav Regt 4th Field Regt, RAA
Although 3RAR is mentioned within the article body text they are not included here. i can't see how to edit/update this. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.153.18.102 ( talk) 01:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Operation Coburg. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Greetings,
so this article was just featured in the news on the main page, and upon hovering over the article link (to show the po-pup preview) the picture was broken, i.e. not showing properly. Clicking the "broken picture"-placeholder and selecting "view image" in firefox lead me to this site here where I was shown an error message. Does anybody know why this is happening? Is it just me or is this broken for everyone? -- LordPeterII ( talk) 22:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Coburg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Operation Coburg has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is secular new year. Also the background can be easily plundered from Tet Offensive if desired or needed YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
A lot of them exist now, so I linked to them. All teh divisions and corps exist. YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The location appears to be Trang Bom, which is in the same province where Bien Hoa is. The name was inconsistent in the text. I have also described the location of Long Binh and Bien Hoa. Is this article heading towards FAC? YellowMonkey ( cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Amazon's key phrases lists Bien Hoa for Victory in Vietnam: The Official History of the People's Army of Vietnam, (Hardcover) Trans. Merle L. Pribbenow. If you want to keep the Tet context in at such a high level (ie: Northern party commanders) I suggest you use Scholar to search on General Offensive / General Uprising. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and look at that: Abstract Journal of Vietnamese Studies Summer 2008, Vol. 3, No. 2, Pages 1–33 , DOI 10.1525/vs.2008.3.2.1 Posted online on May 21, 2008. (doi:10.1525/vs.2008.3.2.1)
General Võ Nguyên Giáp and the Mysterious Evolution of the Plan for the 1968 Tết Offensive Merle L. Pribbenow II
<quote>The 1968 Tết Offensive was the brainchild of Communist Party Secretary Lê Duẩn and General Văn Tiến Dũng. The Hà Nội government wanted to exploit the 1968 US presidential elections by opening negotiations with the United States. When General Võ Nguyên Giáp failed to devise a workable plan to win a military victory to give the communists leverage in the planned negotiations, Lê Duẩn and Văn Tiến Dũng pushed the risky plan for a nationwide "general offensive" through a reluctant Politburo in spite of opposition from General Võ Nguyên Giáp and Hồ Chí Minh.</quote>
First search too. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Having written the article and chosen the name Battle of Bien Hoa, I'm now a bit concerned that this isn't really reflective of the subject. In many ways this article focusses on the Australian component of the battle, namely Operation Coburg. 1ATF operated in conjunction with an American brigade to defend the Long Binh-Bien Hoa complex and occupied the western AO (AO Columbus), while the Americans occupied AO Uniontown around Long Binh and the airbase itself. By my own admission this article largely ignores the activities of the US 199th Infantry Brigade and all casualty figures etc are for Operation Coburg only.
As such I propose to move the article to Operation Coburg. A larger article, perhaps named Battle of Long Binh-Bien Hoa or something similar is really needed to cover the overall battle and can be written at a latter date. Any objections? Anotherclown ( talk) 04:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Under units involved there is:
Australia 1st Aust Task Force 2 RAR/NZ 7 RAR A Sqn, 3 Cav Regt 4th Field Regt, RAA
Although 3RAR is mentioned within the article body text they are not included here. i can't see how to edit/update this. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.153.18.102 ( talk) 01:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Operation Coburg. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Greetings,
so this article was just featured in the news on the main page, and upon hovering over the article link (to show the po-pup preview) the picture was broken, i.e. not showing properly. Clicking the "broken picture"-placeholder and selecting "view image" in firefox lead me to this site here where I was shown an error message. Does anybody know why this is happening? Is it just me or is this broken for everyone? -- LordPeterII ( talk) 22:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)